1robin
Christian/Baptist
Fine, but we are still left with an accusation without an object.
1. What did I (a Christian) substitute in the OT?
2. How do you know that my understanding of a specific OT event is incorrect?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Is the Mormon church a Christian denomination?"
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
1. What did I (a Christian) substitute in the OT?
2. How do you know that my understanding of a specific OT event is incorrect?
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
The train left the tracks when you decided to make it more convoluted. You managed to sum it up 1-4, the problem with 5 is you then go to great lengths to justify the hearsay that formed after the alleged attributions.
If there was undoubtedly high probability for reliability it still wouldn't be subjected to scholarly debate. You make the common mistake of assuming if one does not share your belief (I.e., your conclusions per info you choose to accept) then they must be uninformed.
I wasn't the one to quibble over semantics.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
The off ramp in the discussion too place between steps 1 and 2. Step 3 was my trying to straighten it out, step 4 was the evidence that I failed. Step was my attempt to stop trying to get the train back on the tracks, and instead just meet you at the station the train was bound for to begin with.
I did not go to any length to show that modern bible are reliable. I simply stated it, so you could agree or disagree. I even gave you a link to one of the greatest experts on testimony and evidence in history. You did not agree, or disagree, nor apparently take 10 minutes to visit the link, so again I am having trouble figuring out what you want.
The integrity of the bible's historical pedigree isn't debated all that much.
The following quote is from the most popular atheist bible critic alive. From the debate between Dr. James White and the Dr. Ehrman.......author of the best selling book "Misquoting Jesus".
Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of the
changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or
ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—
slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders
of one sort or another when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives
were as pure as the driven snow. And so we must rest content knowing that getting back
to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached
back to the “original” text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely)
related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of
his teaching.
The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. [audience laughter]
There is software available by which you can check this your self, going all the way back to the original Alexandrian and Byzantine traditions and further (Paul's work is earliest and it's source material dates to with a few years or even months of Christ's death). Historians dream to have this rich a textual attestation to ancient events in al other subjects. Pretty much all 40 bible version are between 95% accurate (critics like Bart Ehrman) and 99.5% (theologians like Wright or Brown), and since virtually all errors are known, indicated, and practically none exist in core doctrine where exactly is the big problem here?
If Homer, Caesar, or Alexander, etc..... had the bible's textual provenance historians would be salivating.
You didn't ask, and probably aren't interested but to reliably establish what long lost original documents contained you need most of the below:
1. Early copying.
2. Prolific copying.
3. No early central controlling authority.
4. Parallel copying.
5. Copying over different cultures and far flung geographical locations.
6. As a bonus: Discover long lost copies that had not been seen in millennia.
The bible has all of them in spades, there isn't really even a second place. Perhaps Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian war may be a far off dot on the horizon but that is it.
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
So you don't consider trying to persuade me with your links to sources supporting your position going to great lengths despite the fact that you have no idea whether I'm already familiar with biblical studies or the varying views that exist. Ok, it's just how you like to spend your time.
Yes, it is, and I'm sure there is a wealth of debate just on this website alone. You choosing only those who present arguments you are inclined to agree with doesn't change that. But if it had reliability "in spades" then why is there still debated among scholars and non-scholars alike?
I don't really care one way or another, you're the one keen on having a debate. It's simply not that important to me, my original comment stands.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
This is one of the weirdest discussion I have had in a long time. Even at this point I have no idea whether you agree or disagree with any of Christianity's fundamental doctrines.
And yes wasting down time is a factor in why I have debates, among many other motivations that are more noble.
If there were any serious debate about what the bible should say then why is there so little difference between the NIV (written by over 100 PhDs) and the dead sea scrolls written within the 1st or 2nd century BC by a heretical group called the Essenes? Isaiah was over 95% identical. Why is the Latin Vulgate and the MEV virtually identical? I already told you, that you can find every single textual variation in perhaps a 100+ (English alone) bible versions in an afternoon with software. There is very little uncertainty about the majority of the biblical text. Only about 5% is in question, and the problem isn't that we are missing anything. Most serious scholars believe that the entire original revelation is contained in mainstream bible versions, the problem was a little more was added by others (usually by accident) over the last 2000 years. Find me a single work of any kind from ancient history that is even close.
Reminds me of Saddam Hussein broadcasting Iraq's triumphs as his army was being ground out of existence.
It is obvious your not invested in discerning fact from fiction, you really do not even have a position. I am killing time myself, but I am using arguments that have withstood 2000 years of scrutiny without a scratch.
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
Actually, I have. You seem to be of the erroneous assumption that if one acknowledges the bible or claims about Jesus are not pristine then they somehow don't know fact from fiction. That's both myopic and ludicrous which is why I have no desire to waste my time in a pointless debate. The problem is you're determined that you need to convince others of your beliefs.
As for withstanding 2K years of scrutiny unscathed. Again, no. It's still scrutinized and coming up short. But what data you look at is only what supports what you want to accept. So again, not my concern. There are not just scratches but sizeable dents. Whether you choose to acknowledge that is a whole other matter and also not my concern.
No doubt you can find others who care enough to engage you, I'm just simply not that interested. I've only responded to be polite.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Quote anything I have said in almost 13,000 posts about the bible being pristine or perfect. No, what I have said and what is actually the truth is that the bible is about 95% reliable. Since we know where the 5% that isn't reliable is then I will ask again, where is the problem? Your not defining a worldview, your not attacking a worldview. You not disproving any relevant claim, nor giving me positive references for a claim of your own. I don't know what your doing.
You would be much more comfortable in a discussion forum.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I don't have time to edit out some items that may not apply because I gotta go:
Genesis 17:[7] And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.
Genesis 17:[13] both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.
Deuteronomy 7:[9] Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations,
Deuteronomy 29:[12] that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the LORD your God, which the LORD your God makes with you this day;
[13] that he may establish you this day as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
Psalms 89:[34] I will not violate my covenant,
or alter the word that went forth from my lips.
Psalms 105:[8] He is mindful of his covenant for ever,
of the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations,
Isaiah 44:[21] Remember these things, O Jacob,
and Israel, for you are my servant;
I formed you, you are my servant;
O Israel, you will not be forgotten by me.
Isaiah 45:[17] But Israel is saved by the LORD
with everlasting salvation;
you shall not be put to shame or confounded
to all eternity.
Isaiah 52:[1] Awake, awake,
put on your strength, O Zion;
put on your beautiful garments,
O Jerusalem, the holy city;
for there shall no more come into you
the uncircumcised and the unclean.
Isaiah 59:[20] "And he will come to Zion as Redeemer,
to those in Jacob who turn from transgression, says the LORD.
[21] "And as for me, this is my covenant with them, says the LORD: my spirit which is upon you, and my words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your children, or out of the mouth of your children's children, says the LORD, from this time forth and for evermore."
Isaiah 66:[22] "For as the new heavens and the new earth
which I will make
shall remain before me, says the LORD;
so shall your descendants and your name remain.
Deuteronomy 4
2): "your G-d…shall not add to what I have commanded you or subtract."Dt. 13(1): "You shall be careful to observe, neither adding to it or subtracting."
Dt. 13(5): "His commandment you shall observe, holding fast to Him alone."
Dt. 29(28): "Concerns us and our descendents forever, that we may carry out all the words of this Law."
Joshua 1(5): "I will not leave or forsake you…(7) observe the entire Law … do not swerve from it."
Psalms 19(8): "The Law of the Lord is perfect… (10) the ordinances of the Lord are true; all of them are just."
Ps. 119(160): "permanence is Your words chief trait, each of Your just ordinances is everlasting."
Isaiah 42(21): "pleased the Lord in His justice to make His Law great and glorious."
Is. 66(17): "they who eat swine’s flesh … shall all perish."
Baruch 4(1): "the Law endures forever."
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You're right; sorry; so that'll be my last post on that tangent.
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
It doesn't. S/He seems intent nonetheless even though the thread wasn't even addressing it.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
This is going to take a while, but at least it is a challenge.
There are all manner of covenants in the bible. The one concerning the verse above is about God selecting Abraham and his progeny as his "chosen people". I believe the Jewish race to still be God's people.
A mark in a human's flesh is the opposite of eternal. Circumcision did not go away with Christianity. As usually an OT concept (for lack of a better description which was out of focus), is brought into sharp focus in the new. In the NT circumcision is an act done in the human heart.
Going forward you need to know that I do not disavow all God's laws, murder was wrong in the OT and murder is wrong in the new. What I said was the covenant of the law given to the Jews through Moses was replaced by the covenant of grace given through Christ to all.
This is a conditional relationship and isn't necessarily eternal. BTW what happens to the 1001st generation?
This one says nothing about duration or a covenant other than being their God.
This is the nature of God's part of a covenant. It says nothing about duration, just if it applies God will hold up his end. A covenant can have an end, therefor ending it would not violate it.
The version I read said he remembers his covenant for ever (which would be true even if that covenant no longer applied), a thousand generations is not eternal. There have been approximately 7,500 generations of humans in the past.
I never claimed Israel would be forgotten, in fact I post many verses in other debates about their restoration which may be occurring within out lifetimes.
This is a complicated dual prophecy. 1st and lesser prophecy concerns the escape from Babylon, the 2nd and greater prophecy has to do with the judgment. Here is a commentary on this:
With an everlasting salvation; not for a short time, as it was in the days of the judges and of the kings, under whom their dangers and calamities did frequently return upon them; but unto all ages, as it follows; whence it appears that he speaks not only nor chiefly of their deliverance out of Babylon, which was far from being complete or perpetual, as appears both from Scripture, as Ezra 9:8, and elsewhere, and from other authors; but of their redemption by Christ, by which this was truly and fully verified unto a great number of Israelites after the flesh, and especially unto the mystical, God’s church and people, who are frequently called in Scripture by that name; as the ordinances and privileges of the gospel are commonly described in the Old Testament by expressions borrowed from the Levitical dispensation. And that this is the meaning of the place is evident from Isaiah 45:22, wherein all the ends of the earth are said to be sharers in this salvation.
Isaiah 45:17 Commentaries: Israel has been saved by the LORD With an everlasting salvation; You will not be put to shame or humiliated To all eternity.
This seems more of a prediction of Christ that an emphatic claim the covenant of the law is eternal.
Not about an eternal covenant.
I read over 20 bible versions, every one of them state that verse as "Thou shall not add. That should make you happy since Yahweh did in fact go on to add all kinds of stuff after Deuteronomy that are accepted by Judaism. Where did you even get that interpretation from?Deuteronomy 4
That is not Deuteronomy 13:1
That is not Deuteronomy 13:5. I can't find that verse in any book.
This is Deuteronomy 29:28 - New International Version
In furious anger and in great wrath the LORD uprooted them from their land and thrust them into another land, as it is now." I even looked it up in my Torah and it said "Concealed acts concern the Lord....."
I am going to assume your using a notation method which does not correspond to the bible or Torah for the rest of those verses. To get to the bottom of this issue we are going to have to dig deep but narrow. So I will color the best verses you gave so we can concentrate on them. I think you got in a hurry here. Lets concentrate on the blue ones if you agree, the rest really have no teeth or I have no idea where you got them by how you denoted them.
2 final notes:
1. We all perish, not just those that eat swine. I believe this was a practical law. If you do not heat pork to a certain temperature the parasites that live in pigs can make human very sick. In those days they had no way to guarantee they had reached that temperature.
2. Which law? and I did not say that laws against murder, theft, or lying have all vanished. I said the covenant of the law was abolished. I don't want to confuse things yet with verses that emphatically show this until we have covered your position.
You gave two meaningful verse above, lets stick to them for now.
The divinity of christ means that we believe that he is divine, as in he came from God. And, as we believe that he is the literal son of God, there fore he is divine. Who are you to tell us what we believe anyway?