Why Agnosticism is the right choice.

[amrchaos]

Agnosticism is not the right choice.

Agnosticism is the doubtful choice!

So is it that dinosaurs didn't believe in god so He wiped them out?

I think that post is a PUN.

Agnostics have doubt. There choice to be agnostics is doubtful.
Ha HA, Get it?

 

[ima]

Agnosticism is not the right choice.

Agnosticism is the doubtful choice!

So is it that dinosaurs didn't believe in god so He wiped them out?

I think that post is a PUN.

Agnostics have doubt. There choice to be agnostics is doubtful.
Ha HA, Get it?

No, agnostics KNOW that there's no proof either way as to the existence or not of a god. We look at the FACTS or lack thereof, lol, and say: well, you still got shit. Please try again.

So please try again.

 

[amrchaos]

You live under a bridge, don't you?

 

[Aristotle]

I firmly believe that the values of religious/metaphysical beliefs regarding a specific deity, or deities are unknown. I understand that faith in the unknown of an incoporeal deity is paramount to any metaphysical faith, but frankly there are too many loopholes in religion. I would like to consider myself an Agnostic-Theist in the sense that I do believe that God exist, but the definition of God is unknown. I firmly believe that there is a deity that exist and is above all others in the universe but I do not know, nor can define, what this deity is. i guess you can say like people of religious faith, have a faith-like belief in something unknowable. But I firmly believe Agnosticism is probably the most logical thinking. Monotheism, like atheism is fine but there is no proof for either, just philosophical arguments for proof and disproof.

No true atheist can prove a negative and neither a theist can prove the existence of an incoporeal deity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

Thomas Henry Huxley said:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle...Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.​

[11]
​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxleyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley


A (without) gnosis (knowledge of GOD)


One can be a believer of something while acknowledging that one has no concept of what that something is.

THAT is what agnosticism, means.

I am an agnostic Christian in the sense that I believe the dictates and teachings of JC are worthy of following but I do not know (nor do I believe anybody does know, not EVEN Jesus) what GOD actually means.

I am an agnostic Buddhist, in the sense that I believe the dictates and teachings of The Buddha were worthy of following but I do not know (nor do I believe anybody does know, not EVEN JBuddha) what GOD actually means.

Does that seem a tad confused?

WEll it is, which is why the term agnostic is the fitting term to describe the state where one AGKNOWLEDGES THAT ONE DOES NOT KNOW.

Ok girls, listen up. You can't be agnostic if you think that a god exists. Being agnostic means that you don't know whether a god exists or doesn't exist because no proof has been given either way. So if you don't know, you can't say it exists. You contradict yourself.
And you aren't a follower of JC if you don't believe in god and his kingdom as JC describes it...
Simple.

I don't think you understand agnosticism. Being an agnostic-theist means you postulate the claim that the knowledge of God is unknowable, therefore you cannot claim sufficiently that God exists (hope that make sense). Of course you can retain a belief, but that belief must have demonstrable proof to be considered a known fact.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The earliest fragment of one of the scripts that the bible was based on has been dated to around 350AD, so most of it is made up. Gee, imagine that, a story about an invisible superbeing that rules over us from another dimension is all made up fairy tales. Who woulda thunk it?

Wrong.

The earliest known fragment of the New Testament is dated to the 1st century and there are numerous fragments of the New Testament that date to the 2nd century. That puts your dating off by about 200 years.

The Septuagint dates to 250 AD, 100 years before your date, and contains a Greek translation of the entire Old Testament that is similar to the NLT, yet it agrees with the Old Testament remarkably well.

The Dead Sea Scrolls date back to 100 BC, a full 450 years before your date. Prior to the discovery of those scrolls the oldest known copies of the Old Testament were from about 900 AD, a full 1000 years later, yet there are no significant differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the copies that were made a millenia later.

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok, I was off, earliest New Testament fragment is around 125AD, with most pieces around year 175 to 250. And it's only a fragment, so no one really knows what that gospel said. If that's what it even was. So my conclusion stands, it's all a bunch of hearsay and fairy tales, written way after the facts happened, which means that Jesus could be a totally made up person.

Let me point out how little you actually know about the field of textual criticism, which is how historians rate historical documents.

Caesars commentaries was written around 45 AD, which would make it a document that is contemporary to the New Testament. The earliest known copy of Commentaries dates back to the 10th century, a thousand years after it was written. There are mentions of the commentaries that date other works that come after it was written, and a few quotations. None of these date back to much anywhere near the time it was written.

The New Testament, on the other hand, dates back to within a century of the time it was written. Every single verse of the New Testament is quoted in writings that are external to it, and there are literally thousands of references to it in other works that can be dated to the 1st through the 4th century.

In oter words, there is more historical evidence to back up the New Testament than there is to back up Caesar's Commentaries, yet you accept the Commentaries without question, and challenge the New Testament based on nothing more than complete ignorance.

Tell me something, do you also believe that the CIA killed Kennedy and that 9/11 was a plot by Bush so he could invade Iraq? Because, quite literally, your dismissal of the New Testament based on the grounds you claim makes less sense than the other two.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A (without) gnosis (knowledge of GOD)


One can be a believer of something while acknowledging that one has no concept of what that something is.

THAT is what agnosticism, means.

I am an agnostic Christian in the sense that I believe the dictates and teachings of JC are worthy of following but I do not know (nor do I believe anybody does know, not EVEN Jesus) what GOD actually means.

I am an agnostic Buddhist, in the sense that I believe the dictates and teachings of The Buddha were worthy of following but I do not know (nor do I believe anybody does know, not EVEN JBuddha) what GOD actually means.

Does that seem a tad confused?

WEll it is, which is why the term agnostic is the fitting term to describe the state where one AGKNOWLEDGES THAT ONE DOES NOT KNOW.

Ok girls, listen up. You can't be agnostic if you think that a god exists. Being agnostic means that you don't know whether a god exists or doesn't exist because no proof has been given either way. So if you don't know, you can't say it exists. You contradict yourself.
And you aren't a follower of JC if you don't believe in god and his kingdom as JC describes it...
Simple.

I don't think you understand agnosticism. Being an agnostic-theist means you postulate the claim that the knowledge of God is unknowable, therefore you cannot claim sufficiently that God exists (hope that make sense). Of course you can retain a belief, but that belief must have demonstrable proof to be considered a known fact.

You claim you believe in something without evidence, and then scoff at people that believe because of evidence. That makes you a fool, and a liar.

 

[ima]

The New Testament, on the other hand, dates back to within a century of the time it was written. Every single verse of the New Testament is quoted in writings that are external to it, and there are literally thousands of references to it in other works that can be dated to the 1st through the 4th century.

In oter words, there is more historical evidence to back up the New Testament than there is to back up Caesar's Commentaries, yet you accept the Commentaries without question, and challenge the New Testament based on nothing more than complete ignorance.

Tell me something, do you also believe that the CIA killed Kennedy and that 9/11 was a plot by Bush so he could invade Iraq? Because, quite literally, your dismissal of the New Testament based on the grounds you claim makes less sense than the other two.

That bolded sentence makes no sense.

Taking your example, for Ceasar's Commentaries (I've never heard of them, but that doesn't matter), from what I gather from what you said, people made mention of something that nobody knows what it actually said. This might show that such a manuscript possibly existed (it still could have been a myth that such a thing existed), but in no way does it show the contents. For all we know, it could have been a book of cartoons.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The New Testament, on the other hand, dates back to within a century of the time it was written. Every single verse of the New Testament is quoted in writings that are external to it, and there are literally thousands of references to it in other works that can be dated to the 1st through the 4th century.

In oter words, there is more historical evidence to back up the New Testament than there is to back up Caesar's Commentaries, yet you accept the Commentaries without question, and challenge the New Testament based on nothing more than complete ignorance.

Tell me something, do you also believe that the CIA killed Kennedy and that 9/11 was a plot by Bush so he could invade Iraq? Because, quite literally, your dismissal of the New Testament based on the grounds you claim makes less sense than the other two.

That bolded sentence makes no sense.

Taking your example, for Ceasar's Commentaries (I've never heard of them, but that doesn't matter), from what I gather from what you said, people made mention of something that nobody knows what it actually said. This might show that such a manuscript possibly existed (it still could have been a myth that such a thing existed), but in no way does it show the contents. For all we know, it could have been a book of cartoons.

The earliest manuscript fragments of the New Testament date back to within a century of the time it was written, the earliest manuscript fragments of Caesar's Commentaries date back to 1000 years later. There is more evidence for the historical accuracy of of the New Testament than there is for our understanding of the Gallic wars. Feel free to deny that Caesar invaded Germany and get branded as the idiot you clearly want to prove you are.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have to first start with defining what God is first.

I think you've already made that abundantly clear; God is whatever you want God to be at any given moment.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Agnosticism is not the right choice.

Agnosticism is the doubtful choice!

Exactly!

It's recognition that there is insufficient data to make a choice.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

The New Testament, on the other hand, dates back to within a century of the time it was written. Every single verse of the New Testament is quoted in writings that are external to it, and there are literally thousands of references to it in other works that can be dated to the 1st through the 4th century.

In oter words, there is more historical evidence to back up the New Testament than there is to back up Caesar's Commentaries, yet you accept the Commentaries without question, and challenge the New Testament based on nothing more than complete ignorance.

Tell me something, do you also believe that the CIA killed Kennedy and that 9/11 was a plot by Bush so he could invade Iraq? Because, quite literally, your dismissal of the New Testament based on the grounds you claim makes less sense than the other two.

That bolded sentence makes no sense.

Taking your example, for Ceasar's Commentaries (I've never heard of them, but that doesn't matter), from what I gather from what you said, people made mention of something that nobody knows what it actually said. This might show that such a manuscript possibly existed (it still could have been a myth that such a thing existed), but in no way does it show the contents. For all we know, it could have been a book of cartoons.

The earliest manuscript fragments of the New Testament date back to within a century of the time it was written, the earliest manuscript fragments of Caesar's Commentaries date back to 1000 years later. There is more evidence for the historical accuracy of of the New Testament than there is for our understanding of the Gallic wars. Feel free to deny that Caesar invaded Germany and get branded as the idiot you clearly want to prove you are.

That depends on who you're asking, and yes, they are fragments. The common acceptance of dates seems to be between 100 and 200 A.D. Depending on who you're asking and what their agenda is, it gets pushed either way.

The earliest known fragments of the NT are from the Papyrus 66 of the Bodmer Papyri of the Alexandrian text-type, c. 200 A.D. This is not a hard-fast date, just the best we've been able to do. Comfort and Barrett's textual criticism placed the document at c. 300 A.D., which some more theological have placed it at closer to c. 100 A.C., therefore making it potentially within a century of the events they depict when one considers that A.D. denotes Jesus' birth and not his death. 200 A.D. seems a rough compensation between two proposed dates, one being the date used by skeptics with the agenda of disproving the authenticity of the NT, and the other by theists with the agenda of the opposite. No big surprise there.

I find the subject fascinating. Christianity is something that has played an enormous role in defining the Western, and parts of the Eastern world. Those with an agenda to establish, be it current or historical, I tend to treat with a rather large grain of salt. Carbon dating cannot be relied upon when pertaining to such a narrow range of time, so that's out. The best shot we have at dating the earliest fragments of the NT is textual criticism. If the two extremes of the range of Papyrus 66 is 100 to 300 A.D., both pushed by two groups of people with an obvious agenda, I tend to throw the two extremes out and settle for 200 A.D.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That bolded sentence makes no sense.

Taking your example, for Ceasar's Commentaries (I've never heard of them, but that doesn't matter), from what I gather from what you said, people made mention of something that nobody knows what it actually said. This might show that such a manuscript possibly existed (it still could have been a myth that such a thing existed), but in no way does it show the contents. For all we know, it could have been a book of cartoons.

The earliest manuscript fragments of the New Testament date back to within a century of the time it was written, the earliest manuscript fragments of Caesar's Commentaries date back to 1000 years later. There is more evidence for the historical accuracy of of the New Testament than there is for our understanding of the Gallic wars. Feel free to deny that Caesar invaded Germany and get branded as the idiot you clearly want to prove you are.

That depends on who you're asking, and yes, they are fragments. The common acceptance of dates seems to be between 100 and 200 A.D. Depending on who you're asking and what their agenda is, it gets pushed either way.

The earliest known fragments of the NT are from the Papyrus 66 of the Bodmer Papyri of the Alexandrian text-type, c. 200 A.D. This is not a hard-fast date, just the best we've been able to do. Comfort and Barrett's textual criticism placed the document at c. 300 A.D., which some more theological have placed it at closer to c. 100 A.C., therefore making it potentially within a century of the events they depict when one considers that A.D. denotes Jesus' birth and not his death. 200 A.D. seems a rough compensation between two proposed dates, one being the date used by skeptics with the agenda of disproving the authenticity of the NT, and the other by theists with the agenda of the opposite. No big surprise there.

I find the subject fascinating. Christianity is something that has played an enormous role in defining the Western, and parts of the Eastern world. Those with an agenda to establish, be it current or historical, I tend to treat with a rather large grain of salt. Carbon dating cannot be relied upon when pertaining to such a narrow range of time, so that's out. The best shot we have at dating the earliest fragments of the NT is textual criticism. If the two extremes of the range of Papyrus 66 is 100 to 300 A.D., both pushed by two groups of people with an obvious agenda, I tend to throw the two extremes out and settle for 200 A.D.

I know atheist professors of history that have no problem with the dates, what qualifications do you have to challenge them?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I did not call it a lie. I am suggesting that it is more than a little questionable. If one gospel says that a "man" was in the tomb saying Jesus is risen, and in another is it says an angel shimmering like lightning, I would call that questionable. If one gospel says Jesus appeared to the disciples in another form, they questioned it, and he admonished them as his only means of proof, while other accounts are more flashy, I would call that questionable.

You don't know much about eyewitness testimony, do you? If one witness to an accident says the car was dark blue and another says it was silver does that mean the accident didn't happen?

I don't claim to be right about the gospels, what in them are true, what in them are false due to historic shading, omissions, additions, or even outright lies. Anything that is passed down from generation to generation is prone to change. Why would the Bible be any different? Are the people passing it down not people? Hell, the Book of Mormon has undergone editorial changes over the years and it is less than 200 years old.

The Bible was written, and has survived unchanged for centuries. Anyone that knows anything about the Bible would tell you the same thing, there is documentation that proves it. I don't actually know enough about the Book of Mormon to comment on its textual accuracy, feel free to challenge a Mormon about it if you want answers.

So, I am willing to concede and allow for the possibility that you use material evidence in your faith. My experience, AND my research, have told me, to the best of my ability, that most people of faith rely more on feelings and instincts and supernatural inclinations than on verifiable information. That is the best that I can do. I suppose you are saying that your beliefs are NOT based in part on your personal experiences? I would find that hard to believe.

Why do you keep going back to your experience like it means something? Does the fact that you have never seen the surface of Pluto somehow serve as evidence that Pluto has no surface? The difference between an intelligent man and a fool is a fool thinks he knows everything, and an intelligent man knows he doesn't know anything.

Again, I'd like to know where I ever said I knew everything. I think I've been pretty forthright about saying that I don't. Between the two of us, you're the one that is so certain that what you say is right.

So, you say that the Bible has remained unchanged for centuries, do you? Please show me the documentation that proves it. Now, are you referring to the last few centuries, or beyond? If you're saying the last few, as in 2-4 centuries, then yes, very little has changed, but even then we see some interesting twists. I will only touch on a couple that I know of readily, but I can dig much further if you would like.

The King James version from 1611 made some key changes in translation from the OT. The OT didn't contain much, if ANY references to Hell. Christians like to point out that the King James Bible references "Hell" 31 times in the OT. Indeed it does, only those that translated the Bible at that time translated the Hebrew "Sheol" as "Hell." Sheol was not Hell, and it is doubtful that the Hebrews even believed in Hell. Even modern Rabbinic interpretation of the OT does not recognize Hell. Sheol is a loose underworld of the dead, pulled possibly from other "pagan" beliefs that held similar beliefs. It was a temporary holding place, akin to another belief in "Gehenna," which is likely to be no different. Christianity took Sheol and turned it into a place of eternal damnation and excommunication from God. That seems a pretty big discrepancy in what would seem a very important part of the belief in the afterlife, wouldn't you agree?

Let's move things a little more recent. The King James Bible makes reference in a few places to creatures that are associated with "pagan" mythological beliefs, yet when one looks at the same passages in other versions since then, those references vanish, or are replaced by other known creatures, such as oxen.

Isaiah twice talks about satyrs(13:21 and 34:14), creatures from Greek mythology, as if they are real, but if you look at virtually all other translations, including the updated "21st Century" King James Bible in one case, they are miraculously omitted. Isaiah, part of the OT, coincides a little with the period recognized as Ancient Greece. So, does this mean that the ancient Hebrews incorporated creatures from Greek mythology into their scriptures? Or did the King James translators add satyrs to the scripture, or mis-translate something? Or did subsequent versions choose to omit them because it might be embarrassing that Judeo-Christianity believed in creatures associated with pagan mythology? Who knows? Certainly not me.

The KJV also makes numerous mentions of cockatrices, both in Isaiah and Jeremiah. This is more curious, as cockatrices were legendary creatures of English myth, and featured prominently in Elizabethan drama and poetry. It just so happens that the Elizabethan period was an immediate precursor to the writing of the KJV, which is an important factor when you consider that there is absolutely no way that a creature from English myth would have been present in the ancient Hebrew texts, so what is it doing showing up four times in the KJV? And again, if you compare it to all other versions, the references to the cockatrice vanish.

UNICORNS! The KJV mentions unicorns quite a few times, in the OT again. Isaiah, Job, Psalms, Numbers, and Deuteronomy all reference a legendary beast first mentioned by the ancient Greeks but the belief in which flourished in Medieval Europe. And, yet again, the reference vanishes if you compare it to other versions, being replaced by oxen or something more mundane.

So, did the ancient Hebrews or early Christians believe that these creatures existed? Were they added to the scripture in 1611 and then systematically removed out of embarrassment? Afterall, the Word of God can't very well be promoting a belief in creatures from pagan belief systems, can it?

I don't know if early Christians or Hebrews believed in satyrs and unicorns, nor do I know why these changes were made. I can only postulate. I can tell you what I think happened, and I've made a few suggestions, but that's really the best I can do. Perhaps you can tell me why these changes were made. My point in all of this is that you say that the Bible has existed unchanged for centuries, and I've just pointed out verifiable evidence that it HAS been changed, and not just to update outdated usage of language. I can dig deeper if you would like, as I'm fairly confident these examples just scratch the surface, unlike the surface of Pluto of which I know nothing about.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

The earliest manuscript fragments of the New Testament date back to within a century of the time it was written, the earliest manuscript fragments of Caesar's Commentaries date back to 1000 years later. There is more evidence for the historical accuracy of of the New Testament than there is for our understanding of the Gallic wars. Feel free to deny that Caesar invaded Germany and get branded as the idiot you clearly want to prove you are.

That depends on who you're asking, and yes, they are fragments. The common acceptance of dates seems to be between 100 and 200 A.D. Depending on who you're asking and what their agenda is, it gets pushed either way.

The earliest known fragments of the NT are from the Papyrus 66 of the Bodmer Papyri of the Alexandrian text-type, c. 200 A.D. This is not a hard-fast date, just the best we've been able to do. Comfort and Barrett's textual criticism placed the document at c. 300 A.D., which some more theological have placed it at closer to c. 100 A.C., therefore making it potentially within a century of the events they depict when one considers that A.D. denotes Jesus' birth and not his death. 200 A.D. seems a rough compensation between two proposed dates, one being the date used by skeptics with the agenda of disproving the authenticity of the NT, and the other by theists with the agenda of the opposite. No big surprise there.

I find the subject fascinating. Christianity is something that has played an enormous role in defining the Western, and parts of the Eastern world. Those with an agenda to establish, be it current or historical, I tend to treat with a rather large grain of salt. Carbon dating cannot be relied upon when pertaining to such a narrow range of time, so that's out. The best shot we have at dating the earliest fragments of the NT is textual criticism. If the two extremes of the range of Papyrus 66 is 100 to 300 A.D., both pushed by two groups of people with an obvious agenda, I tend to throw the two extremes out and settle for 200 A.D.

I know atheist professors of history that have no problem with the dates, what qualifications do you have to challenge them?

I'm not, nor am I challenging any of the others I mentioned. Are you suggesting that I only pay attention to the sources you trust and ignore all others?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again, I'd like to know where I ever said I knew everything. I think I've been pretty forthright about saying that I don't. Between the two of us, you're the one that is so certain that what you say is right.

The reason I am sure I am right is I have had this particular debate more than once, and won every time. The reason I always win is I know the facts, and use them. All you have is your experience, and we have seen how reliable that is. Feel free to prove me wrong, it should be easy if I am.

So, you say that the Bible has remained unchanged for centuries, do you? Please show me the documentation that proves it. Now, are you referring to the last few centuries, or beyond? If you're saying the last few, as in 2-4 centuries, then yes, very little has changed, but even then we see some interesting twists. I will only touch on a couple that I know of readily, but I can dig much further if you would like.

I already did. Unless, that is, you think the Dead Sea Scrolls are part of some vast conspiracy and that someone built a time machine to plant fake evidence.

Good luck with that theory.

The King James version from 1611 made some key changes in translation from the OT. The OT didn't contain much, if ANY references to Hell. Christians like to point out that the King James Bible references "Hell" 31 times in the OT. Indeed it does, only those that translated the Bible at that time translated the Hebrew "Sheol" as "Hell." Sheol was not Hell, and it is doubtful that the Hebrews even believed in Hell. Even modern Rabbinic interpretation of the OT does not recognize Hell. Sheol is a loose underworld of the dead, pulled possibly from other "pagan" beliefs that held similar beliefs. It was a temporary holding place, akin to another belief in "Gehenna," which is likely to be no different. Christianity took Sheol and turned it into a place of eternal damnation and excommunication from God. That seems a pretty big discrepancy in what would seem a very important part of the belief in the afterlife, wouldn't you agree?

Do you understand the difference between a translation and the manuscripts used to make the translation? If not, there is no point continuing this conversation. If yes, what difference does a single translation make to the discussion when the original text still exists?

Let's move things a little more recent. The King James Bible makes reference in a few places to creatures that are associated with "pagan" mythological beliefs, yet when one looks at the same passages in other versions since then, those references vanish, or are replaced by other known creatures, such as oxen.

Isaiah twice talks about satyrs(13:21 and 34:14), creatures from Greek mythology, as if they are real, but if you look at virtually all other translations, including the updated "21st Century" King James Bible in one case, they are miraculously omitted. Isaiah, part of the OT, coincides a little with the period recognized as Ancient Greece. So, does this mean that the ancient Hebrews incorporated creatures from Greek mythology into their scriptures? Or did the King James translators add satyrs to the scripture, or mis-translate something? Or did subsequent versions choose to omit them because it might be embarrassing that Judeo-Christianity believed in creatures associated with pagan mythology? Who knows? Certainly not me.

The KJV also makes numerous mentions of cockatrices, both in Isaiah and Jeremiah. This is more curious, as cockatrices were legendary creatures of English myth, and featured prominently in Elizabethan drama and poetry. It just so happens that the Elizabethan period was an immediate precursor to the writing of the KJV, which is an important factor when you consider that there is absolutely no way that a creature from English myth would have been present in the ancient Hebrew texts, so what is it doing showing up four times in the KJV? And again, if you compare it to all other versions, the references to the cockatrice vanish.

UNICORNS! The KJV mentions unicorns quite a few times, in the OT again. Isaiah, Job, Psalms, Numbers, and Deuteronomy all reference a legendary beast first mentioned by the ancient Greeks but the belief in which flourished in Medieval Europe. And, yet again, the reference vanishes if you compare it to other versions, being replaced by oxen or something more mundane.

Is your point that the KJV took a few liberties? Am I supposed to collapse in a whimpering puddle of dog spittle because it did?

So, did the ancient Hebrews or early Christians believe that these creatures existed? Were they added to the scripture in 1611 and then systematically removed out of embarrassment? Afterall, the Word of God can't very well be promoting a belief in creatures from pagan belief systems, can it?

I don't know if early Christians or Hebrews believed in satyrs and unicorns, nor do I know why these changes were made. I can only postulate. I can tell you what I think happened, and I've made a few suggestions, but that's really the best I can do. Perhaps you can tell me why these changes were made. My point in all of this is that you say that the Bible has existed unchanged for centuries, and I've just pointed out verifiable evidence that it HAS been changed, and not just to update outdated usage of language. I can dig deeper if you would like, as I'm fairly confident these examples just scratch the surface, unlike the surface of Pluto of which I know nothing about.

If you don't like the KJV translation I suggest you go back in time and take it up with them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That depends on who you're asking, and yes, they are fragments. The common acceptance of dates seems to be between 100 and 200 A.D. Depending on who you're asking and what their agenda is, it gets pushed either way.

The earliest known fragments of the NT are from the Papyrus 66 of the Bodmer Papyri of the Alexandrian text-type, c. 200 A.D. This is not a hard-fast date, just the best we've been able to do. Comfort and Barrett's textual criticism placed the document at c. 300 A.D., which some more theological have placed it at closer to c. 100 A.C., therefore making it potentially within a century of the events they depict when one considers that A.D. denotes Jesus' birth and not his death. 200 A.D. seems a rough compensation between two proposed dates, one being the date used by skeptics with the agenda of disproving the authenticity of the NT, and the other by theists with the agenda of the opposite. No big surprise there.

I find the subject fascinating. Christianity is something that has played an enormous role in defining the Western, and parts of the Eastern world. Those with an agenda to establish, be it current or historical, I tend to treat with a rather large grain of salt. Carbon dating cannot be relied upon when pertaining to such a narrow range of time, so that's out. The best shot we have at dating the earliest fragments of the NT is textual criticism. If the two extremes of the range of Papyrus 66 is 100 to 300 A.D., both pushed by two groups of people with an obvious agenda, I tend to throw the two extremes out and settle for 200 A.D.

I know atheist professors of history that have no problem with the dates, what qualifications do you have to challenge them?

I'm not, nor am I challenging any of the others I mentioned. Are you suggesting that I only pay attention to the sources you trust and ignore all others?

I suggest you start paying to the people who obviously do not have an agenda, relying on those who fly in the face of accepted dating in order to discredit the Bible is just as stupid as relying on those who fly in the face of accepted dating to support it.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Again, I'd like to know where I ever said I knew everything. I think I've been pretty forthright about saying that I don't. Between the two of us, you're the one that is so certain that what you say is right.

The reason I am sure I am right is I have had this particular debate more than once, and won every time. The reason I always win is I know the facts, and use them. All you have is your experience, and we have seen how reliable that is. Feel free to prove me wrong, it should be easy if I am.

So, you say that the Bible has remained unchanged for centuries, do you? Please show me the documentation that proves it. Now, are you referring to the last few centuries, or beyond? If you're saying the last few, as in 2-4 centuries, then yes, very little has changed, but even then we see some interesting twists. I will only touch on a couple that I know of readily, but I can dig much further if you would like.

I already did. Unless, that is, you think the Dead Sea Scrolls are part of some vast conspiracy and that someone built a time machine to plant fake evidence.

Good luck with that theory.



Do you understand the difference between a translation and the manuscripts used to make the translation? If not, there is no point continuing this conversation. If yes, what difference does a single translation make to the discussion when the original text still exists?

Let's move things a little more recent. The King James Bible makes reference in a few places to creatures that are associated with "pagan" mythological beliefs, yet when one looks at the same passages in other versions since then, those references vanish, or are replaced by other known creatures, such as oxen.

Isaiah twice talks about satyrs(13:21 and 34:14), creatures from Greek mythology, as if they are real, but if you look at virtually all other translations, including the updated "21st Century" King James Bible in one case, they are miraculously omitted. Isaiah, part of the OT, coincides a little with the period recognized as Ancient Greece. So, does this mean that the ancient Hebrews incorporated creatures from Greek mythology into their scriptures? Or did the King James translators add satyrs to the scripture, or mis-translate something? Or did subsequent versions choose to omit them because it might be embarrassing that Judeo-Christianity believed in creatures associated with pagan mythology? Who knows? Certainly not me.

The KJV also makes numerous mentions of cockatrices, both in Isaiah and Jeremiah. This is more curious, as cockatrices were legendary creatures of English myth, and featured prominently in Elizabethan drama and poetry. It just so happens that the Elizabethan period was an immediate precursor to the writing of the KJV, which is an important factor when you consider that there is absolutely no way that a creature from English myth would have been present in the ancient Hebrew texts, so what is it doing showing up four times in the KJV? And again, if you compare it to all other versions, the references to the cockatrice vanish.

UNICORNS! The KJV mentions unicorns quite a few times, in the OT again. Isaiah, Job, Psalms, Numbers, and Deuteronomy all reference a legendary beast first mentioned by the ancient Greeks but the belief in which flourished in Medieval Europe. And, yet again, the reference vanishes if you compare it to other versions, being replaced by oxen or something more mundane.

Is your point that the KJV took a few liberties? Am I supposed to collapse in a whimpering puddle of dog spittle because it did?

So, did the ancient Hebrews or early Christians believe that these creatures existed? Were they added to the scripture in 1611 and then systematically removed out of embarrassment? Afterall, the Word of God can't very well be promoting a belief in creatures from pagan belief systems, can it?

I don't know if early Christians or Hebrews believed in satyrs and unicorns, nor do I know why these changes were made. I can only postulate. I can tell you what I think happened, and I've made a few suggestions, but that's really the best I can do. Perhaps you can tell me why these changes were made. My point in all of this is that you say that the Bible has existed unchanged for centuries, and I've just pointed out verifiable evidence that it HAS been changed, and not just to update outdated usage of language. I can dig deeper if you would like, as I'm fairly confident these examples just scratch the surface, unlike the surface of Pluto of which I know nothing about.

If you don't like the KJV translation I suggest you go back in time and take it up with them.

I continue this, Quantum, mainly because I enjoy debating you. I have far too much regard for your tenacity to expect you to collapse into a whimpering puddle of dog spittle. But damn you for your analogy because picturing a puddle whimpering made me shoot coffee through my nostrils.

You made a simple claim that the Bible has remained unchanged. You do realize what "unchanged" means, don't you? And I think I'm being fairly reasonable here. I allow for changes in use of language, but when there is a specific effort made to remove the existence of a series of references that have something in common, it is not a small thing.

Are you saying that the changing of a concept, from "sheol" to "hell," is and insignificant "taking of liberties?" No, sir, Sheol and Hell have two distinctly different meanings. The concept of "Hell" was well-established by the time the KJV was translated. Taking liberties indeed.

The Christian theory of the origin of the Dead Sea Scrolls is but one among many, and is built solely on the existence of a single fragment in one of the many scrolls found as being from the Gospel of Mark. The arguments in favor of the passage being from Mark is built on a number of assumptions, and there are more arguments against the theory than for. The theory was first promoted by Biblical scholar Jose O'Callaghan Martinez, and further pushed by Carsten Peter Thiede, but the theory has been rejected by most scholars. It is not my fault that so many scholars have rejected it.

The main difference between you and I is that I don't have anything I'm trying to prove. In a way I WANT the Dead Sea Scrolls to be of Christian origin. I would like for that mystery to be solved. You see, I don't question God, I question man. If man changed Sheol to Hell, or systematically removed references to pagan creatures for whatever reason, or insist on the Dead Sea Scrolls proving an earlier fragment of the NT when there is really no proof of it, then that is a problem with man, not God. I'm not a gnostic, but in many ways I am fascinated by the gnostics because they didn't take the ancient writings inspired by Jesus and his disciples and decided that this one was okay and this one was not. You, on the other hand, must establish the authenticity of the gospels. It is your imperative. It doesn't matter what I say, because your response will always be one of derision. I know I can count on that.

And, per your last post, you're the one that is so focused on "winning." That's your language. I'm here to learn and to increase my understanding. In order to engage in this discussion, I am forced to research and report. It is stimulating. It is beneficial. You are very confrontational and you have a focus on winning. Your focus seems more on establishing the other as an idiot or and asshole. I pay pretty close attention to you, Quantum, so in some ways you really should take that as a compliment.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I know atheist professors of history that have no problem with the dates, what qualifications do you have to challenge them?

I'm not, nor am I challenging any of the others I mentioned. Are you suggesting that I only pay attention to the sources you trust and ignore all others?

I suggest you start paying to the people who obviously do not have an agenda, relying on those who fly in the face of accepted dating in order to discredit the Bible is just as stupid as relying on those who fly in the face of accepted dating to support it.

I agree. I don't rely on any one source. Never have.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I continue this, Quantum, mainly because I enjoy debating you. I have far too much regard for your tenacity to expect you to collapse into a whimpering puddle of dog spittle. But damn you for your analogy because picturing a puddle whimpering made me shoot coffee through my nostrils.

Nice to know I can occasionally contribute to the destruction of keyboards and monitors.

By the way, hasn't anyone ever told you not to drink coffee around a computer?

You made a simple claim that the Bible has remained unchanged. You do realize what "unchanged" means, don't you? And I think I'm being fairly reasonable here. I allow for changes in use of language, but when there is a specific effort made to remove the existence of a series of references that have something in common, it is not a small thing.

Those references are not in the Bible, they are in a single translation of the Bible, the first official government sanctioned translation in history. I don't know about you, but I expect anything a government does to be screwed up.

Are you saying that the changing of a concept, from "sheol" to "hell," is and insignificant "taking of liberties?" No, sir, Sheol and Hell have two distinctly different meanings. The concept of "Hell" was well-established by the time the KJV was translated. Taking liberties indeed.

I pretty much ignored this before because you are talking about doctrine, not the Bible.

The Hebrew word translated as hell in the KJV is sheol. Sheol basically means grave. I don't know why the KJV used hell here, nor do I care, I am not defending the KJV translation, I am defending the Bible, which uses the word שְׁאוֹל.

The Christian theory of the origin of the Dead Sea Scrolls is but one among many, and is built solely on the existence of a single fragment in one of the many scrolls found as being from the Gospel of Mark. The arguments in favor of the passage being from Mark is built on a number of assumptions, and there are more arguments against the theory than for. The theory was first promoted by Biblical scholar Jose O'Callaghan Martinez, and further pushed by Carsten Peter Thiede, but the theory has been rejected by most scholars. It is not my fault that so many scholars have rejected it.

The Christian theory? What Christian theory are you talking about? The anthropologists who study the scrolls tell me that the Essenes were a sect of Jewish believers. The Dead Sea Scrolls did not contain a fragment of the Gospel of Mark because they predate Christ by 3 to 400 years.

The main difference between you and I is that I don't have anything I'm trying to prove. In a way I WANT the Dead Sea Scrolls to be of Christian origin. I would like for that mystery to be solved. You see, I don't question God, I question man. If man changed Sheol to Hell, or systematically removed references to pagan creatures for whatever reason, or insist on the Dead Sea Scrolls proving an earlier fragment of the NT when there is really no proof of it, then that is a problem with man, not God. I'm not a gnostic, but in many ways I am fascinated by the gnostics because they didn't take the ancient writings inspired by Jesus and his disciples and decided that this one was okay and this one was not. You, on the other hand, must establish the authenticity of the gospels. It is your imperative. It doesn't matter what I say, because your response will always be one of derision. I know I can count on that.

You want the Dead Sea Scrolls to be about a sect that didn't appear until 300 years after they were written? Why?

And, per your last post, you're the one that is so focused on "winning." That's your language. I'm here to learn and to increase my understanding. In order to engage in this discussion, I am forced to research and report. It is stimulating. It is beneficial. You are very confrontational and you have a focus on winning. Your focus seems more on establishing the other as an idiot or and asshole. I pay pretty close attention to you, Quantum, so in some ways you really should take that as a compliment.

I win because I stick to facts, unlike you. If I ever came across anyone that tired to tie the Dead Sea Scrolls to Christianity I dismissed them without further reading.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I continue this, Quantum, mainly because I enjoy debating you. I have far too much regard for your tenacity to expect you to collapse into a whimpering puddle of dog spittle. But damn you for your analogy because picturing a puddle whimpering made me shoot coffee through my nostrils.

Nice to know I can occasionally contribute to the destruction of keyboards and monitors.

By the way, hasn't anyone ever told you not to drink coffee around a computer?

You made a simple claim that the Bible has remained unchanged. You do realize what "unchanged" means, don't you? And I think I'm being fairly reasonable here. I allow for changes in use of language, but when there is a specific effort made to remove the existence of a series of references that have something in common, it is not a small thing.

Those references are not in the Bible, they are in a single translation of the Bible, the first official government sanctioned translation in history. I don't know about you, but I expect anything a government does to be screwed up.



I pretty much ignored this before because you are talking about doctrine, not the Bible.

The Hebrew word translated as hell in the KJV is sheol. Sheol basically means grave. I don't know why the KJV used hell here, nor do I care, I am not defending the KJV translation, I am defending the Bible, which uses the word שְׁאוֹל.



The Christian theory? What Christian theory are you talking about? The anthropologists who study the scrolls tell me that the Essenes were a sect of Jewish believers. The Dead Sea Scrolls did not contain a fragment of the Gospel of Mark because they predate Christ by 3 to 400 years.

The main difference between you and I is that I don't have anything I'm trying to prove. In a way I WANT the Dead Sea Scrolls to be of Christian origin. I would like for that mystery to be solved. You see, I don't question God, I question man. If man changed Sheol to Hell, or systematically removed references to pagan creatures for whatever reason, or insist on the Dead Sea Scrolls proving an earlier fragment of the NT when there is really no proof of it, then that is a problem with man, not God. I'm not a gnostic, but in many ways I am fascinated by the gnostics because they didn't take the ancient writings inspired by Jesus and his disciples and decided that this one was okay and this one was not. You, on the other hand, must establish the authenticity of the gospels. It is your imperative. It doesn't matter what I say, because your response will always be one of derision. I know I can count on that.

You want the Dead Sea Scrolls to be about a sect that didn't appear until 300 years after they were written? Why?

And, per your last post, you're the one that is so focused on "winning." That's your language. I'm here to learn and to increase my understanding. In order to engage in this discussion, I am forced to research and report. It is stimulating. It is beneficial. You are very confrontational and you have a focus on winning. Your focus seems more on establishing the other as an idiot or and asshole. I pay pretty close attention to you, Quantum, so in some ways you really should take that as a compliment.

I win because I stick to facts, unlike you. If I ever came across anyone that tired to tie the Dead Sea Scrolls to Christianity I dismissed them without further reading.

I wasn't trying to establish anything of the kind. Goodness. So, you are unaware the theory that was promoted by the two men mentioned above. I get it. I figured if you researched the Dead Sea Scrolls you would know about it. Most do. My mistake. Moving on.

Now, I REALLY don't know what you're on about. The Dead Sea Scrolls are an extremely significant find because they are the earliest known copies of biblical documents and provided a greater perspective of the Second Temple Judaism. I just don't know that has to do with the authenticity of the Bible. Some texts bear close correlation with later translations, while others have dramatic differences. Anyway, I have never questioned the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls. My main mistake was in assuming that you were pushing the same tired notion of NT content that I've heard many times.

In any event, I am troubled at your insistence that I do not use facts. I have really done my best to stick to exactly the facts. If I failed to establish a proper context, well, I'm only human. However, when you say that I lie or not use facts, please point out where. You have a tendency to just say "liar" and "stupid" and "unfactual," you never point out where. The theory of Christian content is a fact. I didn't make it up, I just misunderstood what you were trying to say. I have not presented a single bit of information that is not based on fact.