It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Jehosephat
Also, to say that the account in Genesis covers the creation of dinosaurs is decieving to others who do not believe since it confuses a mater and glosses over it in order to fit in like everyone else and not have to defend your beliefs under scrutiny
Originally posted by dbrandt
You do know that the catholic church isn't Biblical and does not teach salvation through Christ alone.
Spamandham,
By chance do you know who compiled the Bible you idolize?
Originally posted by Machine
Yup, and anyone who wants an accurate history lesson can too! I’ll tell you this much it wasn’t the Roman Catholic Church!
www.chick.com...
www.chick.com...
Spamandham,
The KJV does not contain any books the Catholic church didn't want in it. Why? Because it's just a translation of the books the Catholic church used for over 1000 years before the KJV was penned.
Originally posted by Machine
The King James traces its roots outside of the Roman Catholic Church.
Originally posted by Machine
Catholic Rome was and has always been to this very day an enemy of Jesus Christ and Christianity.
The King James traces its roots outside of the Roman Catholic Church. You have swallowed a Catholic lie if you believe that the Catholic Church gave us the King James Bible. There are numerous books which discuss this topic in detail.
You do realize the King James is a translation and not the original texts right? Who controlled the books during the intervening 1500 years?
Originally posted by JKersteJr
I dont quite understand that comment, isn't nearly every modern Bible simply an attempt at translation of the original Hebrew texts?
Originally posted by JKersteJr
The King James is widely viewed as the most accurate translation by Christians and non Christians like myself alike, and I know that because with some additional resources I can actually look up the original word meanings.
Originally posted by spamandham
Originally posted by JKersteJr
I dont quite understand that comment, isn't nearly every modern Bible simply an attempt at translation of the original Hebrew texts?
No. None of the original texts exist. There are very ancient Hebrew texts for the Old Testament (and the apocryphal books the KJV inerrantists despise), but they are not the originals.
For the New Testament, the oldest extant copies are hundred of years after the purported facts, although a couple of scraps of older manuscripts do exist from the 2nd century. Most of the fragments prior to the 4th century contain no more than a a couple of words.
It would have been quite easy for the RRC to completely alter these texts in the intervening centuries.
RRC haters are stuck simply assuming on faith that god somehow magically protected the texts while they were in the hands of his enemy.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
Well, no ancient text is extant in the autograph
Originally posted by roger_pearse
These words have been copied from some atheist apologist,
Originally posted by roger_pearse
Complete gospels from around 200AD exist.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
The NT is better attested in manuscript terms than almost any other ancient text; if these arguments dispose of it, Cicero and his like vanish likewise.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
Or, as Von Daniken points out, for aliens to have done so. Speculation is not evidence;
Originally posted by roger_pearse
and altering all the copies of a widely dispersed text is actually not at all easy.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
It's certainly more rational than presuming that a value-idea set is to be obeyed, simply because we happen to live at the same time that it is popular.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
And this, as we all know, is the real alternative here.
Originally posted by spamandham
Originally posted by roger_pearse
Well, no ancient text is extant in the autograph
The autograph itself is not the issue.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
These words have been copied from some atheist apologist,
Are you so sure? Roger Pearse agrees with my statement when he says...
Originally posted by roger_pearse
Complete gospels from around 200AD exist.
i.e., nearly 200 years after the fact. That counts as 'hundreds of years'. If you wish to refute something, at least be honest about it rather than just throw up the 'you got that from some atheist site' card at every opportunity.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
The NT is better attested in manuscript terms than almost any other ancient text; if these arguments dispose of it, Cicero and his like vanish likewise.
Do you consider the writings you're referring to with regard to Cicero to be without error, perhaps even significant error? If so, why?
Any text written ~200 years after the fact can not simply be assumed to accurately reflect the events nor even necessarily the original texts (assuming they existed). This is particularly the case if the writers of the extant copies may have had motivation to fabricate or alter the meaning of it. Even contemporary works can have drastic errors.
But beyond that, the Bible is not simply a historical record, it's a collection of ancient religious writings. Would you even accept modern religious writings that made fantastic claims ...
Originally posted by roger_pearse
It's certainly more rational than presuming that a value-idea set is to be obeyed, simply because we happen to live at the same time that it is popular.
The consequence of failure to believe the Bible ...
If you want a rational set of ethics, then use reason to derive them.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
If you mean '170 years after the event', then I suggest not using the phrase 'hundreds of years.' It is misleading.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
I'm afraid I'm going to ask you the same question! Do we, or do we not, possess the extant works of Cicero?
Originally posted by roger_pearse
The argument is that no ancient text can have reached us, therefore the bible did not reach us, is merely obscurantism, I'm sorry to say.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
All this amounts to is a complaint that Christian beliefs are not acceptable to those who set the media agenda of our day.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
The question you need to answer is why we should conform to such a purely temporary set of values and ideas
Originally posted by roger_pearse
Surely it matters nothing what the bible is, if we live by a set of irrational beliefs adopted from societal values?
Originally posted by roger_pearse
I do. What I don't find, tho, is that you do, because your 'ethics' are merely conformity to a subset of the values and ideas fashionable when you were growing up. I too once did this -- no longer.
Originally posted by spamandham
Originally posted by roger_pearse
If you mean '170 years after the event', then I suggest not using the phrase 'hundreds of years.' It is misleading.
Most datings of p45 are early 3rd century, not precisely 200 CE....
Originally posted by roger_pearse
I'm afraid I'm going to ask you the same question! Do we, or do we not, possess the extant works of Cicero?
I have no idea, nor do I care much other than mild curiosity. (rant snipped)
Originally posted by roger_pearse
The argument is that no ancient text can have reached us, therefore the bible did not reach us, is merely obscurantism, I'm sorry to say.
Why should you be sorry? Neither you nor I am making any such claim. The claim is that there was both opportunity and motivation for tampering.
A further claim is that even if we had the originals and they were conclusively dated to some time near 30 CE, and the authorship could be ascertained, that this would not be sufficient documentation for the fantastic claims made.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
All this amounts to is a complaint that Christian beliefs are not acceptable to those who set the media agenda of our day.
No, it's a complaint about special pleading.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
The question you need to answer is why we should conform to such a purely temporary set of values and ideas
I don't believe that conformance to modern values and ideas is inherently better or worse than conformance to ancient values and ideas...
I don't believe there is such a thing as inherent good or inherent evil. 'Good' is what benefits me. 'Evil' is what harms me.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
Surely it matters nothing what the bible is, if we live by a set of irrational beliefs adopted from societal values?
Why do you assume societal values are irrational?
Originally posted by roger_pearse
I do. What I don't find, tho, is that you do, because your 'ethics' are merely conformity to a subset of the values and ideas fashionable when you were growing up. I too once did this -- no longer.
You don't know me from Adam. You have merely assumed what my ethics are and how I've derived them.
But even if you were correct that all I've done is conform to the values around me, why is that not a rational thing to do?
Originally posted by roger_pearse
Why not just be more precise?
Originally posted by roger_pearse
Is it acceptable under any moral system you care to mention for you to ask 'questions' to which you neither know the answer nor care what it might be?
Originally posted by roger_pearse
The point, of course, was that we cannot sensibly argue from manuscript ages for the NT if the same argument disposes of the classical heritage, can we?
Originally posted by roger_pearse
This is not different from what I just said. Either the 'tampering' is trivial, or it means that in effect the text is destroyed.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
I'm afraid this is merely prejudice.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
Any claims must be evaluated in the same way. There is no practical difference between demanding a different standard for things we consider 'fantastic' and demanding a higher standard for whatever we are prejudiced against or societally conditioned not to believe.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
If we wish to learn anything we must get past this.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
But you are quite welcome to conform to purely temporary and irrational values; just not to sneer at others who refuse to do so.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
Nor I. But why do either? Given that we have different values and ideas every 50 years, how can the set we happen to have now be right?
Originally posted by roger_pearse
I don't believe there is such a thing as inherent good or inherent evil. 'Good' is what benefits me. 'Evil' is what harms me.
Selfishness is not much of a philosophy, tho, is it?
Originally posted by roger_pearse
The remainder of these comments seem to me to reduce to an assertion that the values of late 20th century America are of eternal verity.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
Have you assessed them? Why do you assume the contrary? How did this set of values come into existence, 50 years ago?
Originally posted by roger_pearse
Ahem. I live in this society too, you know. I don't think being evasive like this exactly recommends your position, you know.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
You need to explain why conformity to the values of the USA in 1978 is more rational than those of the USA in 1923; in 1871; in 1802; and indeed in 2020, 2090, and 2112.
Originally posted by roger_pearse
Value-idea sets that are only held so long as they are fashionable, and not heard of after that can have no validity, surely?
I don't believe there is such a thing as inherent good or inherent evil. 'Good' is what benefits me. 'Evil' is what harms me.
...
Originally posted by roger_pearse
I'm afraid this is merely prejudice.
Indeed it is!
Originally posted by roger_pearse
But you are quite welcome to conform to purely temporary and irrational values; just not to sneer at others who refuse to do so.
...and you are welcome to ... (abuse snipped)
Originally posted by roger_pearse
Would you like to tell us honestly why you hate Christians?