Why I am not a Christian

[Jon Miller]

the oldest bits and peices date pre100 AD

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

here, I will give you one link (it is actually interesting stuff, I have been reading it for a while (a bunch of links))

http://www.clt.astate.edu/wnarey/Bible%20as%20Literature%20documents/content2.htm

JM

[Whaleboy]

Going on Rabbinic tradition with replicating the Torah, each text takes a considerable amount of time to copy and is done so with a ridiculous amount of care. Furthermore new copies are used seamlessly with old ones so errors would presumably be ironed out... they're not copying from merely one text and using the new ones after a cut-off point. Same thing goes for the Roman, dark age and medieval scribes (latterly monks) who would copy out the hebrew -> greek -> latin bible.

Needless to say, both the original and any changes are going to be artificial and most likely politically motivated.

[bayraven]

Jon,
I was asking for non-biblical MSS from 100-300 AD to compare the accuracy rate VS the Bible. Since the site you posted (which is most helpful btw) was in support of the accuracy of the Bible, can I assume that you were talking about Bible-related-writings when you referenced the accuracy of works from that period?

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Needless to say, both the original and any changes are going to be artificial and most likely politically motivated.

This presumes that literature relating to faith cannot be truthful / accurate because it describes faith? If that premise is the root an 'impartial' inquiry, one could never get an honest assessment of *any* faith based work because the critic dismisses the credibility of the document before looking at it. Remember Aristotle's dictum that "the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself."

[Whaleboy]

This presumes that literature relating to faith cannot be truthful / accurate because it describes faith?

Not there... all it's saying there is that the literature itself is going to have been politically influenced... consider the likely "modifications" that may be made to the likes of "Moby Dick" and "All Quiet on the Western Front" in the next two millennia. The question of faith is irrelevant to that, since I take it as given that the bible isn't representing actual history.

However, if a document is based on faith as opposed to reality, then obviously it cannot be taken seriously. If it is based on reality with the influence of faith, then I would look at it in the same manner as, say, German propaganda re. the annexation of Austria in 1938 relative to the actual event (latterly as unbiased).

Documents of course should be judged as per their contents and not by the motivations of who wrote them, but that is relevant when it comes to their evidential credentials. It is perfectly reasonable to trust a neutral news source to a greater degree than a biased one.

And shall get on with your email later!

[bayraven]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
consider the likely "modifications" that may be made to the likes of "Moby Dick" and "All Quiet on the Western Front" in the next two millennia.

Makes the consistency of the Bible all the more apparent

I take it as given that the bible isn't representing actual history.

Archaeology has proven time and again the historicity of the Bible. Each successive claim by the higher criticism falls to the proof of archaeology. Put me to work; allow me to refute any claim of an event in the Bible that you believe has been DIS-proven by archaeology

However, if a document is based on faith as opposed to reality, then obviously it cannot be taken seriously.

This is the point I railed against in the first place, that literature describing faith "cannot be taken seriously." The mindset presented is that articles of faith preclude reality, that they are mutually exclusive. For example the story of Polycarp being toasted for faith in Christ. That is considered 'faith literature', (because that kind of determination and willingness to be martyred is to me testament to his belief in the divinity of Christ) but it cannot be dismissed as untruthful or non-authentic history JUST because it recounts an act of faith. The last seven words of the previous sentence seem to be the basis to disqualify the (historicity of the) Bible.

[Whaleboy]

Makes the consistency of the Bible all the more apparent

Different editions as opposed to changes... I'd imagine a greater change subliminally through the translators in the two cases I've mentioned as the English language evolves, in the case of the bible the traditional method of replication would be similarly secure as print. As for the bible, what is essentially the Torah is a political manifesto of King Hezekiah (http://www.channel4.com/culture/micr...not/bible.html) pro monotheism.

One point that is of not the least bit of interest is that "Moses" is found writing about his own death and events after!

Archaeology has proven time and again the historicity of the Bible. Each successive claim by the higher criticism falls to the proof of archaeology. Put me to work; allow me to refute any claim of an event in the Bible that you believe has been DIS-proven by archaeology

But this does not prove that the bible is canonical, indeed since many theories now hold that the bible was drawn from many ancient texts and legends, it certainly follows that it would loosely mirror historical events. For example, the eruption of Santorini would have created effects similar to those seen in the 10 plagues in Exodus, at very similar time to the supposed events of the exodus. Similarly the great flood is consistent with the inundation of the Black Sea by the Mediterranian 7000 years ago give or take.

Even the likes of Sodom and Gomorrah sinking into the Dead Sea is consistent with the local geology, so I am not surprised that these events would find themselves in the bible... particularly if the writers are looking for evidence of deity that would seek and magnify events inexplicable at the time, and it seems reasonable that their writings would concur with geological and the relevant archeological features. That we should accept its authority on matters other than vague Bronze age history and anthropology is quite a leap.

This is the point I railed against in the first place, that literature describing faith "cannot be taken seriously."

"Document is based on faith as opposed to reality, then obviously it cannot be taken seriously" is not "literature describing faith". The latter can be perfectly analytical and objective, the bible is essentially the former.

Occams razor automatically puts the burden of proof on the unpremised, that is any unpremised claim from "Polycarp being toasted for faith in Christ", and if you agree that it is predicated in faith then in an objective sense that concludes with it being unpremised. Similarly I could say that I have faith in the Giant Pixie and make up a Pythonesque scripture to go with it... but if I say that I base it entirely on my faith then I am making a statement about whether or not it is based upon reason.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by bayraven
Then it is necessary to throw out nearly all ancient history as we know it.
Plato (Tetralogies) written around 350 BC, no longer extant, earliest copy is from 900 AD
Thucydides (Pelop. war) written 460-400 BC, non-extant, earliest copy 900 AD
Suetonius ( De Vita Caesarum) written 75-160 BC, non -extant, earliest copy 950 AD
Herodotus (best history book i've ever read) Written 480-425 BC, non-extant, earliest copy 900 AD
Aristotle wrote from 384 to 322 BC, non-extant, earliest copy from 1100 AD, a span of 1,400 years! I think it best not to discount what we have from these men just because we don't have a copy in their handwriting.

Missing the point. First, we know who all these men were, and there isn't any doubt that they wrote what they are believed to have written.

Second, these men were not religious zealots with an agenda.

Third, many of these men (like Seutonius and Herodotus) make metaphysical claims that historians routinely dismiss (such as Herodotus citing acts of Jupiter in his works). If we are to treat the gospels like history, as you are want to do, then why should we give their metaphysical claims a pass when we're otherwise quite critical of them?

Fourth, there are examples in all these works of bias and historical inaccuracy. Herodotus often reports rumor as fact and was particularly keen on slandering the emperors (fairly or not), often reporting falsehoods as truth. His depiction of Nero is certainly riddled with problems, as corraborated by other contemporary historians.

Note that at no point have I said we need to throw out the entire NT as factually invalid. That wasn't part of the argument wrt to people who can feasibly accept some of what the NT says as true but not all of it. Most people don't tend to have black-and-white, all-or-nothing views on things. At least, people who aren't fanatics don't.

What do we really know about John Mark who wrote the second gospel? This is where I get lost in your premise. If you were to say that you *believed* Matthew, Mark and Luke, but doubted John, I could see from your perspective a point of reference. But, correct me if I'm wrong, you don't accept the historicity of Jesus as savior from any source, so to say John's gospel is dubious because of a lack of proof that he was 'the beloved disciple' seems thin IMO.

We know nothing about any of the authors of the gospels, thank you for making that point.

But we do know that Mark, the earliest gospel (not counting the Q ancestor, of which we know nothing), was written within a time frame that, at least, is conceivable that an eyewitness to the events occured. We also know that it is the least detailed account. We can also see heavy borrowing from one gospel to the next. Yet as each gospel gets later in probable date of writing, they get more and more detailed, and in some respects contradict each other.

It is perfectly logical to infer from this information that there was a large degree of embellishment going on wrt to the life of Jesus. I find it odd that so many supposedly miraculous things were known to have occured, yet Paul's writings are absent of almost any such details, considering he was almost a contemporary, supposedly.

Why stop there? Our best information on Alexander is from Plutarch, who lived 450 years after Alexander, wrote his famous work Parallel Lives around 100 AD and the oldest copy (not in his hand) is from around 950 AD.

But we have tons of corroborating archeological evidence for Alexander's life and works. We still don't know a lot--if you read Robin Fox's biography, he makes a very clear point of delineating what we know, what we think we know, what is commonly thought but probably wrong, and what is definitely wrong. And the level of surety we have about the above 4 categories basically goes in ascending order. That's the nature of history--one can never really be sure of anything, especially since those who write often had biases and other intents for their works.

Why should the Bible be treated any differently?

If I were to cite a 'Christian opinion' that the NT was free from the distortions you've mentioned above, you would give it no credence. What can you cite to back up the 'consistent experience' theory?

How about the fact the earliest manuscripts we have of John end at verse 20, but later ones have 21? Many scholars believe this was a later edition, and also that, overall, John is probably the work of several authors, not just one:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm#john

There's also the apparent addition of the story of Jesus chiding those who would stone an adulteress (John 8:1-11), which does not appear until about 300 years after the Gospel of John was supposedly written.

The Bible cannot be an authority to its own authoritativeness--that would be circular reasoning.

In truth, the INCREADIBLE consistency in the replication of the OT and NT in over 3000 and nearly 2000 years respectively, speaks to the care and reverence shown to NOT embellishing the original intent of these works. Qumran gave us a 2000 year old copy of Isaiah with nothing more than a few slight grammatical differences from the copy I have today.

First, in order to be inerrant, we have to believe there are no errors. That simply is not the case.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran2.htm

What you say, of course, says nothing as to the accuracy of the claims contained therein. Considering that there are several documented instances of inaccuracy in the Bible that only the most skilled apologetics acrobat could hope to weasel around, claims of Biblical inerrancy are bizarre.

Do rabbits chew their cud?

[bayraven]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
One point that is of not the least bit of interest is that "Moses" is found writing about his own death and events after!

Erm, maybe he got better? In addition to teen ministry I also teach 5th and 6th grade sunday school, and we had a good laugh this past sunday morning at the thought of Moses describing his own death. I suggested that Moses did write all five books, and someone added an obit to the end.

many theories now hold that the bible was drawn from many ancient texts and legends, it certainly follows that it would loosely mirror historical events.

To my knowledge, not a single event in the Bible has been dis-proven by archaeology, so, if we add this qualification - that the representation be accurate, do we have an acceptable definition of 'history' in your quote?

That we should accept its authority on matters other than vague Bronze age history and anthropology is quite a leap.

I believe this is the slightest of difference in our opinion, yet herein lies the disagreement. I will agree with the non Hebrew / non Christian observation that the Bible's representation of miracles, Godly appearances, and Divine interaction requires faith to believe, and not just an objective reading of the material. Thus, I agree with your statement above. I would then say that it is quite a leap to suggest that because the Bible does describe those things, the historicity and It's description of events is invalid. For example Paul's journeys, the occupation of Matthew, the discipleship of John Mark to Peter, the interrogation of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, they seem to be dismissed because they are told in a religious document. this leads into your next point:

"Document is based on faith as opposed to reality, then obviously it cannot be taken seriously" is not "literature describing faith". The latter can be perfectly analytical and objective, the bible is essentially the former.

I see the Bible as literature describing faith, rather than a document opposed to reality. There is too much historical accuracy throughout the OT and NT to dismiss the book itself as opposed to reality. The reason for my differentiation is this; if the Bible is as presented by others in this thread, unreliable propaganda, it is useless to anyone looking for the truth. It can be (as seems to be the case here) dismissed completely. My point is just the opposite. If there is consistent and repeated accuracy throughout the book, it IS a good place to begin the search for truth in spiritual matters.

With relevance to your Pixie, there is no such (otherwise trustworthy) volume of data to support him.

[oh yeah, lemme add]
wrt protocol, I often edit quotes down to the meat i wish to address. If I have changed the context of any quote in any way, feel free to correct me
[/ blah blah blah]

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by bayraven
To my knowledge, not a single event in the Bible has been dis-proven by archaeology, so, if we add this qualification - that the representation be accurate, do we have an acceptable definition of 'history' in your quote?

If you take the literal account of the Flood as true, it has been overwhelmingly shown to be false by archaeology and geology.

Linguists and archaeologists would tell you that the Tower of Babel has been proven to not be true.

And, once again, the biology and paleontology has shown that the literal account of Genesis is simply not true.

Daniel also is wrong about several aspects of the history it presents, particularly the date Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem and the name of the Median king, as well as the identity of the last king of Babylon (the OT claims he was Nebuchadnezzar's son and successor, but he was not even related, nor was he a direct successor, there having been several intermediary kings).

Biblical inerrancy is a non-starter for all but the most ludicrous of apologists.

[Whaleboy]

To my knowledge, not a single event in the Bible has been dis-proven by archaeology, so, if we add this qualification - that the representation be accurate, do we have an acceptable definition of 'history' in your quote?

No lack of evidence doesn't equal evidence in itself. Since the burden of proof is on the proposer (pro bible), lack of opposing evidence doesn't constitute positive evidence in support of that proposition.

I would then say that it is quite a leap to suggest that because the Bible does describe those things, the historicity and It's description of events is invalid.

Or conversely and accordingly, that archeology verifies (a different kettle of fish) the stories in the bible, does not mean that the other bits are also true or any less invalid (considering they are based in faith). Which addresses...

I see the Bible as literature describing faith, rather than a document opposed to reality. There is too much historical accuracy throughout the OT and NT to dismiss the book itself as opposed to reality

[bayraven]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Daniel also is wrong about several aspects ...

I was relying on information I've been studying that said nothing had been refuted by archaeology (etc.). I was fishing for info to the contrary. thanks.

Linguists and archaeologists would tell you that the Tower of Babel has been proven to not be true.

the ziggurat didn't exist or the effect on language didn't occur?

In your first post today you spoke to my main concern. That would be the contention that the bible should not be trashed as 'nothing more than religious propaganda.' I will seek and source the objections you've raised to it's veracity.

[Whaleboy]

That would be the contention that the bible should not be trashed as 'nothing more than religious propaganda.'

But notwithstanding any historical accuracies (which of course can be weaved into any form of modern propaganda, since it is the editoralising the matters), is it anything other than that, with reference to King Hezekiah?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Obviously a two-dimensional being would be impossible to perceive for us, being infinitesimal in depth and accordingly in existence in time.

it doesn't have to be infinitesimal in depth it simply needs to be perfectly uniform throughout it's depth such that it is [/i]functionally[/i] 2d. In any case I don't understand why it would be infintesimal time if we are talking about something analgous to an animated 2d image.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You are correct in that n dimensions and n-1 dimensions would not be able to perceive each other, as opposed to flat out refuting the existence of one or the other (though of course as far as God is concerned to us Occam’s razor applies). The implication of the simulated environment as you use it to me suggests that they operate along the same temporal dimension (correct me if I’m wrong), but by this a supposed 3d being would have to have time to be, which means a contextual equivalency between space and time.

I had them operating along different time axis in every case but in the special case of a simulation there is only one 'real' time dimension and the 'time' dimension in the simulation is only apparent as such to the inhabitants.

I think you are assuming that where an additional dimension is concerned and environment that does not include that dimension must be of 0 dimensions with respect to it, but really it only needs to be totally uniform with respect to that dimension.

Regardless, in the case of a simulation of an n-1 environment the n-dimensional things do not necessarily truly share any dimensions with the n-1 dimension environment. Think of a side scroller video game for instance. We can appear to share all 3 dimensions (including time) used by the 3d environment of the side scroller game and it is not in any way infintesimal or inobservable to us, but by displaying the output in a different way and removing the need for input from such a side scroller, the entire thing could be viewed as a static unchanging set of information with no 'real' dimensions whatsoever. If the program was sophisticated enough to include snetient beings who operate within the simulated environment they too would appaer as static unchanging sets of information but might nonetheless be sentient within their simulated environment.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Regarding your latter point, it would seem to me as though the sum over histories applies. Change one point in n-1 dimensions with n-dimensions, and you create curved alternative universes in n-dimensions (with n-1). Consider that uncertainty principle, for example, gives us one universe but infinite 4-dimensional universes would have to “exist” in 5-dimensions, whereupon every contingent at point time=0 (every curved path) came to be, and any change would create a curved universe from the original which is straight, and to the curved the change was predetermined.

Space need not be uniform in it's properties, and indeed if we view time as another spatial dimension it is not. It is possible that special relativity would not apply to measurements made between two points separated only by 5th dimensional space.

Originally posted by Whaleboy

While that actual change as far as God is concerned may be possible (I haven’t thought so far ahead as to be sure precisely how), it would require God to have knowledge of us, such as our language or a means of communication subject to our perception and of course for a being finite in 5-d that would be impossible, at it would to implant every possibly iteration of communication in every universe, for that would require a 6-dimensional being for whom not only our time is spatial but our spatial existence is infinitesimal (think backwards to a 2-D being).

Yes it certainly would require such advance knowledge. but it would be possible for God (if arbitrarily intelligent) to know all that in advance if our environment were totally deterministic from his point of view. And in the case of a simulation in particular, it certainly could be.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Very well… well we see in special relativity that time is relative, furthermore we see how changes in time affect perceptions externally (the twins paradox) so to me this is just the logical conclusion of you magnify those differences in time to infinity, in other words add or subtract a temporal dimension whereby an infinity in time becomes a spatial manifestation of sum-over-histories and “time” in time (n-1) becomes infinitesimal, and from there the implications for life and communication should become obvious.

In the example of the twin paradox, the 5th dimensional observer simply has access to an absolute frame of reference. This wouldn't prevent the observer from seeing that time was slowed for the relativistically accelerated twin compared to the earth bound twin. Whether or not special relativity would preclude 5th dimensional observation depends entirely on how we assume special relativity applies to the 5d environment. I assume the 5th dimension would have to be at least as distinct from our spacial dimensions and time as our time is different from the spacial dimensions. One way to accomplish this is for the 5th dimension to be a sort of 'meta' time dimension which reduces our time dimension to another spatial dimension from the pov of the 5th dimensional observer. Rendering our entire 4d enviroment as a static object which is uniform (ie static) with respect to that 5th dimension. Direct interaction would not be possible, but creation of it and omniscience and pre-emptive 'miraculous' intervention in it would be possible. The appearance from our pov would be arbitrary 'miracles' which in fact had been included as part of our reality from the beginning in 5th dimensional 'time' but would not be observed by us until we reached those points on our timeline whcih intersect with those 'miracles' causing us to believe they were new events when in fact they had existed as part of spacetime from the 'moment' of it's creation in 5d time.


Note that there are two possible scenarios that I've discussed for a 5d 'god' and that the difference is that in one case our 4d reality is merely simulated somehow within a larger 4+ dimensional context. This latter case imho is as impossible to disprove as that you're not really just a brain in a jar being fed false information re 'the matrix' or even older interpretations of that theme. In fact i think brain in the jar ideas are just a special case of this broader notion of perceived reality existing within an almost totally unrelated 'actual reality'.

[bayraven]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Do rabbits chew their cud?

I would assume, no.
was Herodotus a prophet? He would have to be to talk about the emperors.