• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

History Of The Bible, Accuracy Etc.

Turbo Monk said:

DD, I agree with you that people go to restaurants, doctors, etc because they trust everything will be ok. However, the result of that action is unknown until it actually happens! Therefore, people do place confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing (Websters def. #1 of faith)


Websters def. of faith #1: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Websters def. of trustworthy: Warranting trust; reliable

By definition, faith and trust go hand in hand!

DOH! Faith, belief in the unknown, when proven, becomes fact. Columbus didn't set out to sail in "trust" that the world was round. He acted on faith according to Websters def. of faith #1 & #2: 1.) confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. He believed confidently in his idea that the world was round. 2.) belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. There was no logical proof or material evidence in his time that the world was indeed round.

The thing is that faith ceases to exist once proven true or untrue with factual evidence. Faith, doesn't require factural evidence. Trust, takes either factual evidence or educated guesses based on previous experiences, knowledge, etc..

Point in case, people still believe in creation in the literal biblical sense. There is plenty of supporting evidence against this possibility.

And just b/c I don't use faith in my life, doesn't mean others do not. Even in cases not relating to religion. Like i said, many place faith in scientific theory. And those people are flat out wrong to do so.

Faith and trust CAN go hand in hand, but they are not the same thing. You can have trust, without having faith.
 
Even when something is proven "true"/"factual" it takes a leap of faith to believe in it.

Truth, Factual information is ultimately based on observations made by humans. How do we know what we observe is representative of "truth." How do we know the information we gather from experience exists outside of the experience.

currently, ALL beliefs take a leap of faith, we just don't always realize it.
 
^^^ It would take someone, to attack on perception to conclude, that this thread is pointless, and the arguement will always be as such. Even though if perception is flawed, then faith, and the feeling of unity with a deity is also.

Therefore science still holds greater precedence, because of the sheer amount of factual instances with-in our flawed perception, that have been recounted.

Then again this is coming from a nihilist, so I'll just stay away from this argument as much as possible. As my opinion is already biased.

Yougene you are remarkable in sheer insight, and intellectual prowess.
 
yougene said:
Even when something is proven "true"/"factual" it takes a leap of faith to believe in it.

Truth, Factual information is ultimately based on observations made by humans. How do we know what we observe is representative of "truth." How do we know the information we gather from experience exists outside of the experience.

currently, ALL beliefs take a leap of faith, we just don't always realize it.

Yes but i don't "believe" in anything, so to speak. I might throw around that word, but it's a simple failing of my everyday launguage.

Scientific theory for instance.. what's there to "believe" in? Theories are inconclusive.. or not an "answer all". And what are most theories based off of? Other theories.
 
Originally posted by Turbo Monk
I honestly do not understand why you can't grasp that faith is belief in the unknown, that when proven true or untrue, becomes fact.


i understand your argument. i just believe that your application of this argument to the greater discussion is flawed. communication is a two way street - perhaps you're just not explaining yourself very well?

no comment on this?:

Originally posted by Turbo Monk
if the decision you took to change careers ended badly - you were out of work for 3 years and ended up giving hand-jobs for crack in a back alley (for example), you would not have used that as an example.

it's selective reasoning.


the columbus analogy seems quite flawed to me. perhaps he had no idea whether the world was flat, round or a cube so he set out to find out, in full knowledge of the fact that he might sail off the edge of the world...

alasdair
 
Page 6 pwnage!

DigitalDuality said:
Scientific theory for instance.. what's there to "believe" in? Theories are inconclusive.. or not an "answer all". And what are most theories based off of? Other theories. [/B]

Theories are based off of conclusive evidence, and numerous viewed perceptions with-in the same criteria, and normalcy. Not other theories.
 
Turbo Monk said:
...So how does the New Testament compare with these universally accepted historical documents?

We have over 22,000 early copies of ancient New Testament manuscripts. Some papyri manuscripts date to the first century, within a few decades of when the original was written. There are over 5,600 ancient Greek manuscripts. Over 9,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts. And over 8,000 ancient manuscripts in Ethiopic, Slavic and Armenian. The earliest copies date so close to when the originals were written that the time difference is essentially non-existent.

We have papyri copies containing portions of the Gospels, the book of Acts, Paul's letters and the book of Hebrews made in the first, second and third centuries. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri date to about the year 200. The M. Martin Bodmer Papyri also date to about the year 200. The Saint John's Library Papyri -- containing a portion of the book of John -- was made in Egypt and dates to between the years 98 and 130 AD (The book of John was written in approximately 90 AD).
Basically true. A couple things though:

First, just the # of manuscripts doesn't mean much. Having 10,000 NT manuscripts from the Middle Ages just tell us that they had the NT back then and it was really popular. What matters are what are the earliest manuscripts around and how reliable they are. The later ones are mostly irrelevant. Whoever you got that info from was fudging only slightly... the earliest copies of most of the NT books date to ca. 200 AD. That fragment of John dates to ~125 AD; it contains parts of only a few dozen words but it does tell us part of the book existed then.

Those early, ~200 AD copies show some alterations... for example the end of the Gospel of Mark, Mark 16:9-20 which includes the resurrection appearances, isn't in the oldest copies -- it was tacked on sometime after 200. But overall there are only a few significant changes.

Second, extant manuscripts are only half the picture. The other half is references in other documents. The earliest surviving copy of Caesar's Gallic Wars may date to 1000, but we have tons of references to it, quotations of it, commentaries about it, etc, in other ancient manuscripts. We can follow the documentary chain back to Caesar's time, so we can be sure he wrote it then, though we can't rule out later changes -- 'redactions' -- in parts we don't have early quotes of. We can do the same thing with the early Christian church's writings, but that only helps a little, since we have lots of stuff from the 200's, but only a few writings from the 100's and those often second-hand.

Still, for the NT books that leaves a gap of 50 to 150 years between the estimated time they were written and the earliest copy we had. More importantly, there was another 40-60 years on top of that between when Jesus lived and when they were written. (except for some of Paul's letters, which were written starting only 20 years after Jesus's death.) I wouldn't call that "essentially non-existant." But it does mean we have the NT books as they existed in the 200's AD, before there was a centralized Church hierarchy and before Christianity became the official religion of Rome.
 
^Why are you ignoring the fact that it is possible that those men took many many years to write the Gospels? You make it sound like 50 yeasr later they just sat down and wrote it out and were done with it...I feel they may have taken their lifes work and poured it into these books which makes much more sense that they were written so much later after Jesus dies. Dont you agree this is possible?

Please expand on this and show me something to look at, you said:

"Mark 16:9-20 which includes the resurrection appearances, isn't in the oldest copies -- it was tacked on sometime after 200. But overall there are only a few significant changes."

You make A LOT of claims zorn without giving much proof. Care to endulge me on this one? I know a lot about this stuff, this isnt one i know of or have studied. I would love to learn more about it.
 
And what about the Dead Sea Scrools and how they macth up with todays OT perfectly? What does that mean to you? And mind you we are talking of the oldest documents on earth. So, is it safe to assume if they are accurate from the dead sea scrolls that the NT could be accurate as well?


And archeolgy finds that support the Bible. What about those? See, there is a mountain of evidence to suggest the accuracy of those texts...All you are doing is casting doubt upon them simply because they are so old. I am not impressed at all... ;)

I could go on and on...But we keep going in circles. We are all trying to "prove" the unprovable either way. That is why i look at it all together as a whole, as a big picture, and not at the minute details of this stuff. The details cannot be proven one way or the other. :\

We do call it faith for a reason. =D
 
David said:
^^^ It would take someone, to attack on perception to conclude, that this thread is pointless, and the arguement will always be as such. Even though if perception is flawed, then faith, and the feeling of unity with a deity is also.

Perception/Perspective seems to be a key factor in such matters(seems to be a key factor in all matters). The accuracy of such writing is highly dependant on how you interpret it/percieve it. For example: lets say the Bible was infiltrated with propoganda. Even so someone could interpret this as god's will and the infilltration of the bible of god's will.

My point is even if our perception isn't a 100% accurate representation of the outside "objective" reality doesn't mean it is neccasarily flawed. Someone could see such "flaws" as being put there for a reason. After all this outside "objective" reality could just be a subjective vision of its creator, ultimately making objective reality a subjective one depending on the perspective taken.


Therefore science still holds greater precedence, because of the sheer amount of factual instances with-in our flawed perception, that have been recounted.

That is a fairly valid statistical analysis. But this is subjective, and even though Science seemingly answered many answers it created exponentially more questions.


Yougene you are remarkable in sheer insight, and intellectual prowess.
Thank you, it's nice to see others can find value in my rantings.




DigitalDuality said:
Yes but i don't "believe" in anything, so to speak. I might throw around that word, but it's a simple failing of my everyday launguage.
Yeah, it's like a communication barrier. Even when you don't neccasarily "believe" it is difficult to communicate thoughts, ideas without using the word. Sometimes you just gotta go on that other people understand your interpratation of the word "believe"(especially on bluelight) but alot of the time other people aren't neccasarily on the same page.
 
Turbo Monk said:
...Columbus didn't set out to sail in "trust" that the world was round. He acted on faith according to Websters def. of faith #1 & #2: 1.) confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. He believed confidently in his idea that the world was round. 2.) belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. There was no logical proof or material evidence in his time that the world was indeed round.
Just for reference, that's actually a myth. Educated people knew the earth was round during Columbus's time, just as the classical Greeks did, from astronomical among other evidence. Columbus thought the Earth was significantly *smaller* than conventional wisdom held, so he could make it to East Asia. As it turned out Columbus was completely wrong, and conventional wisdom was right, but luckily the Americas were in the way.
 
zorn said:
Just for reference, that's actually a myth. Educated people knew the earth was round during Columbus's time, just as the classical Greeks did, from astronomical among other evidence. Columbus thought the Earth was significantly *smaller* than conventional wisdom held, so he could make it to East Asia. As it turned out Columbus was completely wrong, and conventional wisdom was right, but luckily the Americas were in the way.

Do you have any sources or links for this? A book?
 
SoHiAllTheTime said:
^Why are you ignoring the fact that it is possible that those men took many many years to write the Gospels? You make it sound like 50 yeasr later they just sat down and wrote it out and were done with it...I feel they may have taken their lifes work and poured it into these books which makes much more sense that they were written so much later after Jesus dies. Dont you agree this is possible?
Sure... I don't mean to suggest someone just sat down one afternoon in 70 AD and wrote out a gospel! I imagine it like this: the teachings in the gospels were floating around before, some in written form, mostly in "oral tradition" -- stories and sayings and teachings passed down from people like Paul and Peter to those they taught, who passed them down to those they taught, and so on. People began putting these teachings together, to organize them and create a useful book to teach from and show to new converts.

Just like Luke's Gospel says at the beginning... :
Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning.

So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.

At the time it would have been a pretty free-form endeavour -- writers would have cut and pasted, incorporated and tweaked other documents at will... Kind of like a religious webpage now might intersperse their own explanations and thoughts with quotes from the Bible and information from other sources. Some of those books were really popular, and spread so wide most Christians knew of them and used them... those became the NT books.
Please expand on this and show me something to look at, you said:

"Mark 16:9-20 which includes the resurrection appearances, isn't in the oldest copies -- it was tacked on sometime after 200. But overall there are only a few significant changes."

You make A LOT of claims zorn without giving much proof. Care to endulge me on this one? I know a lot about this stuff, this isnt one i know of or have studied. I would love to learn more about it.
That's why I included the link! ;)

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=mark+16&x=0&y=0&NIV_version=yes&language=english

See also http://faculty.washington.edu/maw/exercises/exer1.htm or the notes on the passage at http://netbible.bible.org/ :
16:9 -- The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (Í B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (Í B).

The following shorter ending is found in some mss: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.” This shorter ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Y 083 099 0112 579 al); k, however, ends at this point.

Most mss include the longer ending (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has a different shorter ending between vv. 14 and 15] Q Ë13 33 2427 Ï lat syc,p,h bo); however, Jerome and Eusebius knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending.

Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses, while others mark the text with asterisks or obeli (symbols that scribes used to indicate that the portion of text being copied was spurious).

Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the short and the long endings. Their vocabulary and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence strongly suggests that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the probability that early copyists had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.)

Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark.

There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself.

E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers” (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.”
 
SoHiAllTheTime said:
Originally posted by Zorn
Just for reference, that's actually a myth. Educated people knew the earth was round during Columbus's time, just as the classical Greeks did, from astronomical among other evidence. Columbus thought the Earth was significantly *smaller* than conventional wisdom held, so he could make it to East Asia. As it turned out Columbus was completely wrong, and conventional wisdom was right, but luckily the Americas were in the way.


Do you have any sources or links for this? A book?


After five centuries, Columbus remains a mysterious and controversial figure who has been variously described as one of the greatest mariners in history, a visionary genius, a mystic, a national hero, a failed administrator, a naive entrepreneur, and a ruthless and greedy imperialist.

Columbus's enterprise to find a westward route to Asia grew out of the practical experience of a long and varied maritime career, as well as out of his considerable reading in geographical and theological literature. He settled for a time in Portugal, where he tried unsuccessfully to enlist support for his project, before moving to Spain. After many difficulties, through a combination of good luck and persuasiveness, he gained the support of the Catholic monarchs, Isabel and Fernando.

The widely published report of his voyage of 1492 made Columbus famous throughout Europe and secured for him the title of Admiral of the Ocean Sea and further royal patronage. Columbus, who never abandoned the belief that he had reached Asia, led three more expeditions to the Caribbean. But intrigue and his own administrative failings brought disappointment and political obscurity to his final years.
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/1492.exhibit/c-Columbus/columbus.html


Eratosthenes, Posidonius and El Mamun

The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) argued in his writings that the Earth was spherical, because of the circular shadow it cast on the Moon, during a lunar eclipse. Another reason was that some stars visible from Egypt are not seen further north
The Alexandria philosopher Eratosthenes went one step further and actually estimated how large the Earth was. He was told that on midsummer day (June 21) in the town of Syene in southern Egypt (today Aswan, near a huge dam on the river Nile) the noontime Sun was reflected in a deep well, meaning that it was right overhead, at zenith. Eratosthenes himself lived in Alexandria, near the river's mouth, north of Syene, about 5000 stadia north of Syene (the stadium, the size of a sports arena, was a unit of distance used by the Greeks). In Alexandria the Sun on the corresponding date did not quite reach zenith, and vertical objects still threw a short shadow. Eratosthenes established that the direction of the noon Sun differed from the zenith by an angle that was 1/50 of the circle, that is, 7. 2 degrees, and from that he estimated the circumference of the Earth to be 250,000 stadia.

Other estimates of the size of the Earth followed. Some writers reported that the Greek Posidonius used the greatest height of the bright star Canopus above the horizon, as seen from Egypt and from the island of Rhodes further north (near the southwestern tip of Turkey). He obtained a similar value, a bit smaller. The Arab Khalif El Ma'mun, who ruled in Baghdad from 813 to 833, sent out two teams of surveyors to measure a north-south baseline and from it also obtained the radius of the Earth. Compared to the value known today, those estimates were pretty close to the mark.

The idea of sailing westward to India dates back to the early Romans. According to Dr. Irene Fischer, who studied this subject, the Roman writer Strabo, not long after Erathosthenes and Posidonius, reported their results and noted:

"if of the more recent measurements of the Earth, the one which makes the Earth smallest in circumference be introduced--I mean that of Posidonius who estimates its circumference at about 180,000 stadia, then. . . "

and he continues:

"Posidonius suspects that the length of the inhabited world, about 70,000 stadia, is half the entire circle on which it had been taken, so that if you sail from the west in a straight course, you will reach India within 70,000 stadia. "

Notice that Strabo--for unclear reasons--reduced the 250,000 Stadia of Eratosthenes to 180,000, and then stated that half of that distance came to just 70,000 stadia. Handling his numbers in that loose fashion, he could argue that India was not far to the west.
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Scolumb.htm
 
^LOL I didnt even see the link! Oopsie :) Sorry about that, will read it now...

But again, for John it was firsthand experience, that is important to remember. And that the Apostles all had firsthand knowledge of Jesus were the ones spreading the word during those years. But maybe most importantly, there were all the other people who had at one time or another seen Jesus, so off course they would have their own views of Him. So, if someone or even many peopel had started saying that Jesus said things HE didnt really say dont you think their story and message would have been rebutted by the masses? Wouldnt there have been books upon books stating the opposite of the early chrsitians claims if they were so false? And the way it (Christianity) grew like wild fire doesnt that tell you something about what all those other unnamed people thought of Jesus along with the Apostles whos names we well know? See what i am geting at?
 
no comment on this?:

if the decision you took to change careers ended badly - you were out of work for 3 years and ended up giving hand-jobs for crack in a back alley (for example), you would not have used that as an example.

it's selective reasoning.


I'm not sure how you'd take my answer so I purposely stayed away from that one. :) My answer, however, is simple: a life that is putting faith and trust in God will not result in the scenario you described.

heaven_hell.gif


I don't refer to it as selective reasoning. I call it selective worshipping, and what you worship affects every aspect of your life.
 
Originally posted by Turbo Monk
My answer, however, is simple: a life that is putting faith and trust in God will not result in the scenario you described.


how convenient. is your assertion, crudely put, that only good things happen to christian believers? if so, that's demonstrably incorrect.

to the main topic: throughout literary history, there are examples of books which are works of fiction based on fact. perhaps the bible is the best example of this - names and places match up with other accounts and with archeolgical evidence but the more miraculous events (e.g. turning water into wine, curing people, rising from the dead, etc.) are simply analogies?

alasdair
 
Top