Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [anti-CED] From "Religion Explained"

Expand Messages
  • Dave Oldridge
    ... Harry, it may shock you to know that most Christians do not subscribe to this bibliolatrous belief or the concomitant refication of the Greek word Paul
    Message 1 of 51 , May 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On 29 Apr 2006 at 1:38, wayfaringman@... wrote:

      >
      >
      > On 4/28/06, wayfaringman@... <wayfaringman@... > wrote:
      > John:
      > Then you might want to consider how you can know that your god
      > and not another one exists beyond your unfounded belief that
      > the Christian bible has imparted inerrant truth to mankind.

      > [harry]
      > Christians believe that the Bible is the written word of God
      > in the original manuscripts John. They generally do not believe
      > that translations are "inspired".

      Harry, it may shock you to know that most Christians do not
      subscribe to this bibliolatrous belief or the concomitant
      refication of the Greek word Paul used in 2 Tim 3:16, which the
      KJV committee correctly translates as "inspired" but which the
      NIV translators reify as "God-breathed."

      For most of us, it is the belief that ALL Christians are inspired
      by God and that a good many writings, in addition to those the
      CHURCH designates as Holy Scripture have been, in some sense,
      inspired by their relationship with God.

      It is the Nicene Creed that constrains my belief system, not some
      made-up story about the inerrancy of scripture as interpreted by
      the latest rebel against the authority of Holy Orders.

      > John:
      > Similar to the belief that the Qur'an is only rightly understood in Arabic; any other language is considered an "interpretation," for personal use only. The Qur'an is itself to be considered a divine and uncorrupted text. Naturally, Harry, your belief in the Qur'an may vary.

      > [harry]
      > I have several copies of the Quran but I have found nothing in it that would make me think it was inspired. But there are fulfilled prophecies in the Bible.

      I doubt you have even one copy of the Qur'an. You have copies of
      translations of the Qur'an. Unless you speak and read Arabic,
      you do not have the Qur'an. And I think any Muslim cleric or
      scholar here will agree with me on that score.

      Of course, in a similar fashion, you do not have the Bible. I DO
      have the New Testament....at least I have copies in the original
      language of pretty well all of the extant ancient manuscripts,
      which I can at least dabble in reading and translating for
      myself.

      > Which particular variant of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts are considered "inspired," Harry? All of them?

      > [harry]
      > All our ancient texts from that early time are copies John. We try and use the most ancient copies of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek that we have for translationing. Did I tell you, I was on a Hebrew, a Greek and a Translation List for several years? It was the B-Hebrew, B-Greek Lists to be exact. If you will do a Google.com search of Harry W. Jones you will see what I mean. Of course, the Translation List was a closed List. Only members could access any information on it. Thinking about it brings back memories of those good old days when I would go toe to toe with the others on the List about how a certain passage should be translated.
      >
      > Do the original manuscripts exist?
      > [harry]
      > No.
      >
      > I was under the impression they do not, which renders their inspiration moot.
      > [harry]
      > But we have thousands and thousands of copies of the originals to compare togather with. So the original copies can be very closely determined.

      Exactly. Though the KJV-only people actually reject the oldest
      manuscripts of the NT that we have, preferring the common
      Byzantine rendering, I believe. Not that there are HUGE
      differences.

      > The idea of lower criticism is to reconstruct as much as possible the original texts, but even so, one can never know when the autographs have been reconstructed. I think the figure of accuracy is considered to be around 95%. I will check into it again. It's been along time since I have studied all of that.

      It's a worthy endeavour to try to construct the originals, and I
      think one that is largely successful. Probably better than the
      95% figure you're throwing about.

      > I have good reason to believe in God since I was brought back
      > to life by God when I was 3 years old. Didn't I mention that
      > before John?

      I've seen God work miracles inside cults that were wildly and
      obviously heretical. Miracles are not a really strong indicator
      of orthodoxy. Some cults have hit upon certain spiritual and
      mental methodologies that make theurgy possible even if they
      don't quite understand the workings of the toys they are playing
      with. It doesn't matter if the person pouring the vinegar on the
      bicarbonate is a chemistry PhD or an inquisitive child with
      absolutely no knowledge of chemistry. It still fizzes and makes
      carbon dioxide gas.

      > John:
      > You probably mentioned that before, Harry, but I don't recall when. I happen to think that you're mistaken, but a lot of people have such beliefs. If it makes you happy to believe, I can be cool with that.

      > [harry]
      > You asked me why I believed in God. So I gave you one of the reasons. Of course, anything I said could be false. I might be lying. There is always that possibility.

      > You might also consider that you didn't answer what it is, exactly, that you
      > think atheists believe.

      > [harry]
      > You kind of hurt me when you used the word "canard". I've always liked
      > atheists. And I've always liked to talk to them.
      > I think atheists do not believe there is a God or gods. But that probably many if not most of them try and live a good moral life.
      >
      > John:
      > Thank'ee, Harry, I'm glad you think many atheists are capable of living a good moral life. Do you think we're going to hell nonetheless?

      > [harry]
      > Well, according to my understanding of the Bible---and there are many others who understand it the same way--- you or anyone else could live a perfect moral life and still go to hell if you have not trusted in Christ as your Lord and Savior. But if you trust in Christ you are assured of eternal life with God.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >


      --

      Dave Oldridge
      ICQ 1800667
      VA7CZ
    • Dave Oldridge
      ... Well, given our nature, it is true that, whether or not there REALLY are deities, we are gonna anthropomorphize them. But the REAL revelations are more
      Message 51 of 51 , May 5, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On 4 May 2006 at 10:29, Mark L. Bakke wrote:

        > > > John:
        > > > And none of us are born believing in any god, are we?
        > >
        > > How many of us remember what we believed at birth?
        > >
        > > John:
        > > Very few or none, which should lead us to see that a belief in any god
        > > held by anyone has very probably come to exist after they were born.
        >
        > BAKKE
        > And, that any such god was likely created in our own image and likeness.

        Well, given our nature, it is true that, whether or not there
        REALLY are deities, we are gonna anthropomorphize them.

        But the REAL revelations are more elusive than gaudy, showy
        miracles. Digging deeply into the core of reason itself is one
        way to achieve such an insight. Another is to examine closely
        the whole experience of 'self.'

        --

        Dave Oldridge
        ICQ 1800667
        VA7CZ
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.