Question for sjt18

[sjt18]

Originally Posted by utvolpj

not my point since once it's written down it's easier. There are a whole lot of words in the Bible so to trust man to transcribe it 100% correct seems a bit odd

We don't. That isn't the way textual criticism works. No single ms or group of mss is treated as "pristine". It is by comparing numerous pieces of evidence that the most likely reading is determined. Doing this, there are only a handful of passages where the variants would change a meaning... and none of these effects a core doctrine.

and this is something that gets me- you can't use the document itself to prove it is real. If that was possible I would have gotten A's on all my papers in school

What do you think about Sagan's famous slogan: The universe is all that is, was, or ever will be?

If a book said that it was a recount created from the diaries of George Washington would that be considered evidence?

The Bible is self affirming. Science demonstrates that the text we have now is a very, very accurate representation of the original text. You can believe or not believe. That is your choice... but make it on the knowledge of the two facts I offer.

[utvolpj]

Originally Posted by sjt18

We don't. That isn't the way textual criticism works. No single ms or group of mss is treated as "pristine". It is by comparing numerous pieces of evidence that the most likely reading is determined. Doing this, there are only a handful of passages where the variants would change a meaning... and none of these effects a core doctrine.

you're still not really getting my point. Once it's written down it's easy to stay true to the original work. I question how it got there. Transcribed by man isn't not the most trust-worthy source

Originally Posted by sjt18

What do you think about Sagan's famous slogan: The universe is all that is, was, or ever will be?

If a book said that it was a recount created from the diaries of George Washington would that be considered evidence?

not sure what relevance Sagan's quote has in this discussion

you can't see a difference between the diaries of an actual person and a book reportedly written down from what God told the person?

Originally Posted by sjt18

The Bible is self affirming.

convenient. Again, wish I could have used that in college

[droski]

Originally Posted by sjt18

I always find it interesting when people who put so much faith in the interpretations of natural history by people millions of years removed from the event show such skepticism for a document that has such ironclad evidence in support of its text.

you do realize that much of the evidence that supports the new testament was found through scientific methods right? and there is no ironclad evidence that a) god exists, b) jesus was god, and c) he performed miracles. all we know is he actually was a real person. that's hardly ironclad evidence for 90% of the bible.

[tri_vol]

Originally Posted by utvolpj

you're still not really getting my point. Once it's written down it's easy to stay true to the original work. I question how it got there. Transcribed by man isn't not the most trust-worthy source

I understand what you are saying but consider this. The Jewish religious leaders hated Jesus because he was a threat to their way of life. The Roman government consider Christians a threat to the state due to their nuetral stand. The gospels were written at separate times over a span of 50+ years after Christ died.

Yet there is no secular historical record of either of these groups disputing the accounts recorded. The two most powerful political groups of the time hated Christ and his followers. If there was inaccurate information or exagerrations, certainly they would have called them out on it.

[J-P]

My God can use imperfect man and still bring about His perfect Will, He is not limited by man or his ability to comprehend or act. He has provided ample proof for anyone that seeks Him honestly.

Recorded and later fullfilled prophecy is one of those proofs.

Credible recorded witness testimony is another of those proofs.

His Word testifies of Him through it's preservation down through the centuries in spite of persecution; it's historical, archaeological and even scientific content.

His work in creation testifies of Him.

The preservation of His people through persecution, enslavement, war and genocide were promised by Him and testify of His trustworthiness.

The continued spread of His good news of salvation, which thrives in spite of persecution and martyrdom, testifies of Him.

Ultimately, each man has to decide for himself.

I know I've not provided anything new here, but there is plenty here that any honest seeker can work with on their way to deciding for themselves. In large part, I believe what fuels the motivation to search is critical. Is the seeker just trying to build their case that He does not exist, or is he honestly seeking Him? God is Sovereign and won't quibble with men who have decided against Him and just wish to affirm themselves. He does care for us and will reveal Himself to those who truly seek Him.

Okay, I'm done preaching...

[MWR]

Originally Posted by utvolpj

...


and this is something that gets me- you can't use the document itself to prove it is real. If that was possible I would have gotten A's on all my papers in school

Something that gets me is that you have a choice to believe or not. That was pretty straightforth in my post.

And it seems you have made your choice and I know I have made mine.

[sjt18]

Originally Posted by utvolpj

you're still not really getting my point. Once it's written down it's easy to stay true to the original work. I question how it got there. Transcribed by man isn't not the most trust-worthy source

I get your point I think. Perhaps you aren't getting mine. The evidence from early church fathers strongly supports the contention that all of the NT was completed before the last of the Apostles, John, died. That was around 100 AD. Copies of those documents are where the later mss came from. Well before 200 AD copies of all of the books were distributed and being copied throughout the known world. They had already been translated into other languages. The sources are too diverse to allow for corruption at a date after the 1st and certainly 2nd century.

If you are talking about the originals themselves then your objection applies to any and every thing that has ever been communicated between two people by any means. In defense of the writers, Paul was a very, very educated man. He was the equivalent of a Rhoades scholar at the point of his conversion. Luke was a physician and very detailed and careful. Peter, Matthew, John, and James were all eyewitnesses to Christ's earthly ministry. The Book of Mark is believed to be the transcript of a sermon by Peter. These men for different reasons were well qualified for the work they did.

In addition, these letters and books were copied and distributed very quickly. Literally thousands of witnesses were still around to call "foul" if the accounts were wrong.

There is an element of faith here concerning the writers of course. But Paul contends that scripture was "God breathed" through the writers... meaning that God superintended the original writing using the style of the writers but assuring inerrancy.

not sure what relevance Sagan's quote has in this discussion

Things being proven by nothing more than their internal claim as truth.

you can't see a difference between the diaries of an actual person and a book reportedly written down from what God told the person?

Not the point. The point is that you cannot physically speak to GW to ask him if the claim is true... but would probably and rightly give credence to the claim of a trustworthy person who wrote it.

I find the writers of the NT VERY trustworthy particularly considering they were willing to die rather than recant their faith in what they wrote and taught.

convenient. Again, wish I could have used that in college

Again, self affirmation does not make the claim the truth. I would imagine that EVERY thing you EVER turned in explicitly or implicitly claimed to be true/accurate.

[sjt18]

Originally Posted by droski

you do realize that much of the evidence that supports the new testament was found through scientific methods right?

Pretty much what I have been saying.

and there is no ironclad evidence that a) god exists, b) jesus was god, and c) he performed miracles. all we know is he actually was a real person. that's hardly ironclad evidence for 90% of the bible.

How many times or in how many ways do I have to repeat this?

The evidence for the text of the NT is ironclad. We know that what we have is a very accurate representation of the original.

Its existence and accuracy as a text is not a proof of it being true history. The proofs for that are of a different line and nature.

I would start with the blood of the witnesses/martyrs who died rather than deny the resurrection or gospel.

I won't burden you with my feeble attempt to defend this... Lee Stroebel and Josh McDowell have both written very good defenses that are widely available. Both began as atheists with the intent to disprove the gospel.

[J-P]

Originally Posted by sjt18

I won't burden you with my feeble attempt to defend this... Lee Stroebel and Josh McDowell have both written very good defenses that are widely available. Both began as atheists with the intent to disprove the gospel.

These have come up many times in these discussions before.

Wonder if anybody with questions has picked up any of their books and read them yet?

[IPorange]

Originally Posted by J-P

These have come up many times in these discussions before.

Wonder if anybody with questions has picked up any of their books and read them yet?

I'd be willing to accept that challenge, if I got to pick out a book or two for a believer to read as well.


One of the big differences between the believers on this forum and the atheists is that the atheists HAVE had quite a bit of exposure to Christianity and it's beliefs and tenents, while the overwhelming majority of theists know only the straw men that they've been told about atheists. Like people came from monkeys.

[KB5252]

Originally Posted by IPorange

I'd be willing to accept that challenge, if I got to pick out a book or two for a believer to read as well.


One of the big differences between the believers on this forum and the atheists is that the atheists HAVE had quite a bit of exposure to Christianity and it's beliefs and tenents, while the overwhelming majority of theists know only the straw men that they've been told about atheists. Like people came from monkeys.

I don't believe this is true, perhaps I am only projecting my thoughts and experiences and applying them to all deists but I believe over the last 20 to 30 years most Christians have been exposed to many people and ideas that are at odds with their beliefs.

[droski]

Originally Posted by sjt18

Pretty much what I have been saying.

How many times or in how many ways do I have to repeat this?

The evidence for the text of the NT is ironclad. We know that what we have is a very accurate representation of the original.

Its existence and accuracy as a text is not a proof of it being true history. The proofs for that are of a different line and nature.

I would start with the blood of the witnesses/martyrs who died rather than deny the resurrection or gospel.

I won't burden you with my feeble attempt to defend this... Lee Stroebel and Josh McDowell have both written very good defenses that are widely available. Both began as atheists with the intent to disprove the gospel.

i guess i'm failing to see how the validity of the text proves or means anything about jesus' diety. i.e. what's the point of bringing it up?

[droski]

Originally Posted by KB5252

I don't believe this is true, perhaps I am only projecting my thoughts and experiences and applying them to all deists but I believe over the last 20 to 30 years most Christians have been exposed to many people and ideas that are at odds with their beliefs.

depends where you live.

[sjt18]

Originally Posted by IPorange

I'd be willing to accept that challenge, if I got to pick out a book or two for a believer to read as well.


One of the big differences between the believers on this forum and the atheists is that the atheists HAVE had quite a bit of exposure to Christianity and it's beliefs and tenents, while the overwhelming majority of theists know only the straw men that they've been told about atheists. Like people came from monkeys.

That last statement is a straw man itself. Christians will derisively use that phrase but anyone who has studied the "good" arguments from scientists who believe in creationism knows that isn't quite what evolutionists believe.

FTR, we are exposed to quite a bit more humanism, naturalism, and even atheistic/agnostic conclusions and presuppositions than you seem to recognize. Most Christians don't even have the training to recognize them.

I would also say that an even more overwhelming majority of committed evolutionists have only been exposed to the straw men they've been taught about Creationism and creation scientists.

[droski]

Originally Posted by sjt18

That last statement is a straw man itself. Christians will derisively use that phrase but anyone who has studied the "good" arguments from scientists who believe in creationism knows that isn't quite what evolutionists believe.

FTR, we are exposed to quite a bit more humanism, naturalism, and even atheistic/agnostic conclusions and presuppositions than you seem to recognize. Most Christians don't even have the training to recognize them.

I would also say that an even more overwhelming majority of committed evolutionists have only been exposed to the straw men they've been taught about Creationism and creation scientists.

hard for me to understand how someone could be a creationist with all the physical evidence that does exist (early man IMO is not a myth, it's pretty obviously fact). i know this has been discussed to death here but was wondering your interpretation.