31 May 11
Originally posted by Agergand so you should, but it must be remarked that different translations give different flavours, some of which are not altogether accurate. It doesn't mean that the text is uninspired, just that the translators have recourse to artistic license.
RJHinds reckons his version of the Bible is ultra perfect +1, so as far as I'm concerned, for the purposes of this thread I'm prepared to roll with that (for the sake of argument) and challenge him on these terms.
31 May 11
Originally posted by Agergexactly. and as the bad carpenter does carpentry related stuff but doesn't accomplishes anything, or the artist who paints badly never sells a painting, so too there were sorcerors who were preemtively burnt to the stake. do you think all the witches burnt in the inquisition period were believed to have done something? often they simply had eye of newt in their cabin and that was enough to be sentenced.
But as I tried to point out to RC, who is notorious for doing his cactuar routine,[hidden](a tribute to the character in the Final Fantasy series of computer games who more than anything substantial just gives you a little nip, then scarpers from the fight when you hit back)[/hidden]anyone you'd call a carpenter, you'd believe has some facility for handling wo ...[text shortened]... ical inerrancy, but I think until that point there is far more than a shred of mileage in it.
i don't believe those people absolutely believed anyone asking for power from occult forces would be automatically granted.
31 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziBut the bad carpenter or bad artist is still bad at doing something which is actually possible - likewise a bad sorcerer would be seen to be bad at doing something that was actually possible too!
exactly. and as the bad carpenter does carpentry related stuff but doesn't accomplishes anything, or the artist who paints badly never sells a painting, so too there were sorcerors who were preemtively burnt to the stake. do you think all the witches burnt in the inquisition period were believed to have done something? often they simply had eye of newt in t absolutely believed anyone asking for power from occult forces would be automatically granted.
As for your question, I need not assume *all* people accused of being witches were genuinely believed to have supernatural powers or resources (yes some will have been tried out of spite or otherwise), I need only assume one or more.
Perhaps the impasse between us on this issue is because though we both know that it was humans who wrote the Bible (irrespective of whether it best represents an existent God or not), you don't credit the fundies with the same stupidity of thought when it comes to the Bible as I do. (Note - this is not an accusation of general stupidity, some are actually pretty damned smart otherwise - just focused stupidity)
31 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you allow similar flexibility when it comes to copyists? ie we do not have any original manuscripts, so is it possible that errors were introduced even in the Greek?
and so you should, but it must be remarked that different translations give different flavours, some of which are not altogether accurate. It doesn't mean that the text is uninspired, just that the translators have recourse to artistic license.
31 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadwe do not have any original manuscripts???? my goodness man there are literally thousands of extant manuscripts!
Do you allow similar flexibility when it comes to copyists? ie we do not have any original manuscripts, so is it possible that errors were introduced even in the Greek?
31 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo, what are all those question marks about? Surely you agree that we have no original manuscripts?
we do not have any original manuscripts???? my goodness man there are literally thousands of extant manuscripts!
So can you answer my question: do you believe that it is possible that copying errors might have crept in?
31 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadthose question marks are because you asserted that there were no manuscripts when in fact there are thousands. The Hebrew portion of scripture has remained unchanged for thousands of years, copyists numbered every single letter when making copies and counted them up to make sure they were equal with what went before. The abundance of manuscripts has meant that in effect, cross referencing has taken place and any textual irregularities are readily discernible, resulting in a refinement without any errors. The main result of this has been that obvious interpolations have been identified as spurious text and removed. Even if there are any errors it means practically nothing, for daily newspapers may remain unchanged without any error, it does not mean that they are inspired, or God-breathed.
So, what are all those question marks about? Surely you agree that we have no original manuscripts?
So can you answer my question: do you believe that it is possible that copying errors might have crept in?
31 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI asserted that there were no original manuscripts. You did not miss that subtle point because you repeated what I said 'original manuscripts', then took the trouble to call what we have 'extant manuscripts'.
those question marks are because you asserted that there were no manuscripts when in fact there are thousands.
So, do you, or do you not, agree that not one single original manuscript exists?
The Hebrew portion of scripture has remained unchanged for thousands of years, copyists numbered every single letter when making copies and counted them up to make sure they were equal with what went before. The abundance of manuscripts has meant that in effect, cross referencing has taken place and any textual irregularities are readily discernible, resulting in a refinement without any errors.
So errors do take place and have been found in the past?
The main result of this has been that obvious interpolations have been identified as spurious text and removed.
And the less obvious ones? Who decided what was obvious and what wasn't? The Biblical scholars I heard about claimed that the Bible was full of interpolations and that many books were written by more than one author.
Even if there are any errors it means practically nothing, for daily newspapers may remain unchanged without any error, it does not mean that they are inspired, or God-breathed.
I don't understand that comment. Are you saying the Bible is a newspaper?
01 Jun 11
Originally posted by AgergThe "sorcerers" referred to here are those that delude themselves
In the `debate' between josephw and I in the *Capabilities* thread you dropped by with the following little nugget of scripture:
[i]"But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and
murders and immoral persons and [b]sorcerers and idolaters
and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with
fire and brimstone, which is the second de ...[text shortened]... ts? Or are they perhaps incapable of wearing certain types of armour? Do they still exist? ;][/b]
by the use of drugs and charms in attempting to call up powers
and assistance from evil spirits. Examples are voodoo, occultism,
and witchcraft. But I think you should be worried about the fact
that Liars are listed.
01 Jun 11
7 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsMisapplication of the word "sorcerer" then; moreover, either your god made a mistake or it was lying. Which conveniently brings me onto your next point
The "sorcerers" referred to here are those that delude themselves
by the use of drugs and charms in attempting to call up powers
and assistance from evil spirits. Examples are voodoo, occultism,
and witchcraft. But I think you should be worried about the fact
that Liars are listed.
I'm sure I tell lies no more often than the average person, I simply lack the dishonesty to deny that sometimes I do tell lies; moreover as I've said before, I don't think lying is an intrinsically bad thing. If the ends which justify the lying are disreputable then that speaks more about ones agendas than the methods they employ to realise them.
Thirdly I'm absolutely sure I have nothing to fear from any invisible friends or foes when I die ;]
01 Jun 11
Originally posted by AgergYou are a bad liar.
Misapplication of the word "sorcerer" then; moreover, either your god made a mistake or it was lying. Which conveniently brings me onto your next point
I'm sure I tell lies no more often than the average person, I simply lack the dishonesty to deny that sometimes I do tell lies; moreover as I've said before, I don't think lying is an intrinsically bad thing ...[text shortened]... 'm absolutely sure I have nothing to fear from any invisible freinds or foes when I die ;]