Ask Me Help Desk - "Bizarre", "Lunacy", "Dangerous", "Idiotic"

How is even rewriting what a disciple wrote or anecdotal witnesses proof of accuracy? I think the acceptance of ultimate authority of any bible would be in the eyes of the beholder. I mean if a dude walked up to you now and claimed to be the 2nd coming of Christ would you just believe him or question him pretty much as the ancient Jews did? Ones faith is unique to them, and for many using what's in the bible as proof of its authority is not enough, nor is the finding of ones faith tied to a book even if others believe it so.

I have always felt personally that asking a person to follow a book or suffer consequences was a threat rather than an invitation. Yeah, I know, I'm just a heathen, damned to hell for no faith in the words of ancient man, scholars (Flawed humans that could read and write), or true believers. How dare I question the veracity and intent of such a dedicated lot.

Quote:

How is even rewriting what a disciple wrote or anecdotal witnesses proof of accuracy? I think the acceptance of ultimate authority of any bible would be in the eyes of the beholder. I mean if a dude walked up to you now and claimed to be the 2nd coming of Christ would you just believe him or question him pretty much as the ancient Jews did? Ones faith is unique to them, and for many using what's in the bible as proof of its authority is not enough, nor is the finding of ones faith tied to a book even if others believe it so.

1. Every document we have from the ancient world is a copy. The evidence for the accurate transmission of the NT is very considerable.
2. I couldn't possibly disagree more strongly than I do with this statement: "I think the acceptance of ultimate authority of any bible would be in the eyes of the beholder." It's not a beauty contest.
3. "...for many using what's in the bible as proof of its authority is not enough." Now there we agree.

1. I can go with accurate copying, but selective selection and in fairness every book is done that way.

2. Where and what to put ones faith into is probably the most important choice an individual could make.

Quote:

2. Where and what to put ones faith into is probably the most important choice an individual could make.

Couldn't agree more.

You know you're scary when you're agreeable.

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/...60&u=t&o=f&l=f

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

1. Every document we have from the ancient world is a copy.

Good you're finally admitting this. A step in the right direction.

Quote:

The evidence for the accurate transmission of the NT is very considerable.

I agree, but the transmission is not perfect - never has been. If you truly desired to understand and correctly interpret the Bible, you would have made a study of it as it evolved and changed over the millenia. Especially in the first few centuries (NT) when there were many competing versions. The information is readily available, but not for those who won't see.

Quote:

2. I couldn't possibly disagree more strongly than I do with this statement: "I think the acceptance of ultimate authority of any bible would be in the eyes of the beholder."

THERE! You have put your finger on the problem. Unwittingly, of course. The ultimate Bible acceptance is ALWAYS the "eye of the beholder". There is simply no other way for a rational human.

( A fascinating thing about you is how your own words frequently betray your own positions on the Bible. )

Quote:

3. "...for many using what's in the bible as proof of its authority is not enough." Now there we agree.

You said, "Now there we agree". You don't agree with that one iota. You cite the Bible itself as proof of itself. That's already been pointed out to you. You still don't get it.

Tal - those cartoon re bleach are precisely what happened. Better than a thousand words.

Quote:

Good you're finally admitting this. A step in the right direction.

It was only in dispute in your mind. I never contended otherwise, so there is nothing to admit to. You must concentrate. Honestly, I frequently sit here in amazement at where you get these crazy ideas from.

Quote:

Especially in the first few centuries (NT) when there were many competing versions.

Oh? Tell us about those "competing versions" that had textual differences of any great concern.

Quote:

You cite the Bible itself as proof of itself. That's already been pointed out to you. You still don't get it.

I've never done that in regard to the historical accuracy of the Bible. Now I would contend that the Bible has internal consistency, but that of itself would not be regarded as "proof", and yet it is weighty nonetheless.

Quote:

THERE! You have put your finger on the problem. Unwittingly, of course. The ultimate Bible acceptance is ALWAYS the "eye of the beholder". There is simply no other way for a rational human.

That is certainly the core of our disagreement. You consider the Bible to be authoritative wherever you think it is so, but not in any area that strikes you as not being "reasonable". The result, of course, is that you really consider yourself to be the ultimate authority. So when I appeal to nearly twenty passages of scripture that support clearly the concept of hell, well that strikes you as not being "reasonable", so you reject it. When Jesus refers to an "eternal" hell, you are forced to appeal an extreme minority position regarding the meaning of aionios, a position held by virtually no one of consequence in the world of Bible translations. In essence you have become your own Bible.

Now I would suggest you appeal to specific scriptures which tell us there is no hell, that no one will ever go there, or that they will only go for a short period. I will wait patiently for that revelation as I always do with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

hell

So most of the approximately 108 billion people who've ever lived on earth, as well as all the aborted and miscarried babies (especially the unbaptized ones) are destined for hell?

Quote:

So most of the approximately 108 billion people who've ever lived on earth, as well as all the aborted and miscarried babies (especially the unbaptized ones) are destined for hell?

Depends on whether or not you accept the authority of scripture. Do you?

You do realize this is about the tenth time you have asked this? Could you not simply go back and look at other times you have asked this and been answered?

Quote:

Oh? Tell us about those "competing versions" that had textual differences of any great concern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...-Nicene_period

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/...historyid=ac66

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Depends on whether or not you accept the authority of scripture. Do you?

I accept the correct translation and interpretation of scripture.

Quote:

You do realize this is about the tenth time you have asked this? Could you not simply go back and look at other times you have asked this and been answered?

No, I haven't. That was Athos you wrangled with.

Quote:

No, I haven't. That was Athos you wrangled with.

No. It was you.

Tal, I took a look at your second link. There was nothing about any competing versions of the NT. Why I bothered to even look, I don't know.

WG, take a look at the scriptures you say you believe on post 177 and let me know what you think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No. It was you.

Nope. I KNOW the answer. I don't have to post the question here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

WG, take a look at the scriptures you say you believe on post 177 and let me know what you think.

I have nothing to do with, am not involved in post #177.

Instead, ask me if there should be apostrophes in possessive pronouns.

The second link goes more to the process of one scholar than differing versions, but the first clearly shows those versions by multiple sources. In addition there are links within those links to provide additional information. Sorry you think information is a waste of time and coupled with ignoring my historical evidence provided in the first link you loose all credibility to objective discussion.

Quote:

Nope. I KNOW the answer. I don't have to post the question here.

Good. I'm glad you have the answer.

Quote:

but the first clearly shows those versions by multiple sources.

No, it doesn't. I don't think you even read those links.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Good. I'm glad you have the answer.

No apology regarding post #177?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No, it doesn't. I don't think you even read those links.

Obviously you did not, or have no understanding of what you read.
Or maybe you had trouble navigating the link as it does show the progress of Christianity and the Euro influence. I doubt those scholars and translators argued much with the head of the church which was the king.

Quote:

No apology regarding post #177?

Yes. I'm sorry you refused to even look at the scriptures. I'm also sorry you could evidently not understand that no one was suggesting that post had ever involved you. It was simply a request to look at the scriptures posted there.

Quote:

it does show the progress of Christianity and the Euro influence.

Go back and look at the post again. It was in reference to the supposed competing versions of the NT. Your links had nothing to do with any of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Yes. I'm sorry you refused to even look at the scriptures. I'm also sorry you could evidently not understand that no one was suggesting that post had ever involved you. It was simply a request to look at the scriptures posted there.

I'm starting to worry about you. You said to me:

WG, take a look at the scriptures you say you believe on post 177 and let me know what you think.

Where did I ever say anything like that??? (And that's a very twisted sentence with a misplaced prepositional phrase, plus a comma is missing.)