Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Struggles by Non-Christians
What if you "know" that god does not exist
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="zephcom" data-source="post: 71929018" data-attributes="member: 400000"><p>Let me recommend a book which will provide you far more insight into Textual Criticism than your illustration does:</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512" target="_blank">https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512</a></p><p></p><p>It is a layman's book which lays out the abilities and inabilities of Textual Criticism by a respected scholar. Most Christians will tell you to avoid him because they don't like his conclusions. Regardless of whether one likes or dislikes his conclusions in the examples he presents, his explanation of Textual Criticism is one of the best I've found. He willingly provides information about arguments which disagree with him along with his conclusions. </p><p></p><p>Once you have read it, you will understand why your simplified explanation is not correct. The biggest issue with your explanation is that it is testable. IOW everyone who has a copy of the recipe will be able to determine whether it is correct or not by simply making the recipe and eating it. If it doesn't work, they know their recipe is wrong.</p><p></p><p>Whether one has the correct wording of a NT document is not testable. One can not simply try the various variations until one finds a variation that 'works'. They all 'work' because no one knows for sure just what the original meant to convey.</p><p></p><p>As to your Bible references, which you conclude means that Jesus is God Himself, fall far short. First of all, there is no language I'm aware of in which the meaning of 'father' and the meaning of 'son' allows anyone to think they are the same being. This 'understanding' is only found in Christianity and appears to have been done to avoid having a polytheistic religion. </p><p></p><p>There are passages in the Bible which could be understood to convey some form of divinity on Jesus. The Father/Son relationship is one of those. However fathers and sons are ALWAYS considered separate beings. </p><p></p><p>I suggest that the best you have accomplished is arriving at the possibility that Jesus is -a- God. But as soon as you do that, you become polytheistic. </p><p></p><p>As an interesting aside, one of your Bible verses concerning Jesus' nature also highlights the issues with Textual Criticism. That verse is Matthew 16:15-17. Textual Criticism says that those verses were added much later to Matthew's Gospel. The wording is different. The style is different. Even the placement in the document is weird. </p><p></p><p>Textual Criticism is unable to say who made the changes or even exactly when. But it is extremely likely that those verses were not in the original document. Personally, I think they may have been added about the same time as the Holy Roman Catholic Church came into existence in the Fourth Century and they needed a hook to hang their papacy doctrine on. </p><p></p><p>Another of your cited passages, John 10:30, has an interesting twist to it also. Look at how two different Bible translations handle that passage:</p><p></p><p>The NIV:</p><p></p><p>"I and the Father are one."</p><p></p><p>The Message:</p><p></p><p>"I and the Father are one heart and mind.”</p><p></p><p>They have two completely different meanings. The NIV can easy be understood that Jesus and the Father are one being. The Message can only be understood that the Son and Father share their thinking and feeling.</p><p></p><p>I'm not competent to say which is accurate. But I do know that the publisher of The Message hired an independent panel of Biblical scholars to review every word in The Message for accuracy to best of their ability.</p><p></p><p>To the credit of the NIV, they have several places where they note that there is differences of opinion concerning passages. The end of Mark is one such place where they note that the oldest and best documents end with verse 8. But they continue to include the extra verses.</p><p></p><p>The question arises about why, if Textual Criticism is able to determine the precise recreation of the original documents, do our Bibles continue to have these problems? First, it is the truth that Textual Criticism is unable to recreate the original documents.</p><p></p><p>But the second reason is likely a much more practical reason. Christians like the way the Bible is now and become angry if publishers attempt to make it more accurate.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="zephcom, post: 71929018, member: 400000"] Let me recommend a book which will provide you far more insight into Textual Criticism than your illustration does: [URL]https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512[/URL] It is a layman's book which lays out the abilities and inabilities of Textual Criticism by a respected scholar. Most Christians will tell you to avoid him because they don't like his conclusions. Regardless of whether one likes or dislikes his conclusions in the examples he presents, his explanation of Textual Criticism is one of the best I've found. He willingly provides information about arguments which disagree with him along with his conclusions. Once you have read it, you will understand why your simplified explanation is not correct. The biggest issue with your explanation is that it is testable. IOW everyone who has a copy of the recipe will be able to determine whether it is correct or not by simply making the recipe and eating it. If it doesn't work, they know their recipe is wrong. Whether one has the correct wording of a NT document is not testable. One can not simply try the various variations until one finds a variation that 'works'. They all 'work' because no one knows for sure just what the original meant to convey. As to your Bible references, which you conclude means that Jesus is God Himself, fall far short. First of all, there is no language I'm aware of in which the meaning of 'father' and the meaning of 'son' allows anyone to think they are the same being. This 'understanding' is only found in Christianity and appears to have been done to avoid having a polytheistic religion. There are passages in the Bible which could be understood to convey some form of divinity on Jesus. The Father/Son relationship is one of those. However fathers and sons are ALWAYS considered separate beings. I suggest that the best you have accomplished is arriving at the possibility that Jesus is -a- God. But as soon as you do that, you become polytheistic. As an interesting aside, one of your Bible verses concerning Jesus' nature also highlights the issues with Textual Criticism. That verse is Matthew 16:15-17. Textual Criticism says that those verses were added much later to Matthew's Gospel. The wording is different. The style is different. Even the placement in the document is weird. Textual Criticism is unable to say who made the changes or even exactly when. But it is extremely likely that those verses were not in the original document. Personally, I think they may have been added about the same time as the Holy Roman Catholic Church came into existence in the Fourth Century and they needed a hook to hang their papacy doctrine on. Another of your cited passages, John 10:30, has an interesting twist to it also. Look at how two different Bible translations handle that passage: The NIV: "I and the Father are one." The Message: "I and the Father are one heart and mind.” They have two completely different meanings. The NIV can easy be understood that Jesus and the Father are one being. The Message can only be understood that the Son and Father share their thinking and feeling. I'm not competent to say which is accurate. But I do know that the publisher of The Message hired an independent panel of Biblical scholars to review every word in The Message for accuracy to best of their ability. To the credit of the NIV, they have several places where they note that there is differences of opinion concerning passages. The end of Mark is one such place where they note that the oldest and best documents end with verse 8. But they continue to include the extra verses. The question arises about why, if Textual Criticism is able to determine the precise recreation of the original documents, do our Bibles continue to have these problems? First, it is the truth that Textual Criticism is unable to recreate the original documents. But the second reason is likely a much more practical reason. Christians like the way the Bible is now and become angry if publishers attempt to make it more accurate. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Struggles by Non-Christians
What if you "know" that god does not exist
Top
Bottom