So yeah, our threads on religion have long since died out, so I figured it would be time to start afresh here!
Do you believe God exists (I know almost all of you don't)? Do you feel religion is important today? Is it a force for good? Discuss everything related to that here!
I'm going to start the ball rolling:
We all know about the rise of ISIS and the terrible acts it perpetuates. Does that show that Islam and religion in general is an awful concept? Is it the people who twist it? Or is it fundamentally an evil force?
Because that was supposedly the most important part of it.
Fair point. Wikipedia While the internet disagrees that Moses wrote the book, it agrees with the fact that the Law of Moses refers the Pentateuch and that the Bible (and not just Christians) claims that Moses wrote it. Because I agree with the Bible, I believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
Why? How? What justification do you have for this claim?
He would want the Israelites to understand the laws of God.
Luke, or whoever actually wrote that scripture, also wouldn't know who wrote the Pentateuch. At best he could only speculate.
He looked at the rest of the looked at the Old Testament and saw that they claimed that Moses wrote it.
. . . What original? I'm saying that Hebrew would not have existed as a written language independent of Egyptian during his lifetime, nor would any slave in Egypt be capable of writing.
I know slavery was much more humane back then over there. They probably knew how to read and stuff. Why wouldn't have Hebrew existed as a written language?
Learned from whom?
Maybe not in order to understand the 10 Commandments but they already knew.
So we're agreed that it wasn't necessarily copied very well throughout time, right?
I'm not Muslim so I don't agree.
No, his mother nursed him because the pharaoh's daughter, who raised him, couldn't lactate yet.
While the internet disagrees that Moses wrote the book, it agrees with the fact that the Law of Moses refers the Pentateuch and that the Bible (and not just Christians) claims that Moses wrote it.
Etymological fallacy. The fact that the phrase is currently used in reference to it does not make all usage of the phrase in reference to it. If we examine the article, we find this:
"The Law of Moses or Torah of Moses [...] is a biblical term first found in the Book of Joshua 8:31-32"
That passage reads:
"30Then Joshua built on Mount Ebal an altar to the Lord, the God of Israel, 31just as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded the Israelites, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, “an altar of unhewn stones, on which no iron tool has been used”; and they offered on it burnt offerings to the Lord, and sacrificed offerings of well-being. 32And there, in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua wrote on the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he had written."
Joshua (or whoever actually wrote the book of Joshua) makes a clear distinction between the Law of Moses and the book about it. The book has no stated author, whereas the law is attributed to Moses.
He would want the Israelites to understand the laws of God.
Well, I suppose that's good enough for why. What about How?
He looked at the rest of the looked at the Old Testament and saw that they claimed that Moses wrote it.
Well, they didn't, so he speculated.
I know slavery was much more humane back then over there. They probably knew how to read and stuff. Why wouldn't have Hebrew existed as a written language?
Because reading/writing was a rare and highly valued skill to the Egyptians. If any common slave could do it, the scribes would be out of a job.
I'm not Muslim so I don't agree.
Allow me to summarize:
1 The Bible contains a copy of the Pentateuch.
2 The Quran contains a copy of the Pentateuch.
3 The Bible's Pentateuch is not the same as the Quran's Pentateuch.
4 These Pentateuchs cannot both be the same as the original Pentateuch.
5 Therefore, the Pentateuch was not copied very well throughout time.
He probably had lots of exposure to Hebrew still.
Yeah, as it was spoken. If he learned to write at all, it was at an Egyptian school with an Egyptian teacher where he learned and practiced writing in Egyptian.
That's a very good point. The best evidence that I can come up with is Luke 24:44. I believe that when Jesus says the Law of Moses he means the first 5 books of the Bible. Even if Moses wasn't the one who wrote it, the person (people) who did was inspired by God in the same way every other biblical author was.
Well, I suppose that's good enough for why. What about How?
Using Hebrew script. I can't explain how they learned how to read and write, but I am putting my faith in that they did. Even if it was originally in Egyptian, the computer program that processed the Hebrew text isn't the deciding factor of whether or not Moses was the author or not.
It might seem like I'm completely ignoring the evidence, but even all those theories about separate authors of the Pentateuch are just theories as well. I can't really argue against it because I'm not an expert on archeology and history. I still have enough room to put my faith in God all things considered.
Allow me to summarize:
1 The Bible contains a copy of the Pentateuch.
2 The Quran contains a copy of the Pentateuch.
3 The Bible's Pentateuch is not the same as the Quran's Pentateuch.
4 These Pentateuchs cannot both be the same as the original Pentateuch.
5 Therefore, the Pentateuch was not copied very well throughout time.
The Quran contains a modified copy of the Pentateuch because they believe that the Bible's version (and the Torah) has been corrupted by men. They changed it after the fact.
While we wait for Fish, these were the problems deflected by the sentiment that all biblical variations are God's Will. Since that's out, they're unanswered.
"The Bible: A vague and heavily modified collection of texts written by several unknown authors before the birth of fact-checking which are even today the subject of considerable disagreement. I'd expect a supreme being of unlimited power to do a lot better."
"There is no body of text that is definitively His Word."
"Which one? There are hundreds of recognized variations, and thousands if not millions of contradicting interpretations."
"Yes, here we are again. A scumbag deity who only saves His very own chosen people under very specific conditions, and is completely oblivious to everyone else."
The Bible: A vague and heavily modified collection of texts written by several unknown authors before the birth of fact-checking which are even today the subject of considerable disagreement. I'd expect a supreme being of unlimited power to do a lot better.
Hmm what do you expect God to do to preserve his word? It hasn't even been modified that much except for the translations. Even those preserve God's word very well, especially when you compare each translation to each other. That goes with all the variants of the original texts as well; when you compare them, they all say the same thing. There are 200,000-400,000 variants found from the manuscript copies depending on who you ask. Many of those variants are spelling errors meaning that the misspelling of a single word in 2,000 manuscripts counts as 2,000 variants. Then still other variants reverse the order of words such as "Christ Jesus" and "Jesus Christ".
There is no body of text that is definitively His Word.
We have those manuscripts to refer to.
Which one? There are hundreds of recognized variations, and thousands if not millions of contradicting interpretations.
Those contradictions come from the translations. Any contradiction can be resolved using the manuscripts.
Yes, here we are again. A scumbag deity who only saves His very own chosen people under very specific conditions, and is completely oblivious to everyone else.
He saves his people no condition other than that He chose them. By answering this, we are going back into the accountability argument again I feel like.
Hmm what do you expect God to do to preserve his word?
For starters, if it needs to be written, He could write it on a medium that cannot be damaged or aged or lost, and can be read in any language directly, such that its meaning is instantly known. Especially not solely using languages that He knows would die out in a few centuries.
It hasn't even been modified that much
There are no original documents to uphold that claim. Even some of the oldest copies have variants to comparable works of their age.
except for the translations.
Then that's His fault for confusing everyone's languages without subverting complications. If His ultimate goal was to spread His message and unite people as followers, he really threw a wrench in it.
We have those manuscripts to refer to.
We have fragments of copies penned centuries later for some sections of books. You seem to think "the manuscripts" are like an Encyclopedia Britannica filed neatly on a shelf, with which to compare newer editions.
Those contradictions come from the translations. Any contradiction can be resolved using the manuscripts.
How many blind people did Jesus heal on the road near Jericho, and was he traveling to or from the city?
For starters, if it needs to be written, He could write it on a medium that cannot be damaged or aged or lost, and can be read in any language directly, such that its meaning is instantly known. Especially not solely using languages that He knows would die out in a few centuries.
He could, but that's not how the world works. Paper gets damaged or lost and there is no way for people to communicate ideas instantly to different languages. We have developed computers and other technology to store data for a longggg time and we have several translations readily available for many places in the world now. Back then, when the authors wrote it, they didn't have that. That's how God planned it though. He wanted to use his people to document his word so they can tell their own account of God's attributes because the Bible isn't all about laws and how to get saved. It's a narrative of God's works that shows how much He loves us through the experience of those authors. If God wrote it Himself, you can argue that his love is all talk and no action.
There are no original documents to uphold that claim. Even some of the oldest copies have variants to comparable works of their age.
Oh. Well even if it was modified, there is no effect on any major doctrines of Christianity. I like to think about how many manuscripts of the Bible we have found compared to any other ancient document and we already know so much about the Greek philosophers. I would like to think that the Bible has been modified to the same extent if not less than the documents that talk about those guys. Then we have the "testimonia" of early church fathers which can reconstruct more than 99% of the New Testament written within 150 to 200 years after Jesus.
Then that's His fault for confusing everyone's languages without subverting complications. If His ultimate goal was to spread His message and unite people as followers, he really threw a wrench in it.
No, they are being united despite our differences in language so that argument doesn't really make sense. I think there is great success in what He is trying to do.
We have fragments of copies penned centuries later for some sections of books. You seem to think "the manuscripts" are like an Encyclopedia Britannica filed neatly on a shelf, with which to compare newer editions.
What I'm saying is that we have enough information to know what the original writings said and therefore we know God's word the way God intended.
How many blind people did Jesus heal on the road near Jericho, and was he traveling to or from the city?
Each gospel only accounts for a portion of what actually happened and some include more details than others. By glancing at the wiki article, it seems like Jesus healed 2 blind people.
You've said that He's not even bound by logic, so that excuse is irrelevant.
Back then, when the authors wrote it, they didn't have that.
That's the point. An infinite being could've given them any medium imaginable or unimaginable.
"Here's the InfiniBook. Write your thoughts here so that they will transcend time perfectly, without transcription errors, or needing interpretation or translation."
He wanted to use his people to document his word so they can tell their own account of God's attributes
Why not give them something more durable to write on instead of vulnerable materials?
Well even if it was modified, there is no effect on any major doctrines of Christianity.
There are no original documents to uphold that claim. Perhaps some were "too radical" for their time and were modified accordingly. As we've discussed, one of the likely methods for including books was "Does this agree with what I already believe?"
No, they are being united despite our differences in language so that argument doesn't really make sense.
Humans had to undermine God's trickery in order to spread the message.
Each gospel only accounts for a portion of what actually happened and some include more details than others.
These are allegedly firsthand accounts of the same event with directly conflicting information, not dependent on translation errors. It's not a matter of "more details than others," it's direct contradictions within their supposedly divine and perfect writings. If "Those contradictions come from the translations. Any contradiction can be resolved using the manuscripts," then resolve it.
By glancing at the wiki article, it seems like Jesus healed 2 blind people.
To take any stance is to pit 1 author against 2, as though to claim "They're all divinely inspired, but some are more divinely inspired than others."
I would like to think that the Bible has been modified to the same extent if not less than the documents that talk about those guys.
The difference is that nobody was trying to insert their own beliefs into, say, Homer's Odyssey, and nobody is basing their entire life on that particular work of historical fiction. But with the books of the bible, people were, and are.
You've said that He's not even bound by logic, so that excuse is irrelevant.
After reading that one article, I realized I was wrong.
That's the point. An infinite being could've given them any medium imaginable or unimaginable.
"Here's the InfiniBook. Write your thoughts here so that they will transcend time perfectly, without transcription errors, or needing interpretation or translation."
True. An omnipotent God can make everyone bend to his will also but you don't see Him do that.
Why not give them something more durable to write on instead of vulnerable materials?
Because that wasn't available at the time. Or at least that wasn't God's will to.
There are no original documents to uphold that claim. Perhaps some were "too radical" for their time and were modified accordingly. As we've discussed, one of the likely methods for including books was "Does this agree with what I already believe?"
I get what you mean now, but the New Testament carries one of the most radical messages of all time. Additionally, the method is actually "Does it agree with what is already known by previous revelation?" In other words, does it agree with the Old Testament. Another regarding the wisdom of God's people is "Was it accepted by the people of God?" Moses's and Joshua's writings (if it was even refering to the Pentateuch) were put into the ark of the covenant immediately. All of Paul's letters were being circulated within the early churches. Paul's writings include controversial ideas but nevertheless had a clear solution. They could have rejected Paul's teachings immediately but by the will of God they accepted it.
Humans had to undermine God's trickery in order to spread the message.
Or God has to navigate the limitations of humans to achieve his will which He also does when He saves us.
These are allegedly firsthand accounts of the same event with directly conflicting information, not dependent on translation errors. It's not a matter of "more details than others," it's direct contradictions within their supposedly divine and perfect writings. If "Those contradictions come from the translations. Any contradiction can be resolved using the manuscripts," then resolve it.
To take any stance is to pit 1 author against 2, as though to claim "They're all divinely inspired, but some are more divinely inspired than others."
What I'm saying is that the authors purposely chose certain details over others. I say Jesus healed 2 because one of the authors chose not to include the detail where there were multiple blind people and decided to focus on 1 named man.
The difference is that nobody was trying to insert their own beliefs into, say, Homer's Odyssey, and nobody is basing their entire life on that particular work of historical fiction. But with the books of the bible, people were, and are.
Not for historical fiction but for philosophical works maybe. Not to say that anyone changed up "Republic" by Plato in order to make his philosophy fit their own for example, but you just can't. It's too embedded and it already fits together perfectly. If you change one part of it, the entire philosophy comes into question just like God's word.
Or God has to navigate the limitations of humans to achieve his will
If He literally forced people's languages to change, that's directly imposing the limitation so that we need translations. "He broke our legs, but we made crutches, so we can still walk, sort of, just like He intended. Glory!"
In other words, does it agree with the Old Testament.
There's no way of knowing the extent to which their copies of the OT were modified as well. Regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls: "some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100."
Another regarding the wisdom of God's people is "Was it accepted by the people of God?"
Any potential dissenters risked being marked as heretics or threatened with excommunication, so of course it was accepted. Anyone who didn't agree was removed from the category of God's people, so their views wouldn't count.
What I'm saying is that the authors purposely chose certain details over others.
Was he on his way to or from the city? This is a dichotomy. It's one way or the other. This isn't a matter of details or focus. The directions are in direct contradiction.
I say Jesus healed 2 because one of the authors chose not to include the detail where there were multiple blind people and decided to focus on 1 named man.
Matthew says Jesus healed 2 leaving Jericho. Luke says Jesus healed 1 toward Jericho. Mark says Jesus healed 1 leaving Jericho.
If you change one part of it, the entire philosophy comes into question just like God's word.
What's your stance on the ending of Mark 16? That's one of the more controversial sections in terms of the text being considered as either holy or heretical.
If He literally forced people's languages to change, that's directly imposing the limitation so that we need translations. "He broke our legs, but we made crutches, so we can still walk, sort of, just like He intended. Glory!"
If you think of it like that, it's not us who made crutches, but God. It was people's fault that He changed our languages anyways.
There's no way of knowing the extent to which their copies of the OT were modified as well.
Those modifications would not affect the way we worship God in any way. If we found all the copies and the originals, that would be the case.
Any potential dissenters risked being marked as heretics or threatened with excommunication, so of course it was accepted. Anyone who didn't agree was removed from the category of God's people, so their views wouldn't count.
Those potential dissenters were in the minority then.
Was he on his way to or from the city? This is a dichotomy. It's one way or the other. This isn't a matter of details or focus. The directions are in direct contradiction.
Consider the fact that there were 2 Jerichos. The Jericho from the story of Joshua and the Roman Jericho were separate locations to and from which Jesus traveled.
Matthew says Jesus healed 2 leaving Jericho.
Luke says Jesus healed 1 toward Jericho.
Mark says Jesus healed 1 leaving Jericho.
Oops. *Two of the authors chose to focus on one guy.
What's your stance on the ending of Mark 16? That's one of the more controversial sections in terms of the text being considered as either holy or heretical.
Controversial in terms of its canon status but not much so in terms of doctrine. Whether you include it or not, it doesn't affect a single major doctrine. If it means anything, I don't think it should be included because it was not found in any of our oldest manuscripts.
