Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

[amariselle]

There's no way to know if the copies accurately conveys the originals, since, as you ponted out, we don't have them. In fact, quite the opposite is true. We have plenty of examples in which we have one copy delbrately changed to the next copy. This was such a common practice, in fact, that the writer of Revelation admonishes anyone who would change the "prophecy."

To be fair in continuing to discuss this, I need to do more research. As to the copies of copies, it's quite amazing actually how reliable and unchanging ancient texts have been. It goes beyond human writers for me, as I believe God's has been inspiring and directing the entire formation of His word.

 

[HitchSlap]

To be fair in continuing to discuss this, I need to do more research. As to the copies of copies, it's quite amazing actually how reliable and unchanging ancient texts have been. It goes beyond human writers for me, as I believe God's has been inspiring and directing the entire formation of His word.

But they did change over time...
That's what I'm trying to impress upon you.

I suggest you read Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus."

 

[amariselle]

But they did change over time...
That's what I'm trying to impress upon you.

I suggest you read Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus."

I've already looked into Ehrman. His fellow Biblical scholars seriously question his beliefs and findings. He is definitely at odds with other Biblical scholars and historians. So, in taking the entire field of Scriptural study into consideration, we do need to ask why one person is at such odds with everyone else.

 

[HitchSlap]

I've already looked into Ehrman. His fellow Biblical scholars seriously question his beliefs and findings. He is definitely at odds with other Biblical scholars and historians. So, in taking the entire field of Scriptural study into consideration, we do need to ask why one person is at such odds with everyone else.

Sigh,

He is n no way at odds with scholarship. In fact Brce Metzger, a bible believing Christian, was Ehrman's mentor, and he echoes much of the same scholarship. That's why I suggested you actually read Ehrman, not what other non-scholar's opinions are of him.

Meh, up to you how deep you ant to dig. I suspect you're probably not too interested in the truth.

Have a great night.

 

[amariselle]

Sigh,

He is n no way at odds with scholarship. In fact Brce Metzger, a bible believing Christian, was Ehrman's mentor, and he echoes much of the same scholarship. That's why I suggested you actually read Ehrman, not what other non-scholar's opinions are of him.

Meh, up to you how deep you ant to dig. I suspect you're probably not too interested in the truth.

Have a great night.

Actually, I am very interested in the truth.

You have a great night as well. I actually enjoyed talking with you.

 

[Hoghead1]

None of us claim wild jumps. We just claim it's impossible for one thing to turn into something else no matter how long evolution had to work. There is no proof that it can happen.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Oh? And on what do you base that? Look, I can easily pick up a lump of coal and rightfully say this came from organic life on earth eons ago. However, it is defiantly not a matter that dinosaurs began suddenly spewing lumps of coal out of their orifices or suddenly, poof , turned into coal. It tool eons of time and zillions of intermediates steps. It's not possible for one thing to turn into t something else? C'mon. We do that everyday in our manufacturing processes. We can take mere rocks an turn them into locomotives, given a complicated process. Now, are we such exceptions to nature, so superior, that nature and God can't accomplish the same things and on an even grandeur scale?

 

[HitchSlap]

Actually, I am very interested in the truth.

You have a great night as well. I actually enjoyed talking with you.

 

[Cearbhall]

Such inferences have been made many times. I have been personally accused of being unintelligent on these forums, (because of my faith) and I have been told I cannot read or write properly, because I made a single spelling error in one of my posts. I'm sorry you don't think Christians here have been called unintelligent, but they have been.

I haven't seen it in this thread. If your post doesn't contain a quote of someone saying this, then I don't know what it has to do with this discussion. Shall I start complaining about what the WBC has said?

 

[amariselle]

I haven't seen it in this thread. If your post doesn't contain a quote of someone saying this, then I don't know what it has to do with this discussion. Shall I start complaining about what the WBC has said?

And I clearly said these forums, not "this thread". Complain about things if you wish, it doesn't bother me.

 

[amariselle]

I haven't seen it in this thread. If your post doesn't contain a quote of someone saying this, then I don't know what it has to do with this discussion. Shall I start complaining about what the WBC has said?

Also, I am not going to include direct quotes, because it is not acceptable or right for me to call people out in the public forums and name names. I have no wish to insult people, but I will still talk about things that have happened here.

 

[Cearbhall]

And I clearly said these forums, not "this thread".

The crux of the matter is that whether or not someone has said something offensive to you has no bearing on the validity of evolution. Saying something in a rude way doesn't make a person wrong.

 

[amariselle]

The crux of the matter is that whether or not someone has said something offensive to you has no bearing on the validity of evolution. Saying something in a rude way doesn't make a person wrong.

I wasn't saying it does, but it certainly isn't becoming to a person who chooses to act that way, and it does absolutely nothing to make their points more attractive or appealing. If someone is rude and derisive toward others in making their argument, their argument is likely to be dismissed by those who instead see only angry rhetoric and condescension.

 

[Cearbhall]

I wasn't saying it does, but it certainly isn't becoming to a person who chooses to act that way, and it does absolutely nothing to make their points more attractive or appealing. If someone is rude and derisive toward others in making their argument, their argument is likely to be dismissed by those who instead see only angry rhetoric and condescension.

Then either direct your posts towards those people and actually address the comments that you're complaining about, or talk about the topic. This is a science board.

 

[amariselle]

Then either direct your posts towards those people and actually address the comments that you're complaining about, or talk about the topic. This is a science board.

Interestingly, when I first posted the quote you just brought up, it was entirely in context. Several of us were discussing it. Just wondering, why did you feel the need to bring it forward and quote it here?

 

[Cearbhall]

Interestingly, when I first posted the quote you just brought up, it was entirely in context. Several of us were discussing it. Just wondering, why did you feel the need to bring it forward and quote it here?

What quote?

 

[amariselle]

What quote?

Scroll back up. You entered the conversation and quoted my post from quite a while back. Back when I said it, it was part of a larger discussion. I am confused as to why you brought it up again. Then when I responded because I received a notification, you told me to stop going off topic. I wasn't even talking about it and I had actually forgotten all about it until I was notified of your message.

 

[Cearbhall]

No that's what evolution teaches. If we all came from a common ancestor then that ancestor evolved into something it was not originally.

At least one population, yes. Not necessarily all of them.

If all apes evolved from a common ancestor where did dogs come from.

Well, here's information about their most recent common ancestor: http://www.timetree.org/search/pairwise/314295/9612?

Apes and dogs and eagles all evolved from the same ancestor which was not what they are now.

Yes.

 

[Hoghead1]

The crux of the matter is that whether or not someone has said something offensive to you has no bearing on the validity of evolution. Saying something in a rude way doesn't make a person wrong.

It does if you are attacking the other guy's character.

 

[Cearbhall]

It does if you are attacking the other guy's character.

No, a person can definitely have poor character.

 

[Hoghead1]

Actually these sources are from people who have devoted their entire lives to studying the history and authenticity of the Biblical manuscripts, ancient Hebrew and Greek etc.

I've looked into it a bit myself, in college and more recently, but I freely admit I am no Biblical scholar. I am inspired now though, to look again. I will do so tomorrow and perhaps start a new thread on the topic.

Yes, you should do yourself a favor and study up on the literary history of Scripture. You probably should read up on the Higher Criticism, especially in regard to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Also, you might want to review the discussion as to whether the Pastorals are genuine Pauline or not. Frankly, I don't think that they are. You also might want to look into the major contradictions found throughout Scripture. Well, I am definitely not your academic advisor; I'm just trying to be helpful.