Hypothetical for Scientists

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Believe me, if it's pretty good because God did it, it's more than good enough for us.



That's like saying I won't believe this apple in my hand is good, until I see a bad apple in the bunch first.

Why do you want to see contradictory evidence in order to validate non-contradiction???

Isnt it logical to assume that the earliest biblical texts are the closest to the original and thus as close as possible to the actual word of God as we can get without having access to that first bible?

 

[thaumaturgy]

And if you find one type of apple that's fresh, and all the other types are rotten, which ones would you eat?

Oh I know I wouldn't eat any apples from the Tree of Knowledge of Good 'n Evil! That's fer darn sure!

Normally I'd leave all apples alone assuming that since they could be interpretted to have been responsible for sin in the world then that's good enough for me!

Plus apples are really pretty dirty!

[BIBLE]Song of Solomon 2:3[/BIBLE]

Yeah, I don't think we should be talking apples here in this forum. I'm feeling uncomfortable.

 

[thaumaturgy]

It has, huh?

Well, let's take a look at one of the most controversial passages and see:



I'd say God is pretty good at preserving His Word.

Let's talk about the greater Comma Johanneum(which actually spans part of 1 John 5:7 and 8) Where was it when St. Clement of Alexandria was writing about the Trinity in 200AD?

Why doesn't Erasmus add it in until his 3rd edition of his TR in 1522?

If God was doing his job one would think all the various manuscripts available would have included it, right? So either God didn't adequately and perfectly preserve his word or people were able to alter it one way or the other.

Either way I think you need to explain this very important point before moving on further with this line of reasoning.

 

[AV1611VET]

Isnt it logical to assume that the earliest biblical texts are the closest to the original and thus as close as possible to the actual word of God as we can get without having access to that first bible?

Yes --- but you're overlooking something. Those "earliest texts" have been found because they didn't decay as quickly as the others.

Why?

Because they weren't used. Christians would start to read them, then discard them as not being the Word of God.

The texts that Christians used over and over are the ones that can't be found.

By way of example, my wife uses the same Bible day after day; whereas I use sever different Bibles: from an original King James to the Rainbow Study Bible.

Her Bible is about to fall apart --- mine are in near pristine shape, and still in the boxes they came in.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, I don't think we should be talking apples here in this forum. I'm feeling uncomfortable.

Stay away from phlogiston, too; it causes spontaneous generation in an atmosphere where oxygen has no mass.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where was it when St. Clement of Alexandria was writing about the Trinity in 200AD?

Right where it was supposed to be --- in the AV100 Koine Greek Version.

God didn't intervene whenever someone decided to distort His Word --- He lets the tares and wheat grow together.

 

[Nathan Poe]

God didn't intervene whenever someone decided to distort His Word --- He lets the tares and wheat grow together.

Why not? I thought the whole basis for Biblical infallibility is that God has magically preserved the Bible from distortion and error for the last couple of millenia -- else how could we know that it's the genuine article?

Now that we know that God doesn't give a whit about whether "His Word" gets mangled, where's the basis for claiming historical infallibility?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Stay away from phlogiston, too; it causes spontaneous generation in an atmosphere where oxygen has no mass.

Phlogiston was an early hypothesis to explain phenomona such as combustion and rusting. It was falsified before 1800. I don't where you are getting this idea about oxygen and no mass since it was the discovery that material increased in mass when burned that led to the falsification of the phlogiston hypothesis. On way that science works is by falsification of alternative hypotheses. Hypotheses such as phlogiston, spontaneous generation and the global flood were falsifed long ago and won't be coming back.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Why not? I thought the whole basis for Biblical infallibility is that God has magically preserved the Bible from distortion and error for the last couple of millenia -- else how could we know that it's the genuine article?

Now that we know that God doesn't give a whit about whether "His Word" gets mangled, where's the basis for claiming historical infallibility?

I definitely look forward to AV's response to this.

Indeed if God didn't step in to correct things when they went astray how does AV know that the stuff he believes infallible is not the "chaff" in amongst the wheat?

If the Comma Johanneum was in the AV100 Koine Greek but not in other manuscripts available to Erasmus, then some manuscripts were in error. So if AV wants to believe one over the other then how does he know the inclusive manuscript is superior?

Sounds a bit like special pleading. And that is sadly a logic error.

 

[MarcusHill]

Aren't you listening? Anything older than the KJV which has survived is plainly wrong because all the good versions were destroyed by devout thumbing! I'm sold.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why not? I thought the whole basis for Biblical infallibility is that God has magically preserved the Bible from distortion and error for the last couple of millenia -- else how could we know that it's the genuine article?

Now that we know that God doesn't give a whit about whether "His Word" gets mangled, where's the basis for claiming historical infallibility?

Once again --- God lets the tares grow among the wheat.

He guards His Word, but lets other write what they want to write.

If you bake a cake and preserve it, and other people bring in pies, your cake is still there, its just surrounded by pies.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hypotheses such as phlogiston, spontaneous generation and the global flood were falsifed long ago and won't be coming back.

Don't count on it:

[bible]Luke 17:26[/bible]

 

[MarcusHill]

If you bake a cake and preserve it, and other people bring in pies, your cake is still there, its just surrounded by pies.

Mmmm, pie....

 

[AV1611VET]

So if AV wants to believe one over the other then how does he know the inclusive manuscript is superior?

I used to drive a Comet.

1. I used to drive a Ford.
2. I photographed a comet.
3. I photographed Halley's Comet.
4. I used to have a photograph of Edmund Halley.
5. I drove a Comet at one time.

Can you spot the tares?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Hypotheses such as phlogiston, spontaneous generation and the global flood were falsifed long ago and won't be coming back.

Don't count on it:

[bible]Luke 17:26[/bible]

Phlogiston has been replaced by oxidation which is pretty basic chemistry these days, pasteur destroyed spontaneous generation(flies are not born from rotting meat, they are born of flies), and there is no geologic evidence for a global flood (if such a thing occured, there would be OBVIOUS geologic evidence). So yes, all of these ideas are dead and buried.

 

[llDayo]

Because they weren't used. Christians would start to read them, then discard them as not being the Word of God.

So you're saying man is ultimately responsible for what's in the Bible? That doesn't sound like divine influence to me. It sounds more like George Bush and science. Discard what you don't like and flaunt what you do. If nothing suits you, make up your own.

 

[h2whoa]

Without reading through the rest of the thread, the answer is absolutely no: the evidence is not inconclusive.

Evidence is exactly what it says on the tin: that is a combination of facts and data which support a hypothesis or conception. The evidence in this instance would be conclusive for the age of the Earth.

If the glove don't fit...

 

[thaumaturgy]

I used to drive a Comet.

1. I used to drive a Ford.
2. I photographed a comet.
3. I photographed Halley's Comet.
4. I used to have a photograph of Edmund Halley.
5. I drove a Comet at one time.

Can you spot the tares?

That borders on meaningless.

Actually, AV, the point is very clear:

You yourself claim God allows some words to be introduced that are not His and allows those to coexist with His inerrant word, which He protects.

This means that YOU have to have a way to KNOW which is the Wheat and which is the Tare.

Now I will play along here and say that maybe, just maybe, God does protect His word, but I will now ask you to provide proof that YOU can tell which is His word and which is mere chaff.

See, that's the point Poe and I are making here. Pies and apples aside, it doesn't matter if God protects His word or not, the important point is how do YOU know you are looking at HIS word versus the tares you allow to be surrounding it?

So far you've provided no evidence that you can do so conclusively. So unless and until you broach that important point we will have to look with skepticism on your claims.

This really is a simple, simple logic problem. You yourself have claimed to be a pretty good chess player, so you are no slouch when it comes to logic and strategy.

Do you see what we are saying?

 

[AV1611VET]

This means that YOU have to have a way to KNOW which is the Wheat and which is the Tare.

I have only 7 minutes left, so I can't post examples.

But I have already shown how the AV1611 has been preserved nearly word-for-word thru the AV350 Gothic, thru the AV1389 Wycliffe, etc.

And as for the "tares" (not "chaff"), I have already compared what the AV1611 says vis-a-vis the NIV several times.

Like Colossians 4:15, for example, where the AV1611 (and It's predecessors) say "his house" vs the NIV, that says "her house".

Have a great day and see you tomorrow.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Once again --- God lets the tares grow among the wheat.

He guards His Word, but lets other write what they want to write.

If you bake a cake and preserve it, and other people bring in pies, your cake is still there, its just surrounded by pies.

So, was King James eating cake, or pie?