kallend 2,106
Because multiple manuscripts by known authors tell of Alexander and his claim, and they are internally cohesive. How hard can it be!
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
skydyvr 0
kallend 2,106
It's a well known character from literature (original illustration, there have been other more recent versions as well as movie and TV characterizations).
5 brownie points for a correct identification.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Because multiple manuscripts by known authors tell of Alexander and his claim, and they are internally cohesive. How hard can it be!
Judging a document's authenticity is what the original point was about, and your silly little strawman has nothing to do with that.
Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
JackC 0
So what did you mean by "look into it... I'm speaking of the authorship, a comparison of the manuscripts, its internal cohesiveness, etc. etc.". If your own criteria isn't a measure of how well written a book is, then what is it?
By lay aside your bias, you actually mean "believe it".
Again, no, that's not what I mean. By laying aside your bias, I mean research the facts as objectively as you can... with an open mind, being willing to discover something you might not want to discover. (And before you ask, Yes, I have reviewed my own position, several times, and have been willing to change it if I could find an objective reason to do so.) Sounds like you've read some of the redaction critics-- fine. Now read the other side. (If you'd like a short reading list, try Gary Habermas, F.F. Bruce, and, on the lighter side, Josh McDowell's Evidence Which Demands a Verdict, I & II)
Question: If I am undecided on the existence of God (which is about as open minded as you can get) can I use the Bible/Koran/Vedas as evidence for the existence of God(s)?
Answer: No. We can't use a sources claims as "proof" of the very claim it assumes, that's called begging the question. We can say, "The Bible says God exists" and we can say, "The Bible assumes God exists" BUT, we cannot logically leap from that to "Therefore, God exists". Try this argument out on the Koran. If you do not accept the Koran's claims that Allah is the one true god and Muhammed is his prophet then you must reject the claims of the Bible by the same reasoning.
Before we can even get to objectively reviewing the evidence, we need to throw out the logical fallacies. Using the Bible as evidence of God's existence is a big fat logical fallacy that appologists use regularly. By the time we've done pruning the non sequiturs from the appologists argument, there's not usually a whole lot left.
Let's look at the authorship, a comparison of the manuscripts, internal cohesiveness. By YOUR OWN criterion, Alexander the Great was the direct descendant of Zeus.
When were the gospels written and by whom?
Manuscript evidence for superior
New Testament reliability
Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document?
And Alexander the Great thought he was a direct descendant of Zeus by the same criteria.
Fixed it for you.
kallend 2,106
Ha ha, so you have no real argument.
Based on all the evidence available, Zeus is every bit as real as your god, He's just out of fashion right now.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,106
Let's look at the authorship, a comparison of the manuscripts, internal cohesiveness. By YOUR OWN criterion, Alexander the Great was the direct descendant of Zeus.
When were the gospels written and by whom?
Manuscript evidence for superior
New Testament reliability
Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document?
AndAlexander the GreatJesus thought he was a direct descendant ofZeusGod by the same criteria.
Fixed it for you.
Fixed it for YOU. Remember, "Facts are important and should be checked before drawing conclusions."
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Remember, "Facts are important and should be checked before drawing conclusions."
And Darwinians share 75% of their genes with pumpkins.
Remember, "Facts are important and should be checked before drawing conclusions."
Or making claims about the government strong-arming national newspapers... or about hundreds of thousands of unemployed as a result of law changes.
Happy Friday.
kallend 2,106
That was Mockingbird's claim. Did you check it or are you just drawing a conclusion?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Did you take her claim as a serious one?
Remster 30
Did you check it or are you just drawing a conclusion?
Its much more fun to pick stats without checking them!
Remster
vpozzoli 0
[...] a comparison of thousands of manuscripts (hand copies) spanning hundreds of years which have no serious differences (most of which are copyist mistakes-- punctuation, spelling) [...] are certainly signs of legitimacy.
[...]
Call me obtuse, but could you tell me why this should mean anything more than that:
1) there was one original document written by one or possibly several authors
2) It was copied repeatedly during a time span of several hundred years. Not all copies necessarily originate form the original, they could be copies of copies (not always easy to determine, especially if they are accurate copies)
3) the people who performed the copying did a pretty good job, overall
How does this in any way legitimate the content, especially re whether it's fact or faction or a mix of the two?
After all there are millions of pretty good copies of "Moby Dick" around but that does not necessarily mean that Achab actually existed (or any other character in that book for that matter).
For independent confirmation you need different books that indipendently confirm the events in question, which means they cannot simply be copies of the same work and one cannot reference the other as the source of the info.
If you where to actually do that with the Bible you would have a hard time verifying a lot of key points.
For example, there is no independent confirmation of the Jews being taken to Egypt as slaves and then fleeing under the leadership of Moses.
It's been a while but I seem to recall that was kind of like a highlight of the Old Testament (think 10 commandments).
Cheers,
Vale
kallend 2,106
Since we have moved on to "facts", the verifiable objective evidence in support of the existence of the Judeo-Christian God is exactly the same as the verifable evidence in support of the existence of Zeus, Thor, Krishna, Ganesh, Shiva, Ra, Osiris, and the FSM and his noodly appendage.
So if you wish to believe, I suggest the one with the best payoff. The beer volcano and stripper factory seem to have the edge right now.
So if you wish to believe, I suggest the one with the best payoff. The beer volcano and stripper factory seem to have the edge right now.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,106
I guess I'll have to give a clue.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
unformed 0
Moriarty. The bad guy from Sherlock Holmes. When I looked at the picture, I thought it looked like the illustrations from SH, but I couldn't place it.
jakee 1,563
Allow me to introduce myself. I am Hercules Grytpype-Thynne and this is my aide Count Jim Moriarty... No, wait - thats the Goon show isn't it?
You silly twisted boy you.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
So what did you mean by "look into it... I'm speaking of the authorship, a comparison of the manuscripts, its internal cohesiveness, etc. etc.". If your own criteria isn't a measure of how well written a book is, then what is it?
It is a measure of its authenticity.
Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
Question: If I am undecided on the existence of God (which is about as open minded as you can get) can I use the Bible/Koran/Vedas as evidence for the existence of God(s)?
Answer: No. We can't use a sources claims as "proof" of the very claim it assumes, that's called begging the question. We can say, "The Bible says God exists" and we can say, "The Bible assumes God exists" BUT, we cannot logically leap from that to "Therefore, God exists". Try this argument out on the Koran. If you do not accept the Koran's claims that Allah is the one true god and Muhammed is his prophet then you must reject the claims of the Bible by the same reasoning.
Before we can even get to objectively reviewing the evidence, we need to throw out the logical fallacies. Using the Bible as evidence of God's existence is a big fat logical fallacy that appologists use regularly. By the time we've done pruning the non sequiturs from the appologists argument, there's not usually a whole lot left.
Jack, who authored the Koran?
Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
jakee 1,563
Define authenticity versus truth.
BTW, when talking about 'internal cohesiveness' might that also be a measure of how long the individual books were being edited together as one volume with 'mistakes' being 'corrected' before the bible reached the form we have it in now?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
kallend 2,106
Define authenticity versus truth.
BTW, when talking about 'internal cohesiveness' might that also be a measure of how long the individual books were being edited together as one volume with 'mistakes' being 'corrected' before the bible reached the form we have it in now?
The redaction of the Bible is Christianity's dirty little secret. It's pretty well documented.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Oh wonderful. Tell me how my criteria leads you to believe that.
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites