Logic dictates that there is a God!

WL_southerner · Post by **WL_southerner** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:34 am

i still think he was stoned seeing burning bushes and hearing voices

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:51 am

WL_southerner wrote:i still think he was stoned seeing burning bushes and hearing voices

"I just talked to god as a burning bush...."
"Hmm...interesting....Moses we think you've been burning some bush"

-Jim Gaffigan

MR. Nate · Post by **MR. Nate** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:15 am

Mistakes by the translators do not constitute errors by God. The autographa was without error. Anything after that, your relying on the translators. Which is why it's so important that we have early copies.

AlgyTaylor · Post by **AlgyTaylor** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:45 am

MR. Nate wrote:Mistakes by the translators do not constitute errors by God.

No, I'm not contesting that one way or the other (for the moment).

But they do constitute errors in the Bible (at least as far as we are concerned, since we don't have access to the original manuscripts).

This is the first thing that I am trying to establish with Jay - although it's taken 25 pages so far to even get to this point! - is that the Bible does contain errors. Certainly as far as any English language translation is concerned.

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:59 am

MR. Nate wrote:Mistakes by the translators do not constitute errors by God. The autographa was without error. Anything after that, your relying on the translators. Which is why it's so important that we have early copies.

Why would a supposedly all powerful, all knowing, supernatural creator of the universe allow his divine word to be bastardized by bad translation?! It's his entire game plan, correct? Of vital importance to the entire planet, right? If it was important enough for him to have written down, wouldn't he want it to remain true to it's original form? Why go to ALL the work, fire, brimstone, death of son, etc...just to have it screwed up by some ancient ruler/priest/scholar with an axe to grind?

Why is this god of yours who you claim can do anything....so incapable of actually DOING anything except for the occasional shadowy miracle that cant be proven?

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:16 am

Backglass wrote: Why is this god of yours who you claim can do anything....so incapable of actually DOING anything except for the occasional shadowy miracle that cant be proven?

MR. Nate · Post by **MR. Nate** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:27 am

AlgyTaylor wrote:This is the first thing that I am trying to establish with Jay - although it's taken 25 pages so far to even get to this point! - is that the Bible does contain errors. Certainly as far as any English language translation is concerned.

Backglass wrote:Why go to ALL the work, fire, brimstone, death of son, etc...just to have it screwed up by some ancient ruler/priest/scholar with an axe to grind?

I don't think that God has allowed His Word to be distorted. There are words that are incorrectly translated, but to say that they are errors implies that they change the meaning of Scripture. I don't think that any English translation warps the meaning or the intent of the author. Some are more literal, some move more towards broad ideas, but I think it is a distortion to say that they contain errors.

Backglass wrote:Why is this god of yours who you claim can do anything....so incapable of actually DOING anything except for the occasional shadowy miracle that cant be proven?

Perhaps He is really intested in free will, including your freedom to reject Him. I think we've been over that.

By the way, being quoted in your sig has really made my week.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:34 am

Yeh we've also been over the hole 'omnibenevolent' thing, which is incompatible with free will... but what the hell.

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:41 am

MR. Nate wrote:I don't think that God has allowed His Word to be distorted. There are words that are incorrectly translated, but to say that they are errors implies that they change the meaning of Scripture. I don't think that any English translation warps the meaning or the intent of the author. Some are more literal, some move more towards broad ideas, but I think it is a distortion to say that they contain errors.

Wait a sec...I thought your god was perfect? Incapable of error? This must also mean that his "word" (your bible) is/was perfect. It seems to me that any change, no matter how slight, would change this "perfect word" making it then imperfect...no? How can you read the altered ACTUAL WORDS of your god and then say the meaning didn't change, when it was perfect to begin with?

MR. Nate wrote:Perhaps He is really intested in free will, including your freedom to reject Him. I think we've been over that.

Perhaps "he" doesn't exist at all which would certainly explain a lot...but you're right, we have been over that.

MR. Nate wrote:By the way, being quoted in your sig has really made my week.

Glad I could!

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:01 am

Question: Do the intentionally altered texts count or is all the complaining regarding the fact that language is dynamic, so words change meaning over the course of time.

Edit: removed "es" from do.

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:58 pm

AlgyTaylor wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
AlgyTaylor wrote: You said that the translation in the Bible was incorrect. So ... is it correct or isn't it?

When?

jay_a2j wrote:(James1:13) The Hebrew word that the KJV translated as tempted is better translated as tested.
This is most definitely an error. "Tempted" shows there to be a contradiction within the Bible.

As you correctly pointed out, "Tested" removes this contradiction. However, that implies that parts of the Bible are not translated properly, ie contain errors!

So therefore, there's either an error in the Bible or it contradicts itself - which then infers that there is an error anyway!

Which ever way you try to argue it, Jay, there IS an error in the Bible - either through translation or through the original scriptures. I would go on to suggest that if God isn't that bothered about enforcing the translation of 'his word' from Hebrew (or whatever the original Bible was written in - I assume it's Hebrew) to English, then he probably would be equally as nonchalent about the translation from his word when written down in the first place!

Or more to the point ... during the miriad of copies made by scholars in the years prior to the KJV being first published. Surely you have to admit that those scholars (monks) have a vested interest in making God seem as powerful as possible, even if they didn't abuse their position.

Its a translation not an "error". An error would be one of the gospels saying that Jesus was born in Harlem when the OT predicted he would be born in Nazareth.

heavycola · Post by **heavycola** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:16 pm

Quirinius and Herod were not contemporaries. One of the gospels is wrong.

WL_southerner · Post by **WL_southerner** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 3:10 pm

i though he was from harlem

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:00 pm

WL_southerner wrote:i though he was from harlem

Well, he was black...and liked the liquor... Maybe those moronic 'Jesus is my homeboy' shirts are right!

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:16 pm

Backglass wrote:
MR. Nate wrote:I don't think that God has allowed His Word to be distorted. There are words that are incorrectly translated, but to say that they are errors implies that they change the meaning of Scripture. I don't think that any English translation warps the meaning or the intent of the author. Some are more literal, some move more towards broad ideas, but I think it is a distortion to say that they contain errors.
Wait a sec...I thought your god was perfect? Incapable of error? This must also mean that his "word" (your bible) is/was perfect. It seems to me that any change, no matter how slight, would change this "perfect word" making it then imperfect...no? How can you read the altered ACTUAL WORDS of your god and then say the meaning didn't change, when it was perfect to begin with?

Cricket....cricket...

AlgyTaylor · Post by **AlgyTaylor** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:22 pm

MR. Nate wrote:
AlgyTaylor wrote:This is the first thing that I am trying to establish with Jay - although it's taken 25 pages so far to even get to this point! - is that the Bible does contain errors. Certainly as far as any English language translation is concerned.

Backglass wrote:Why go to ALL the work, fire, brimstone, death of son, etc...just to have it screwed up by some ancient ruler/priest/scholar with an axe to grind?
I don't think that God has allowed His Word to be distorted. There are words that are incorrectly translated, but to say that they are errors implies that they change the meaning of Scripture. I don't think that any English translation warps the meaning or the intent of the author. Some are more literal, some move more towards broad ideas, but I think it is a distortion to say that they contain errors.

Well ... it does. As it is, the KJV of the Bible contains the contradiction mentioned, which is without doubt an error.

Ok, so the error is caused by man rather than God - but it's still an error, and tbh who caused it is immaterial.

AlgyTaylor · Post by **AlgyTaylor** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:30 pm

jay_a2j wrote:Its a translation not an "error". An error would be one of the gospels saying that Jesus was born in Harlem when the OT predicted he would be born in Nazareth.

Yes it is. An error caused by translation is still an error.

What really gets me, Jay, is basically that you're using this book as "proof" that human learning drawn together over thousands of years is wrong! Yet you sit in front of a computer, which couldn't be in existence without the aforementioned science, happily typing away and saying that science is bad/wrong

Sorry man, but this embodies all that is wrong with fundamentalist religion like yours ... that it disregards reality in favour of the stories it uses to explain how that reality came about. Worse still, it tries to pass off it's own stories as being the only correct version of events, even after they've been proved beyond all doubt to be wrong.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:57 pm

Jay, you still have to respond to Jesus's bones being found.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 pm

unriggable wrote:Jay, you still have to respond to Jesus's bones being found.

Not sure even I am particularly convinced by that one, I'm afriad. They're going on pretty shaky conclusions.

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:23 pm

unriggable wrote:Jay, you still have to respond to Jesus's bones being found.

And his Wife's bones.

And his Son's bones.

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:31 pm

Guiscard wrote:
unriggable wrote:Jay, you still have to respond to Jesus's bones being found.
Not sure even I am particularly convinced by that one, I'm afriad. They're going on pretty shaky conclusions.

I'll say, given that this tomb was found in 1980 and completely debunked by archaeologists way back then.

Besides, it's Discovery, we know what the ending'll be before the special even comes out: "We will continue to research, as we have no answers at this time."

Same as the Ramses special, same as the King Tut special, same as it ever was.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:37 pm

Also, one of their main factors is that the wife is named mary magdalene, but the news last night had an expert who stated that something like 75% of women were called one of those names at the time (not sure of the number entirely but it was well up there). Asked one of the professors at Uni about this today too and he said hat was pretty accurate.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:05 pm

I dunno, most of the major discoveries were taken that way when revealed, so I'm not being skeptical.

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:14 pm

Guiscard wrote:Also, one of their main factors is that the wife is named mary magdalene, but the news last night had an expert who stated that something like 75% of women were called one of those names at the time (not sure of the number entirely but it was well up there). Asked one of the professors at Uni about this today too and he said hat was pretty accurate.

I wonder how many guys were names jesus in the same era.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:14 pm

BBC News wrote: According to the Israel Antiquities Authority, six of those coffins were marked with the names Mary; Matthew; Jesua son of Joseph; Mary; Jofa (Joseph, Jesus' brother); and Judah son of Jesua.

Another grave said by producers to be of Mary Magdalene convinced researchers of the truth of their find, Mr Cameron said at a New York news conference.

OK so Gordon Brown has a wife called Sarah (from Fife), a son called james and a father called John. His brother is called Andrew.

Even if we discount the fact that Mary was an even more common name then than Sarah is now, how many families in Britain match all those characteristics. If in the future we find the family tomb of someone called Gordon, which also contains a Sarah of Fife, James and John do we assume it is Gordon Brown the MP? No.

Plus, what kind f reputation does James Cameron (of Titanic fame) have of archeological scholarship?

Very very shakey ground, this one, and bound to be forgotten in a few months along with every other discovery channel revelation.

Logic dictates that there is a God!

Does God exist?

umm

Re: umm

umm

Re: umm