I wasn't the one who made the assertion. It was you. If a person makes an assertion which presupposes that science will eliminate the belief in God, then it is incumbant upon him to prove that assertion. I believe God to be untestable, and thus, outside the realm of science. What science cannot test, it cannot banish.
As for your rhetorical question. I have no need to. I didn't make the assertion, so there is no burden of proof incumbant upon me. You would also be hard pressed to find any person, much less an informed person, who believes that statement. On God, though, there are numerous people, both informed and otherwise, who believe in God. Again, burden of proof tends to shift towards an opinion that is least likely held by informed or educated peoples, but both sides of the theism/atheism debate are well represented.
You made an assertion concerning the existence of God, which is well represented by educated peoples. You can't shift the burden of proof to another person to verify a mock position, and expect it to verify your position. If you can't falsify the existence of God using imperical evidence, how do you expect science to illumine people and make it disappear? Please, put your candle up and let it shine. "This little light of mine, oh I'm gonna let it shine, let it shine, let it shine, let it shine."
Wonderful binary thinking. You seem to assume two things, and I will take issue with both presuppositions.
First, you seem to seperate the omnipotence attribute from God's character. While I cannot speak for other religions, Christianity, at least, does not necessarily do that. God cannot lie, for instance. If God makes a rock and declares that he will not lift it, then he cannot lift it, because he cannot lie. His character limits his actions. In order for this test to work, you must verify that such a seperation takes place.
Second, it assumes God operates under the same constraints of logic as the world we are in. More attributes of God, besides the omni's, are that he is unmade, unrestrained, outside time, outside space, completely incomprehensable. Now, I ask, why even assume that he is confined by the laws of logic as we are? Since it's an assumption, if it proves false, the argument is false. This is my favored challenge, though most will prefer the former.
Your question is hardly a question that ends discussion.
God is useless as an explanation to anything? Suppose the existence of God, and the He acted in the past or present. If you consider a priori that such a thing is impossible, you have ruled out ahead of time the correct conclusion. It may be "unscientific," but that doesn't rule it out as a correct conclusion.
As a second note, science however useful, can never prove anything. One starts with a problem. Next, one comes up with an explanation as to the "how" behind the problem. Finally, the explanation (hypothesis) is tested based on its predictions. If it fails, then it's out. If it succeeds, it remains until something predicts things better.
This is simply a process of disproving things. How, then, can science prove anything at all? It's a useful tool, but it's hardly sufficient for a comprehensive epistimology.
That also brings it full circle. Different views of God make different assertions. Some of these can be falsified, but I doubt we have the knowledge to do that. The poster to whom I responded made an assertion about the belief in God. He equated it with ignorance, and the light of science not having illuminated it. The burden of proof always rests on the shoulders of the person making the assertion. He asserted something, and I contest that since the scientific method works primarily by falsification, then he should put his money where his mouth is instead of making fundamentalist-style assertions.
>BTW over 90% of americans believe in god. If that's not a failure of science to act as a candle in the dark I don't know what is.
---------
Can you falsify God scientifically? Please, use imperical facts and tests. A lack of direct evidence does not constitute evidence against, and inderect evidence for either side can be interpreted so widely as to lose it's usefulness, so please, prove atheism scientifically.
Personally, I think your statement verifies that fundamentalist atheism is little different than fundamentalist religion. Feel free to disprove me.
"cultural imperialism?" Maybe. However, given your statement above, well, there shouldn't be a problem with it should there? After all, you're saying that it can be small group of people to impose their order on an entire people via a totalitarian system. Now, what happens if *this* culture with its ideas and values laid down by those dead white males has cultural imperialism as a tenet? I guess spreading and perpetuating their culture is just a part of the culture, and thus,just as justifiable by the rules you seem to have espoused.
At least it wouldn't be forced on the Chinese at the point of a gun. Still, thanks for pointing out that we can do this with impunity, because it can be our cultural value;).
I hope this goes well. Not only will it lead to the scientific progress everyone here likes, but it could also lead to a greater cultural exchange. It could only help our culture, and cultural contamination is the best way to influence a place like China, what with their human rights violations and all. Anything that even could help alleviate that is good.
You mean, regarding the concept of nothing, that no one had ever managed to see an empty basket or bag? There most certainly was precedent. Do you really believe that when someone ask "Do you have any money?" That no one could ever answer, "No, I have no money?" These things would *certainly* forma backbone for the concept of nothing. So much for "NO root in previous thought."
Ideas that fly in the face of conventional wisdom invariably use that same wisdom. Do you think Newton built his theories on nothing? He put a new spin on old facts, and it was revolutionary, but it hardly qualifies as a wholly original thought, unless of course, he did not rehash many of the old things in a different way.
No, it is not people like me that persecuted Galileo. Remember, my whole thread has been about human *rights* about the importance of them, specifically privacy, and privacy being fundamental to *free speech*. Given that, why would I use government (or ecclesiastical) force to silence a man whom I disagree with. Once again, you cite a shallow historical example. Am I next a Nazi?
For all your name calling, I have challenged your assertion on the definition of rights with authors and history. Of your only counter-arguments one failed to take into account the history I was *citing*, another asserted I did not understand an argument that could be stated in one sentance (If it can be taken from you, it is not a right), and still another to claim that the things I cited could not, in fact, be taken away. When I defined the terms, in the context of this type of discussion, you accuse me of redefining the terms, but are vague as to what I have redefined. You still have not explained what terms I redefined. The arguments in this post are just as feeble.
Rather than spouting your ideas and criticising people for reading other people's thoughts and using those to check their own, perhaps you should try reading what other people have said. The Stoics agree with you on virtually every point you've cited (replace "right" with "own" and dump the metaphysical stuff, and there's your argument), but they could offer a far more stable and full argument.
Have you *ever* read any of the great works on rights, government, etc.? What is your take on the State of Nature (from whence the concept of "rights" arises, so with your expertise in the matter, you can give a recap)? I don't think you have done either, because if you had, you would already be familiar with the valid counter-arguments to my arguments, rather than the shallow things you have written.
Unless your next argument is better, I won't reply. Anything further will be a waste of my time.
Which word did I redefine for my own purposes? It wasn't rights, because that was defined before either of us were born. If you mean what I said on happiness, then should you not define the "pursuit of happiness" the way its authors defined it, or is "original thought" redefining words and phrases, in the context being used, as one sees fit? Do you disagree that the language of human rights is ceded in this Lockian tradition, that in the definition we get the concept from, that people were absolutely free in their original context and formed a "social contract" (the philosophers' words, not mine) and ceded some of these "rights" to the government? Do you deny that Locke and the Founding Fathers used the word "happiness" for "property?" I am *not* redefining words and concepts, but rather, keeping them in their context, because I will not sever an idea from its roots. My definitions come from this. Your definitions disagree with common usage (you are sick of people whining about their rights that aren't really rights), so from where do you get your definition? Did you just look it up in a dictionary one day and decide that you had it right from one or a few entries? Didn't you bother to look at historical usage, or are your definitions automatically superior to those others?
Since you do quote the Declaration of Independence in the "pursuit of happiness" and they did follow Locke's definition, do you think they believed that the British government had then used only the powers delegated to them, or do you believe that these men believed that the British government had overstepped its bounds and violated the social contract? That the government has been usurping more power than it has rights to is not so much a challenge to what I said, but means that it is violating its social contract. It isn't originality to sever an idea from its preceding forms that gave rise to it, which I believe is what you are doing. Did you somehow forget this context, or did you ignore it? The government usurping more power than it was given in its social contract is *exactly* what gave rise to the philosophy.
No, trig and calculus did not arise fully formed, but they weren't just dreamed up overnight either. Were they not modifications on modifications in a virtually endless series of previous ideas? They add a few new elements and modify the mix and that is the "new" thing. Do you suppose that these maths invented the building blocks that make them up? Are not the new theories modifications and an evolution upon what had been there before?
Note that I did not deny all "independent" thought. I just denied that we can create all these wonderful and complex conceptions we have. All great men and their theories stood on the shoulders of other men and their great theories. Every great story is a retelling with a few unique elements of a previous story. I know there had to be a beginning, but then that's the only phenomena we see. There is *nothing* you can cite which isn't an evolutionary descendant of another idea. In that way, any free thought is dependent on the quantity of the data they have. You will never make anything completely original, and neither will I, and it is only self-deception to think that either of us ever will. Will we make modifications and new theories off of the old ones? Sure, and no doubt we already have, but we will never make anything truly original. If your conception were right, then I could expect an infant, with no learning to come up with complex ideas and mathematics. I can't, though, because they haven't learned the fundamental building blocks.
I cannot damn you for hubris, but that's exactly what it is. Nothing short of arrogance (or naivete) separates a thought from its historical form. Since they do not spring from our heads fully formed, as Athena from the head of Zeus, then how can you expect a person to think freely if they do not have free access to the ideas from which to build their ideas? Do you honestly believe your short, simple definition
Let me reiterate: I do not accept your definition that if it is taken away that it is a priveledge. There is no right that cannot be taken away (something I have shown). It is not from not *understanding* what you wrote, but I consider it false.
Rights are, rather, any power we have not ceded to the government. To reiterate, if we haven't given it to them, it's our *right*. This rectifies the error in my first post. It is also the manner in which our rights are understood in the Constitution, Declaration of Independance, and anything else operating under a significant philisophical influence from Locke. In contrast to your dollar bill analogy, take the opening words of the Constitution, "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice..." The FF disposed of their own govenment and constructed a new one from scratch. How can they do this, unless of course, the government is a construct? We make the government, and what we don't give it, is still ours.
As an aside, you learned arithmetic because somebody taught it to you. Would you be able to count past "one, two, many" if someone had not taught it to you (math beyond that is not natural and must be taught), and could you daydream about all the more lofty things you no doubt have done without having been taught? We only know what we're taught, and even our daydreams and math are dependent on those, and without that, math wouldn't be here and daydreams wouldn't be able to conceive the things they do.
What happens if our eyes are plucked out, hands cut off, and tongue cut out? Where is the freedom of speech then?
Well, you can still pursue happiness. Not that you're likely to find it in that state, but you could pursue it. You also would have as much freedom to comminucate as you would be physically able to do.
You mean you *really* can pursue property? That is what the Delcaration of Independance means in using the word. John Locke used it that way, and in turn so did the Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefforson, who drafted it. So, pray tell, *how* can they pursue property, which is the what they must be able to do that. You are quoting the phrase in the Declaration of Independance, right?
That said, speech is dependent on privacy.
On what do you base that ridiculous assumption? Speech is dependant on privacy? How so? I can't speak around other people? No speeches are ever made in public? What the hell are you talking about?
How can I possibly make an informed decision if I am monitored about what I buy and read?
Firstly: Who is monitoring everything you buy and read? Secondly: why does someone else knowing what you buy and read change what conclusions you draw from it? Again, your point is logically unsound.
Likewise, there can be no real freedom of thought without free speech, because the information I can take in, and therefore possible conclusions, is limited.
You should stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking. No freedom of thought without free speech? That's patently untrue. Throughout much of history, speech was not free, and every time someone rose up in rebellion against a tyrannical reign, they have disproved your ill-conceived notion.
As I explained, the ability to freely express oneself is dependent on being able to freely get information. If I cannot inform myself without some sort of recrimination (and I do not believe that a government would watch out of curiosity), then they have limited my ability to speak by limiting what I can learn. Yes, I can speak, but it would be spontaneous uninformed speech. Is that the only one you consider a right?
BTW, I never said somebody was monitoring everything I said. If that were the case in its purest sense, would I be able to freely publish these comments? I am taking issue with your comments on rights.
Likewise, there can be no real freedom of thought without free speech, because the information I can take in, and therefore possible conclusions, is limited.
You should stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking. No freedom of thought without free speech? That's patently untrue. Throughout much of history, speech was not free, and every time someone rose up in rebellion against a tyrannical reign, they have disproved your ill-conceived notion.
Freedom of thought would equate to the ability to think without legal and artificial boundries set up. Correct me if I'm right here. If a group controlls the information available to a group of people, then that same group controlls what said group of people can think. We don't think that far outside the box.
"Throughout history speech was not free..." well throughout history these same tyrants weren't poised with near as much potential control over information and activities as now. That's precisely what made the WWII dictators so heinous: they had so much control of every aspect of people's likves. Never before in history did any single individual weild such power over his people. Now, we have the potential to make them look like kids with toys (and before you assert it, no I do not believe I am living in a dictatorship). You would explain to me when such monitoring (and processing power) was available in history before now so that I can see these tyrants who could curtail speech the way we're talking about today, won't you? Then I can see the relevant tyrants.
(I do not believe that if it can be taken away, then I do not have it, as there is no right that really cannot be ta
This is quite true:), much like the number of times someone asks my what I've been reading, and it didn't even cross my mind given the context, for as you noticed, neither government nor business would really be motivated by that.
There were a couple of other points I neglected in the post that weaken it severely also (happiness in the DoI == property, after the Lockian tradition, and a definition of where rights properly come from, and I noticed the lack of both points retracted from my post after I had done it).
Can you name a right that can't be taken away? The right to pursue happiness is dependent on our life, but if our life is taken, then our "right" is removed (note that this would fall under the same category you put freedom from being beaten and murdered under). The right to speech has at its most basic physical needs. What happens if our eyes are plucked out, hands cut off, and tongue cut out? Where is the freedom of speech then? Your assertion that "what can be taken away...is a priviledge" is nonsense, because there could be no human rights violations; such violations are by definition taking away people's rights.
That said, speech is dependent on privacy. How can I possibly make an informed decision if I am monitored about what I buy and read? Such monitoring only takes place when one party stands to gain or cesure another party. Since, ideally, a government is not a business making profit, so I can only see censuring as a possiblity.
Likewise, there can be no real freedom of thought without free speech, because the information I can take in, and therefore possible conclusions, is limited. Given those, I should think privacy pretty essential to our rights (I do not believe that if it can be taken away, then I do not have it, as there is no right that really cannot be taken away due to removing its dependencies).
But language is an evolving invention of the people and not a set of rules defended by an elite crackerjack force of grammar gnomes. Although it pains me to say it, I believe "it's" has now become an acceptable way to write the possessive of "it," for example, given that nearly everyone does it.
I would agree, but the written language seperate from the spoken, and can the written not be divided up into two classes, one relating to more "refined" works (mainline publications with an editor, or a thing written by someone who cares about such form), and the other less (internet conversations, or graffiti). All of these, would seem to operate under different rules.
Here are some evidences of this:
1). Words are not spelled the way they sound and there are various homophones. For words in this sentance, look at the "ou" sounds or the "ar" sounds for an example. There are also "there," "they're," and "their." All of these distinctions are wholly artificial, often circumvented in less refined writing, but still an expected part of the language.
2). Constructions often differ between the two; I cannot connect two clauses with a semicolon while speaking, but if spoken, I can use a fragment and get my point across, which I would not be able to do in writing.
3). Vocabulary differs slightly between the two. I make a hard distinction between the words "distinction," a distinction with no defined reference to opposition, though it can have it, and "contradistinction," which is a distinction one of whose important attributes are in contrast to what it is being referred to.
While these evidences are not exhaustive (it would take a book to do so), they do illustrate the point. Written language is of a different from the spoken, and there is greater possibility for misunderstanding.
Enter the grammar gnomes. In order to communicate, we follow rules. These rules, in writing, are set down by authorities such as grammars and dictionaries. If I need to know how to spell a word, I open up Webster's Dictionary. If I don't follow the standard, my recipient is likely to misunderstand me. If I want to know how to properly form a clear sentance, as opposed to something like "Ran into the woods," I look up a grammar. The example, "Ran into the woods" is also perfectly acceptable in speaking in response to questions like, "Where is Peter?"
Without said grammar gnomes, we could not communicate in writing without fundamentally retooling our language to be phonetic, and then, we would have problems with grammar.
I do not believe you are illiterate; I actually believe you are quite literate from your post, and so, mean no insult to you. I just think that the "grammar gnomes" comment is trying to be more egalatarian than the reality is:). Personally, I'm glad that the distinction between spoken and written is not as far in English as it has been for other languages (Greek or Latin, for instance went through a long period of seperation).
As has already been pointed out, the article is poorly written and a joke. I didn't quite finish it for those reasons, and I felt like I was losing brain cells.
The whole question is moot, though. After all, the combination of having the best advertising and releasing first will be what wins out. Even fan loyalty will likely come in handy. So, why bother predicting, when one bureaucratic screw up can ruin the whole thing.
Now, there are the other holy wars...Linux, vi, and the like being worthy causes:).
Ok, yeah, I admit my sweeping generalizations of KJV-Onlyism do not encompass every person, and since this is a big message board, I may have confused your post w/ another's. However, my main point is now addressed, being misinformation and whatnot.
I will email you concerning those two things, both of which are difficult subjects, but I won't be doing that tonight. Tonight (usually Thursday, but tonight is speacial), I teach a fellow Homeric Greek and a few other things (he is converting to Linux or BSD {he hasn't decided} from Windows as well, so we have a convert to *NIX).
Given the the seriousness of the thread, and its odd character for this site, while remaining on-topic, I must make fun of emacs:). You see, in the beginning, there was one holy text editor, ed, and it is the greatest of the Old Editors. However, truth came in the form of vi. It was incarnated in two modes, and never should the two mix, for the divine revelation of the Holy Editor was in two modes. However, there came others, later, who insisted that the divine editor must have one mode, and they fashioned for themselves an editor with one mode. This problem would have been small, and there would be one Holy Editor, as opposed to the pagan editors, had the Pope not fashioned another editor, and deepened the error, and even to some degree added "and the command" to the holy words (speaking in a lisp as he did so), "and editing is produced form the insertion." Thus, those who follow the Holy Editor split into two camps. While this occurred, vi was made to fit the needs of the people, but the tradition of editing remained the same, and so, came vi, nvi, vim, and the rest, who all live in harmony. Now, this Pope mantained his control over emacs, but then, one day, the xemacs gang posted their thesis on their needs and produced another emacs. Where vi, understanding that a text editor is a holy thing and to be a text editor, the error of emacs has expanded to allow anything into the mix which could even remotely look like editing (it plays Go, checks your mail, etc.). In the end, emacs and vi follow the path of Church history:).
Sorry, I couldn't resist. I do understand emacs is a good editor (I have a copy on my box), but it's still a fun one to hammer on.
Actually, the people like Gipp and Ruckman fall only into the first of my two uses of the word. The second, those who use the KJV as a standard for determining the proper Greek text, can readily admit to problems in translation, and thus, are a seperate category. I call this KJV-Onlyist, for the simple reason that by using the KJV as the standard for determining the underlying text, they in turn perform the same anachronistic logic that the former group does. Both, to me, are KJV-Onlyists, and you have outlined the latter as "pro-KJV." The latter, and less extreme group, is the reason why I ask specifically for a place where the KJV's underlying text is in error.
Personally, I wouldn't subject the bird to Ruckman and Gipp's papers. I mentioned Riplinger, because in another post I believe I remember you referencing her (not addressed to me).
Your argument against Ruckman about the Word of God being hidden for "1500+ years" also cuts against the TR. It isn't much younger than the KJV. The Majority Text (by manuscript counting) has a similar problem, as the correct reading is in no single text but the whole. The Majority Text (by family counting) is still more exascerbated in this respect. The Alexandrian Text has it still more, as does today's Critical Text. If having "God's complete word" is the standard, none of these positions can help you in this respect, as they are either not available to all people, or there are no perfect examples, so every manuscript would be incomplete.
It was the preceding problem, along with history, logic, and the like, which have led me to the Eastern Orthodox. I used to be a TR-advocating Baptist.
When you say: "Of course most scholars can be paid to say the TR is corrupt; they are paid by people like Zondervan and other publishing houses that have copyrighted translations that they make a mint from. You have to be aware of the profit motive here, it is not trivial," you are in essence arguing that the reason that scholars say what they say, is because they are being paid off by Zondervan. Clearly the incentive in both parties is profit. However, most scholars are paid by universities, the critical texts are published and copyrighted by various Bible societies, translation efforts are then done by either a publishing house like Zondervan or another group. I don't think I can see the scholars altering the text to be paid by someone they may never even do business with. The truth of the matter, is that scholars who work on this are honest and believe what they are doing is true. The biggest accusation, of this sort, that can be leveled is the that they are liable to try and do something unique or memorable.
Don't worry. I didn't expect it to last this long either. Personally, I use postfix, but I've never used qmail, and I use vi instead of emacs. These are points I know far less about, though; they are hobbies, where this kind of scholarship is serious.
The problem with referring to the DSS the way you did, referencing Isaiah, is that it presents a picture that the whole does not. They challenge the MT more than they support it. If I tell you, "I killed a large bore with a hammer the other day," and omit that I hit it three times with a truck first, I am telling a different story than if I include it. Omitting the problems the DSS cause is pretty much the same exact thing.
This brings up my point. I haven't read Burgon's books, but if you pull your arguments from the likes of the other KJV guys, and there are places as I noted where you certainly appear to, you will be vulnerable to the exact same problems they are.
You should enjoy Perseus. It's put out by a university, and is a reliable site. Personally, I don't like reading a lengthy Greek or English text online, so I tend to avoid it for anything except the vocabulary lists for a new work or its online lexicons.
On said verses involving demons and driving them out, what happens if that isn't the original reading? How do you know (other than what you believe) what is the correct reading? I also do not think this qualifies as a major doctrine (especially as much of it can be surmised from Scripture alone anyway). Also, that problem exists only in an extreme form of Sola Scriptura. For the rest of us, there is Tradition in the matter.
I see how Acts 8.37 requires it for a convert, but it says absolutely nothing about infants. For us, we do not see your logic.
In this post, we have crossed from textual criticism to doctrinal issues, and that, I am not comfortable debating in a forum dedicated to the review of books wherein they are not topics. If we pursue a doctrinal conversation, which I doubt we will, it would be wise to do so via another means.
I need to clarify on the official Bible bit. I do not own a text, but was told our official Bible was similar to the KJV in many respects (omitting things like I Jn. 5.7), so that is a supposition, which may not be correct.
Yes, I do remember the floating point number affair. There are two main points that I fault your analogy with. I would beg to differ with you that anyone could find the results, because not everyone understands it. What keeps the average user (these are not tech-savy) from thinking that it's in the OS or some other such thing, assuming of course they even recognize it. The average man simply would not have the knowledge to identify the problem; I don't know how many people I've helped who couldn't figure out why something wasn't working, and alas, all they had to do was check a single box, connect a phone line, plug in a keyboard, or some other such thing. So, IMO, not anyone could figure it out. It takes the proper training, whether self-taught or otherwise, to troubleshoot it well.
The second is that in manuscripts, you are dealing with words. The only way to know a piece of literature is corrupted is to have some preconception of what the proper form is. One cannot deduce from evidences in translation that something is amiss. This is evidenced from your data about words missing, doctrines altered (all doctrines are, of course, present), and the like. For all you know, those 2866 words could have been added. Of course, wording it "removed," presumes the conclusion you are arguing for.
Do you really think that the removal of fasting in that Matthean verse is sufficient to destroy the teaching of fasting, that it strengthens prayer? The two are mentioned togethor throughout the Bible, and the topic itself is often discussed. Eliminating one addition in two books does not eliminate a doctrine altogethor, as it can be found elsewhere.
Yes, I mistyped Acts 8.37, much as you mistyped St. Matthew 17.21. It is a nice coincidence, nonetheless, though, and your argument was exactly that. Here it is, "Removing it is very adventageous for those who hold to pedobaptism, and very embarassing if it's left in. Since the manuscripts in question were held by the Orthodox and RC churches, who do hold to pedobaptism, the issue is not moot. On the other hand the TR was published by a Catholic (Erasmus) yet it includes Acts 8:37. In legal terminology, this could be considered a statement against interest, and therefore would be given a stronger consideration than something which agreed with his doctrine." The doctrinal point summarizes your whole argument in reverse: it was eliminated by the Orthodox and RCC because they believed in baptising infants (apparantly you do not know that we baptise adults who convert), and therefore, it speaks against them, so they eliminated it. Not only is a fundamental premise wrong, that it we and the RCC do not baptise adults who convert, but it also argues that we eliminated it because of how you interepret it (again, it causes no conflict for us, and is in our official Bible, if I am correct, though I do not have a copy). If you will kindly point out where I am in error in this, please do so.
Ok, well then, you do not understand the point of "Expressed Reason," and I did not take you as saying that I was a JW, as you already know what I am. When Jesus is referred to as Logos, it means far more than Word, and "Expressed Reason," is not only a possible translation, but emphasises that Jesus is not a created thing (a word is created). It emphasises Logos' history in the Greek language, in which it was equated with the God who created everything (see the Greek philosophers). The translation, therefore, increases the impact of the verse and strengthens the references to Christ's deity.
Your example is an example of a mistransation, not an error in the KJV's underlying text. One that, if you are not using the KJV as a guide as to what should be contained, is I John 5.7 (and yes, I have read "A History of the Johanine Comma..."). Do you consider that spurious and added, or is it a part?
You're right. I do keep slamming the KJV-Only camp, and as to who I have read. I have read some of White, Gipp, and Ruckman, and James White isn't the most friendly to KJV-Onlyism. What I know about Burgon comes only from the books I have read which talk about him (briefly), as something of the fount of the KJV movement, and that he miscited authors, made specious arguments, and the like, and in the end, his book sat on the shelf and collected dust until later. I only own New Age Bible Versions, and why I still own it, I really cannot say. When I use the KJV-Only, I mean two classes of people, the first are those who argue that the KJV is a perfect translation, and other translations are somehow imperfect. The other, is the group (which TR advocates seem to gravitate towards), that the KJV is the standard for what is beneath in the original text. The TR, without these connections, is just another text put out by Erasmus, revised by Stephanus, and then Scrivener.
As for the scrap heap theory, I have some skepticism about it. I have never read Tischendorf, and only find these arguments in KJV-Onlyists, or people whose arguments I can trace to KJV-Onlyism.
Other arguments that seem to derive from them are the references to the "occult" books which were included, but that is false. Usually, I see them declaim modern scholars as corrupt or involved in a conspiracy (all it seems they want to do is to destroy the Bible, despite their stated purposes), so your first assertion that "it is widely known that the best Greek text is the `Textus Receptus,'" but when it was pointed out that the statement was false, you changed it to say they were on the take for Zondervan, well in-keeping with the style. The statement that "the only new translations that have been done were based on the Wescott and Hort manuscripts" is another common one, but alas, it is patently false (W&H did not include the story of the woman caught in adultry, for instance), and even if the assumption that this text was somehow corrupted were true, it would make little difference since modern versions are not based on it. Another one is that the Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text, on which the KJV was translated has been wholly vindicated by the DSS, but alas, while the Isaih scroll agrees almost entirely, Jeremiah and other books are not quite so amiable. To be fair, this is argued outside the KJV-Onlyists. The argument that translations had to be changed since they were copyrighted is another common argument, neglecting that the KJV was copyrighted. Lastly, the argument that the English language was at its zenith then is also commonly argued by them, and again, is another very poor argument.
From the preceding, you would appear to be dependent on them in the extreme, and you do cite them as an authority. If a well has arsenic in it, then not only the people who recline at that well are poisened, but so are the people who take the water to another camp to drink. Just because you aren't a KJV-Onlyist does not exempt you from repeating the same poor research they have done if you use them readily. As another question, having cited so many errors, how can you or your sources be considered reliable? That first post I responded to had more falsehoods than truth. That is a very dangerous ratio to those of us who do not agree with you.
These errors resulting from speed are classified and identified in modern scholarship. In condemning Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (and the other Alexandrian manuscripts no doubt), have you read works by men like Kurt Aland and Bruce Metzger, the two most prominent biblical textual critics of the 20th Century? Their materials explain the mechanisms to identify these occurances. It's not like speed is an unkown influence, and if Sinaiticus was being used that way, I would think it would have been worn out a long time ago, just as most teaching tools tend to get wear on them.
Xenophon wrote history in a pagan culture. That does not make his works occult works, though he must interact
I do not hold opinions on the Peshitta, because I have no access to the text and do not know Syriac. For that, I rely solely on mainstream scholarship. Even on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus my knowledge is limited, since I have no access to scans, but I know enough of their variants and have encountered enough KJV-Onlyism to know the difference. Those are, after all, only two of the more important manuscripts.
Commenting on an ancient manuscript is a lot different than knowing whether the chip in your computer functions correctly (and I am not an expert in computer technology, as you can see what I spend my time studying). However, how would an average user know that a chip is bad, even if things were going wrong on their computer? They would need greater knowledge than that just knowing how to turn it on and run a few programs. Likewise, how can you know what the quality of a manuscript is with poor sources, and when you cannot even read the language (much less do so even if you had access to a reliable copy of the manuscript).
My position is not "don't think," for there are places where I have come to convictions on the text contrary to the dominant opinion, but rather, my position is educate yourself. If you do not know about a subject, take the word of those who do, and if you doubt them, learn how to approach the issue from those who do know (the techniques and skills should remain stable). Personally, I do not listen to an uneducated man on the subject of how my brain works biologically. That is the domain of a specialist.
Why do I cite Ms. Riplinger above all others? Because her unreliability demonstrates amply what I've seen from the others, and your comment about being suprised that I have not really attacked her shows that you know that she lies in her book, and yet you also consider it a valid source. No, I do not have Sorenson's book you linked to, but I will quote from the summary to show why I doubt it: "Touch Not the Unclean Thing documents the apostasy, liberalism, and even the occult connected to the entire lineage of the Critical Text. (Please recall that it is the modern Critical Text which underlies most modern translations of the Bible including the NIV, the NASB, and a host of others.)" A simple scan of this shows that it is driven, not by scholarship, but purely by doctrine. In fact, its content sounds suspiciously like New Age Bible Versions.
I apologize for assuming that you wanted the KJV over the original, so will you point me to where the KJV differs from the original text? Your arguments sound an awful lot like a KJV-Onlyists, but that last post indicates very strongly that you believe there are inaccuracies in it where it does not represent the underlying text.
Actually, on "Expressed Reason," it does not downplay Christ's divinity. After all, that usage of the word equates it with the divine (the Eternal Logos) and the thrid clause affirms that the Word was what God was. Therefore, the translation does not do that (I woudl not emulate the NWT).
Actually, if I recall correctly, it was you who tried to downplay the manuscripts by associating them with a church "drenched in the blood of the saints," as you put it. I simply used that same standard against you, and King James killed Protestants also. So, if I understand what you are saying, you mean that since Catholics were trying to kill him, it was OK for him to kill the translators, most of whom were Protestants. Since you mentioned Bloody Mary, does that same logic apply to how she grew up? I mean, her mother was locked in the Tower of London, and there had been bitter persecution of Catholics. I, thus, do equate the actions of James with those of the Middle Ages Catholic Church, for I see no reason not to.
So, you believe the verse in Acts 8:47 should be included because it can agree with your doctrine (there's more than one way to read a verse, and some of those do not preclude the baptism of infants)? Isn't that just like rewriting the Bible, choosing the text that
Yes, I am in the camp that is strongly anti-kjv-onlyist camp. This is because the KJV-Onlyist camp seems dominated by people who seek to prove occult influences (your take on the books in the manuscripts in question), conspiracies(Zondervan pays scholars to deny the TR, or else they'd acknowledge it), and the like in everything modern translations (all examples are your assertions). I have never seen any quality scholarship in it.
Scholarship does not equate to the position I have cited. There are Byzantine priority text advocates, those who wish to rely solely on internal evidence, and others. These use facts by others, and are generally reliable. KJV-Onlyists are not. If a KJV-Onlyist published a book without asserting wild occult crap, conspiracy theories, and far-out claims, they may be able to earn their place. To date, none have done so.
The older manuscript is preferred to the younger because it is closer in time to the original. One can assert all he wants that it was put away for being corrupt, but that must be proven, as the preceding assumption is both logical and sound. Could it have been misplaced, used as a master copy for a while, not used after a standardization, or any number of other things? Why would it sit on a shelf if it was corrupt, not being used, instead of being destroyed? Such speculation, as a result, does not diminish the importance of its age. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament containing a large number of books, aren't they?
The shorter reading is preferred, because it is presupposed that expanding the formula or accidently adding to it is more likely than overlooking it, and older manuscripts tend to have shorter readings (including the papyrus fragments), right? This, of course, bars such obvious things as homoioteleuton.
These are principles which govern textual criticism today on both the Bible and secular material, and is supported by the vast majority of scholars (contrary to your first statement, and maybe they might be on the take like in your second argument, but i doubt it).
No, I do not consider HBP an authority on occult history. I think she was a charismatic and intelligent woman, but also a little on the looney side and a tendancy to operate like a psychic hotline does today. Just because she has had great influence on those who followed her, does not mean that she actually knew anything on her subject (her Atlantis is nothing more than a greatly expanded version of Plato's account and is wholly ahistorical). The two books in question are rather obscure and esoteric, as most people have never read them; I could turn Xenophon into an occult writer for most people with just a few lies, since most people have no clue who he was.
It's not so much simply attacking a position, but attacking his facts. Most of his "facts" are anything but. I don't care if he's a KJV-Onlyist. He can be if he wants, but he's not checked his sources and is repeating terrible information. It's almost akin to saying that a ten year-old computer can outpace today's.
If you want my view, here it is in a nutshell. I use today's critical texts and adhere to the theories underlying it when I take up a divergant reading from what they say. I do not accuse the scholarly establishment of being on the take for Zondervan or other such nonsense. I prefer the more difficult reading, but favor a reading found in all four textual families. Shorter readings are preferred to the longer, etc. It's the standard faire in modern circles. I hope that is sufficient for you.
No, I am not a relativist. I believe truth is absolute, and only our perceptions are relative. Hence I have no problem with his position, just his facts. I can know, for instance, that the Shephard of Hermas is not an occult book. That is an objective fact, once "occult" is defined. Whether I consider it a good book goes beyond that, and it is subjective. Likewise, it is an objective fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls do not back up the Masoretic Text in every point (Jeremiah is a prime example), but what I make of that is subjective. As a last example, it is an objective fact that most scholars call the Textus Receptus corrupt, and what I make of this is my business (e.g. his saying after that was pointed out that they were being bought out). He disagreed with all three of these objective facts, and cited almost the oppisite as an objective fact. This is not relativism, nor about his position, but what is objective; it just so happens that it all springs from his position, one that cannot be supported from facts at all.
I do consider them orthodox, because I am in the process of becoming Orthodox (as in the Church). You may, thus, condemn me as a liar, heritic, and idiot, but I, at least, do not make volumnous comments about things I do not understand.
Is Hermas Gnostic? Well, considering the book holds a high view of the material as something to cherish, then, no, it is not Gnostic. You should try again. "Keep this flesh of yours clean and undefiled, in order that the Spirit that lives in it may bear witness to it, and your flesh may be justified." (Herm. 60.1). It is interesting that this Gnostic book holds a material thing in high regard. I can post more, if you need.
As for Barnabas being anti-semitic, aren't you aware that exact same accusation is leveled on the Gospels. They have many things which are considered anti-semitic. What will you do with them?
I also don't care for your evaluation of works vs. salvation in Barnabas. That has no bearing on its being an occult book, which precipitated my quotes. It remains not being an occult book. I don't care if you like the book, or agree with it, but maybe, just maybe, you would sound better if you presented facts rather than unbased assertions. Check your sources and go get real ones. It might help.
As for HBP, how does that prove it is occultic? Do you not believe occultists have used the Bible? Does that make it occult? I doubt you are a friend of Mormons, so does Mormon acceptance of the Bible as a vehicle for their teachings make it Mormon? I seriously doubt you will practice this standard universally, but rather, only where you like it.
I have read many KJV-Only books. They are often volumnous. Unfortunately, they also contain as many lies and outright falsehoods as they do pages. I have New Age Bible Versions. Shall I document some in it?
You may consider me what you may. I don't know you, and likely never will. If it's any consolation, I could always use as an argument that you are outside the Church, but that has no bearing on the discussion, and you wouldn't care, now would you?
I doubt you will provide any documentation beyond a KJV-Onlyist book, though. It is an indefensable position. If you choose to hold it, hold it; don't site blatant falsehoods to support it.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't the one who made the assertion. It was you. If a person makes an assertion which presupposes that science will eliminate the belief in God, then it is incumbant upon him to prove that assertion. I believe God to be untestable, and thus, outside the realm of science. What science cannot test, it cannot banish.
As for your rhetorical question. I have no need to. I didn't make the assertion, so there is no burden of proof incumbant upon me. You would also be hard pressed to find any person, much less an informed person, who believes that statement. On God, though, there are numerous people, both informed and otherwise, who believe in God. Again, burden of proof tends to shift towards an opinion that is least likely held by informed or educated peoples, but both sides of the theism/atheism debate are well represented.
You made an assertion concerning the existence of God, which is well represented by educated peoples. You can't shift the burden of proof to another person to verify a mock position, and expect it to verify your position. If you can't falsify the existence of God using imperical evidence, how do you expect science to illumine people and make it disappear? Please, put your candle up and let it shine. "This little light of mine, oh I'm gonna let it shine, let it shine, let it shine, let it shine."
Wonderful binary thinking. You seem to assume two things, and I will take issue with both presuppositions.
First, you seem to seperate the omnipotence attribute from God's character. While I cannot speak for other religions, Christianity, at least, does not necessarily do that. God cannot lie, for instance. If God makes a rock and declares that he will not lift it, then he cannot lift it, because he cannot lie. His character limits his actions. In order for this test to work, you must verify that such a seperation takes place.
Second, it assumes God operates under the same constraints of logic as the world we are in. More attributes of God, besides the omni's, are that he is unmade, unrestrained, outside time, outside space, completely incomprehensable. Now, I ask, why even assume that he is confined by the laws of logic as we are? Since it's an assumption, if it proves false, the argument is false. This is my favored challenge, though most will prefer the former.
Your question is hardly a question that ends discussion.
God is useless as an explanation to anything? Suppose the existence of God, and the He acted in the past or present. If you consider a priori that such a thing is impossible, you have ruled out ahead of time the correct conclusion. It may be "unscientific," but that doesn't rule it out as a correct conclusion.
As a second note, science however useful, can never prove anything. One starts with a problem. Next, one comes up with an explanation as to the "how" behind the problem. Finally, the explanation (hypothesis) is tested based on its predictions. If it fails, then it's out. If it succeeds, it remains until something predicts things better.
This is simply a process of disproving things. How, then, can science prove anything at all? It's a useful tool, but it's hardly sufficient for a comprehensive epistimology.
That also brings it full circle. Different views of God make different assertions. Some of these can be falsified, but I doubt we have the knowledge to do that. The poster to whom I responded made an assertion about the belief in God. He equated it with ignorance, and the light of science not having illuminated it. The burden of proof always rests on the shoulders of the person making the assertion. He asserted something, and I contest that since the scientific method works primarily by falsification, then he should put his money where his mouth is instead of making fundamentalist-style assertions.
>BTW over 90% of americans believe in god. If that's not a failure of science to act as a candle in the dark I don't know what is.
---------
Can you falsify God scientifically? Please, use imperical facts and tests. A lack of direct evidence does not constitute evidence against, and inderect evidence for either side can be interpreted so widely as to lose it's usefulness, so please, prove atheism scientifically.
Personally, I think your statement verifies that fundamentalist atheism is little different than fundamentalist religion. Feel free to disprove me.
"cultural imperialism?" Maybe. However, given your statement above, well, there shouldn't be a problem with it should there? After all, you're saying that it can be small group of people to impose their order on an entire people via a totalitarian system. Now, what happens if *this* culture with its ideas and values laid down by those dead white males has cultural imperialism as a tenet? I guess spreading and perpetuating their culture is just a part of the culture, and thus,just as justifiable by the rules you seem to have espoused.
;).
At least it wouldn't be forced on the Chinese at the point of a gun. Still, thanks for pointing out that we can do this with impunity, because it can be our cultural value
I hope this goes well. Not only will it lead to the scientific progress everyone here likes, but it could also lead to a greater cultural exchange. It could only help our culture, and cultural contamination is the best way to influence a place like China, what with their human rights violations and all. Anything that even could help alleviate that is good.
When I got into HS, I got my very own 286 and was esctatic. Granted, there were Pentiums coming out at that time, but hey, a first is a first.
You mean, regarding the concept of nothing, that no one had ever managed to see an empty basket or bag? There most certainly was precedent. Do you really believe that when someone ask "Do you have any money?" That no one could ever answer, "No, I have no money?" These things would *certainly* forma backbone for the concept of nothing. So much for "NO root in previous thought."
Ideas that fly in the face of conventional wisdom invariably use that same wisdom. Do you think Newton built his theories on nothing? He put a new spin on old facts, and it was revolutionary, but it hardly qualifies as a wholly original thought, unless of course, he did not rehash many of the old things in a different way.
No, it is not people like me that persecuted Galileo. Remember, my whole thread has been about human *rights* about the importance of them, specifically privacy, and privacy being fundamental to *free speech*. Given that, why would I use government (or ecclesiastical) force to silence a man whom I disagree with. Once again, you cite a shallow historical example. Am I next a Nazi?
For all your name calling, I have challenged your assertion on the definition of rights with authors and history. Of your only counter-arguments one failed to take into account the history I was *citing*, another asserted I did not understand an argument that could be stated in one sentance (If it can be taken from you, it is not a right), and still another to claim that the things I cited could not, in fact, be taken away. When I defined the terms, in the context of this type of discussion, you accuse me of redefining the terms, but are vague as to what I have redefined. You still have not explained what terms I redefined. The arguments in this post are just as feeble.
Rather than spouting your ideas and criticising people for reading other people's thoughts and using those to check their own, perhaps you should try reading what other people have said. The Stoics agree with you on virtually every point you've cited (replace "right" with "own" and dump the metaphysical stuff, and there's your argument), but they could offer a far more stable and full argument.
Have you *ever* read any of the great works on rights, government, etc.? What is your take on the State of Nature (from whence the concept of "rights" arises, so with your expertise in the matter, you can give a recap)? I don't think you have done either, because if you had, you would already be familiar with the valid counter-arguments to my arguments, rather than the shallow things you have written.
Unless your next argument is better, I won't reply. Anything further will be a waste of my time.
Which word did I redefine for my own purposes? It wasn't rights, because that was defined before either of us were born. If you mean what I said on happiness, then should you not define the "pursuit of happiness" the way its authors defined it, or is "original thought" redefining words and phrases, in the context being used, as one sees fit? Do you disagree that the language of human rights is ceded in this Lockian tradition, that in the definition we get the concept from, that people were absolutely free in their original context and formed a "social contract" (the philosophers' words, not mine) and ceded some of these "rights" to the government? Do you deny that Locke and the Founding Fathers used the word "happiness" for "property?" I am *not* redefining words and concepts, but rather, keeping them in their context, because I will not sever an idea from its roots. My definitions come from this. Your definitions disagree with common usage (you are sick of people whining about their rights that aren't really rights), so from where do you get your definition? Did you just look it up in a dictionary one day and decide that you had it right from one or a few entries? Didn't you bother to look at historical usage, or are your definitions automatically superior to those others?
Since you do quote the Declaration of Independence in the "pursuit of happiness" and they did follow Locke's definition, do you think they believed that the British government had then used only the powers delegated to them, or do you believe that these men believed that the British government had overstepped its bounds and violated the social contract? That the government has been usurping more power than it has rights to is not so much a challenge to what I said, but means that it is violating its social contract. It isn't originality to sever an idea from its preceding forms that gave rise to it, which I believe is what you are doing. Did you somehow forget this context, or did you ignore it? The government usurping more power than it was given in its social contract is *exactly* what gave rise to the philosophy.
No, trig and calculus did not arise fully formed, but they weren't just dreamed up overnight either. Were they not modifications on modifications in a virtually endless series of previous ideas? They add a few new elements and modify the mix and that is the "new" thing. Do you suppose that these maths invented the building blocks that make them up? Are not the new theories modifications and an evolution upon what had been there before?
Note that I did not deny all "independent" thought. I just denied that we can create all these wonderful and complex conceptions we have. All great men and their theories stood on the shoulders of other men and their great theories. Every great story is a retelling with a few unique elements of a previous story. I know there had to be a beginning, but then that's the only phenomena we see. There is *nothing* you can cite which isn't an evolutionary descendant of another idea. In that way, any free thought is dependent on the quantity of the data they have. You will never make anything completely original, and neither will I, and it is only self-deception to think that either of us ever will. Will we make modifications and new theories off of the old ones? Sure, and no doubt we already have, but we will never make anything truly original. If your conception were right, then I could expect an infant, with no learning to come up with complex ideas and mathematics. I can't, though, because they haven't learned the fundamental building blocks.
I cannot damn you for hubris, but that's exactly what it is. Nothing short of arrogance (or naivete) separates a thought from its historical form. Since they do not spring from our heads fully formed, as Athena from the head of Zeus, then how can you expect a person to think freely if they do not have free access to the ideas from which to build their ideas? Do you honestly believe your short, simple definition
Let me reiterate: I do not accept your definition that if it is taken away that it is a priveledge. There is no right that cannot be taken away (something I have shown). It is not from not *understanding* what you wrote, but I consider it false.
Rights are, rather, any power we have not ceded to the government. To reiterate, if we haven't given it to them, it's our *right*. This rectifies the error in my first post. It is also the manner in which our rights are understood in the Constitution, Declaration of Independance, and anything else operating under a significant philisophical influence from Locke. In contrast to your dollar bill analogy, take the opening words of the Constitution, "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice..." The FF disposed of their own govenment and constructed a new one from scratch. How can they do this, unless of course, the government is a construct? We make the government, and what we don't give it, is still ours.
As an aside, you learned arithmetic because somebody taught it to you. Would you be able to count past "one, two, many" if someone had not taught it to you (math beyond that is not natural and must be taught), and could you daydream about all the more lofty things you no doubt have done without having been taught? We only know what we're taught, and even our daydreams and math are dependent on those, and without that, math wouldn't be here and daydreams wouldn't be able to conceive the things they do.
What happens if our eyes are plucked out, hands cut off, and tongue cut out? Where is the freedom of speech then?
Well, you can still pursue happiness. Not that you're likely to find it in that state, but you could pursue it. You also would have as much freedom to comminucate as you would be physically able to do.
You mean you *really* can pursue property? That is what the Delcaration of Independance means in using the word. John Locke used it that way, and in turn so did the Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefforson, who drafted it. So, pray tell, *how* can they pursue property, which is the what they must be able to do that. You are quoting the phrase in the Declaration of Independance, right?
That said, speech is dependent on privacy.
On what do you base that ridiculous assumption? Speech is dependant on privacy? How so? I can't speak around other people? No speeches are ever made in public? What the hell are you talking about?
How can I possibly make an informed decision if I am monitored about what I buy and read?
Firstly: Who is monitoring everything you buy and read? Secondly: why does someone else knowing what you buy and read change what conclusions you draw from it? Again, your point is logically unsound.
Likewise, there can be no real freedom of thought without free speech, because the information I can take in, and therefore possible conclusions, is limited.
You should stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking. No freedom of thought without free speech? That's patently untrue. Throughout much of history, speech was not free, and every time someone rose up in rebellion against a tyrannical reign, they have disproved your ill-conceived notion.
As I explained, the ability to freely express oneself is dependent on being able to freely get information. If I cannot inform myself without some sort of recrimination (and I do not believe that a government would watch out of curiosity), then they have limited my ability to speak by limiting what I can learn. Yes, I can speak, but it would be spontaneous uninformed speech. Is that the only one you consider a right?
BTW, I never said somebody was monitoring everything I said. If that were the case in its purest sense, would I be able to freely publish these comments? I am taking issue with your comments on rights.
Likewise, there can be no real freedom of thought without free speech, because the information I can take in, and therefore possible conclusions, is limited.
You should stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking. No freedom of thought without free speech? That's patently untrue. Throughout much of history, speech was not free, and every time someone rose up in rebellion against a tyrannical reign, they have disproved your ill-conceived notion.
Freedom of thought would equate to the ability to think without legal and artificial boundries set up. Correct me if I'm right here. If a group controlls the information available to a group of people, then that same group controlls what said group of people can think. We don't think that far outside the box.
"Throughout history speech was not free..." well throughout history these same tyrants weren't poised with near as much potential control over information and activities as now. That's precisely what made the WWII dictators so heinous: they had so much control of every aspect of people's likves. Never before in history did any single individual weild such power over his people. Now, we have the potential to make them look like kids with toys (and before you assert it, no I do not believe I am living in a dictatorship). You would explain to me when such monitoring (and processing power) was available in history before now so that I can see these tyrants who could curtail speech the way we're talking about today, won't you? Then I can see the relevant tyrants.
(I do not believe that if it can be taken away, then I do not have it, as there is no right that really cannot be ta
This is quite true :), much like the number of times someone asks my what I've been reading, and it didn't even cross my mind given the context, for as you noticed, neither government nor business would really be motivated by that.
There were a couple of other points I neglected in the post that weaken it severely also (happiness in the DoI == property, after the Lockian tradition, and a definition of where rights properly come from, and I noticed the lack of both points retracted from my post after I had done it).
Can you name a right that can't be taken away? The right to pursue happiness is dependent on our life, but if our life is taken, then our "right" is removed (note that this would fall under the same category you put freedom from being beaten and murdered under). The right to speech has at its most basic physical needs. What happens if our eyes are plucked out, hands cut off, and tongue cut out? Where is the freedom of speech then? Your assertion that "what can be taken away...is a priviledge" is nonsense, because there could be no human rights violations; such violations are by definition taking away people's rights.
That said, speech is dependent on privacy. How can I possibly make an informed decision if I am monitored about what I buy and read? Such monitoring only takes place when one party stands to gain or cesure another party. Since, ideally, a government is not a business making profit, so I can only see censuring as a possiblity.
Likewise, there can be no real freedom of thought without free speech, because the information I can take in, and therefore possible conclusions, is limited. Given those, I should think privacy pretty essential to our rights (I do not believe that if it can be taken away, then I do not have it, as there is no right that really cannot be taken away due to removing its dependencies).
But language is an evolving invention of the people and not a set of rules defended by an elite crackerjack force of grammar gnomes. Although it pains me to say it, I believe "it's" has now become an acceptable way to write the possessive of "it," for example, given that nearly everyone does it.
I would agree, but the written language seperate from the spoken, and can the written not be divided up into two classes, one relating to more "refined" works (mainline publications with an editor, or a thing written by someone who cares about such form), and the other less (internet conversations, or graffiti). All of these, would seem to operate under different rules.
Here are some evidences of this:
1). Words are not spelled the way they sound and there are various homophones. For words in this sentance, look at the "ou" sounds or the "ar" sounds for an example. There are also "there," "they're," and "their." All of these distinctions are wholly artificial, often circumvented in less refined writing, but still an expected part of the language.
2). Constructions often differ between the two; I cannot connect two clauses with a semicolon while speaking, but if spoken, I can use a fragment and get my point across, which I would not be able to do in writing.
3). Vocabulary differs slightly between the two. I make a hard distinction between the words "distinction," a distinction with no defined reference to opposition, though it can have it, and "contradistinction," which is a distinction one of whose important attributes are in contrast to what it is being referred to.
While these evidences are not exhaustive (it would take a book to do so), they do illustrate the point. Written language is of a different from the spoken, and there is greater possibility for misunderstanding.
Enter the grammar gnomes. In order to communicate, we follow rules. These rules, in writing, are set down by authorities such as grammars and dictionaries. If I need to know how to spell a word, I open up Webster's Dictionary. If I don't follow the standard, my recipient is likely to misunderstand me. If I want to know how to properly form a clear sentance, as opposed to something like "Ran into the woods," I look up a grammar. The example, "Ran into the woods" is also perfectly acceptable in speaking in response to questions like, "Where is Peter?"
Without said grammar gnomes, we could not communicate in writing without fundamentally retooling our language to be phonetic, and then, we would have problems with grammar.
I do not believe you are illiterate; I actually believe you are quite literate from your post, and so, mean no insult to you. I just think that the "grammar gnomes" comment is trying to be more egalatarian than the reality is
As has already been pointed out, the article is poorly written and a joke. I didn't quite finish it for those reasons, and I felt like I was losing brain cells.
:).
The whole question is moot, though. After all, the combination of having the best advertising and releasing first will be what wins out. Even fan loyalty will likely come in handy. So, why bother predicting, when one bureaucratic screw up can ruin the whole thing.
Now, there are the other holy wars...Linux, vi, and the like being worthy causes
Ok, yeah, I admit my sweeping generalizations of KJV-Onlyism do not encompass every person, and since this is a big message board, I may have confused your post w/ another's. However, my main point is now addressed, being misinformation and whatnot.
:). You see, in the beginning, there was one holy text editor, ed, and it is the greatest of the Old Editors. However, truth came in the form of vi. It was incarnated in two modes, and never should the two mix, for the divine revelation of the Holy Editor was in two modes. However, there came others, later, who insisted that the divine editor must have one mode, and they fashioned for themselves an editor with one mode. This problem would have been small, and there would be one Holy Editor, as opposed to the pagan editors, had the Pope not fashioned another editor, and deepened the error, and even to some degree added "and the command" to the holy words (speaking in a lisp as he did so), "and editing is produced form the insertion." Thus, those who follow the Holy Editor split into two camps. While this occurred, vi was made to fit the needs of the people, but the tradition of editing remained the same, and so, came vi, nvi, vim, and the rest, who all live in harmony. Now, this Pope mantained his control over emacs, but then, one day, the xemacs gang posted their thesis on their needs and produced another emacs. Where vi, understanding that a text editor is a holy thing and to be a text editor, the error of emacs has expanded to allow anything into the mix which could even remotely look like editing (it plays Go, checks your mail, etc.). In the end, emacs and vi follow the path of Church history :).
I will email you concerning those two things, both of which are difficult subjects, but I won't be doing that tonight. Tonight (usually Thursday, but tonight is speacial), I teach a fellow Homeric Greek and a few other things (he is converting to Linux or BSD {he hasn't decided} from Windows as well, so we have a convert to *NIX).
Given the the seriousness of the thread, and its odd character for this site, while remaining on-topic, I must make fun of emacs
Sorry, I couldn't resist. I do understand emacs is a good editor (I have a copy on my box), but it's still a fun one to hammer on.
Actually, the people like Gipp and Ruckman fall only into the first of my two uses of the word. The second, those who use the KJV as a standard for determining the proper Greek text, can readily admit to problems in translation, and thus, are a seperate category. I call this KJV-Onlyist, for the simple reason that by using the KJV as the standard for determining the underlying text, they in turn perform the same anachronistic logic that the former group does. Both, to me, are KJV-Onlyists, and you have outlined the latter as "pro-KJV." The latter, and less extreme group, is the reason why I ask specifically for a place where the KJV's underlying text is in error.
Personally, I wouldn't subject the bird to Ruckman and Gipp's papers. I mentioned Riplinger, because in another post I believe I remember you referencing her (not addressed to me).
Your argument against Ruckman about the Word of God being hidden for "1500+ years" also cuts against the TR. It isn't much younger than the KJV. The Majority Text (by manuscript counting) has a similar problem, as the correct reading is in no single text but the whole. The Majority Text (by family counting) is still more exascerbated in this respect. The Alexandrian Text has it still more, as does today's Critical Text. If having "God's complete word" is the standard, none of these positions can help you in this respect, as they are either not available to all people, or there are no perfect examples, so every manuscript would be incomplete.
It was the preceding problem, along with history, logic, and the like, which have led me to the Eastern Orthodox. I used to be a TR-advocating Baptist.
When you say: "Of course most scholars can be paid to say the TR is corrupt; they are paid by people like Zondervan and other publishing houses that have copyrighted translations that they make a mint from. You have to be aware of the profit motive here, it is not trivial," you are in essence arguing that the reason that scholars say what they say, is because they are being paid off by Zondervan. Clearly the incentive in both parties is profit. However, most scholars are paid by universities, the critical texts are published and copyrighted by various Bible societies, translation efforts are then done by either a publishing house like Zondervan or another group. I don't think I can see the scholars altering the text to be paid by someone they may never even do business with. The truth of the matter, is that scholars who work on this are honest and believe what they are doing is true. The biggest accusation, of this sort, that can be leveled is the that they are liable to try and do something unique or memorable.
Don't worry. I didn't expect it to last this long either. Personally, I use postfix, but I've never used qmail, and I use vi instead of emacs. These are points I know far less about, though; they are hobbies, where this kind of scholarship is serious.
The problem with referring to the DSS the way you did, referencing Isaiah, is that it presents a picture that the whole does not. They challenge the MT more than they support it. If I tell you, "I killed a large bore with a hammer the other day," and omit that I hit it three times with a truck first, I am telling a different story than if I include it. Omitting the problems the DSS cause is pretty much the same exact thing.
This brings up my point. I haven't read Burgon's books, but if you pull your arguments from the likes of the other KJV guys, and there are places as I noted where you certainly appear to, you will be vulnerable to the exact same problems they are.
You should enjoy Perseus. It's put out by a university, and is a reliable site. Personally, I don't like reading a lengthy Greek or English text online, so I tend to avoid it for anything except the vocabulary lists for a new work or its online lexicons.
On said verses involving demons and driving them out, what happens if that isn't the original reading? How do you know (other than what you believe) what is the correct reading? I also do not think this qualifies as a major doctrine (especially as much of it can be surmised from Scripture alone anyway). Also, that problem exists only in an extreme form of Sola Scriptura. For the rest of us, there is Tradition in the matter.
I see how Acts 8.37 requires it for a convert, but it says absolutely nothing about infants. For us, we do not see your logic.
In this post, we have crossed from textual criticism to doctrinal issues, and that, I am not comfortable debating in a forum dedicated to the review of books wherein they are not topics. If we pursue a doctrinal conversation, which I doubt we will, it would be wise to do so via another means.
I need to clarify on the official Bible bit. I do not own a text, but was told our official Bible was similar to the KJV in many respects (omitting things like I Jn. 5.7), so that is a supposition, which may not be correct.
Yes, I do remember the floating point number affair. There are two main points that I fault your analogy with. I would beg to differ with you that anyone could find the results, because not everyone understands it. What keeps the average user (these are not tech-savy) from thinking that it's in the OS or some other such thing, assuming of course they even recognize it. The average man simply would not have the knowledge to identify the problem; I don't know how many people I've helped who couldn't figure out why something wasn't working, and alas, all they had to do was check a single box, connect a phone line, plug in a keyboard, or some other such thing. So, IMO, not anyone could figure it out. It takes the proper training, whether self-taught or otherwise, to troubleshoot it well.
The second is that in manuscripts, you are dealing with words. The only way to know a piece of literature is corrupted is to have some preconception of what the proper form is. One cannot deduce from evidences in translation that something is amiss. This is evidenced from your data about words missing, doctrines altered (all doctrines are, of course, present), and the like. For all you know, those 2866 words could have been added. Of course, wording it "removed," presumes the conclusion you are arguing for.
Do you really think that the removal of fasting in that Matthean verse is sufficient to destroy the teaching of fasting, that it strengthens prayer? The two are mentioned togethor throughout the Bible, and the topic itself is often discussed. Eliminating one addition in two books does not eliminate a doctrine altogethor, as it can be found elsewhere.
Yes, I mistyped Acts 8.37, much as you mistyped St. Matthew 17.21. It is a nice coincidence, nonetheless, though, and your argument was exactly that. Here it is, "Removing it is very adventageous for those who hold to pedobaptism, and very embarassing if it's left in. Since the manuscripts in question were held by the Orthodox and RC churches, who do hold to pedobaptism, the issue is not moot. On the other hand the TR was published by a Catholic (Erasmus) yet it includes Acts 8:37. In legal terminology, this could be considered a statement against interest, and therefore would be given a stronger consideration than something which agreed with his doctrine." The doctrinal point summarizes your whole argument in reverse: it was eliminated by the Orthodox and RCC because they believed in baptising infants (apparantly you do not know that we baptise adults who convert), and therefore, it speaks against them, so they eliminated it. Not only is a fundamental premise wrong, that it we and the RCC do not baptise adults who convert, but it also argues that we eliminated it because of how you interepret it (again, it causes no conflict for us, and is in our official Bible, if I am correct, though I do not have a copy). If you will kindly point out where I am in error in this, please do so.
Ok, well then, you do not understand the point of "Expressed Reason," and I did not take you as saying that I was a JW, as you already know what I am. When Jesus is referred to as Logos, it means far more than Word, and "Expressed Reason," is not only a possible translation, but emphasises that Jesus is not a created thing (a word is created). It emphasises Logos' history in the Greek language, in which it was equated with the God who created everything (see the Greek philosophers). The translation, therefore, increases the impact of the verse and strengthens the references to Christ's deity.
Your example is an example of a mistransation, not an error in the KJV's underlying text. One that, if you are not using the KJV as a guide as to what should be contained, is I John 5.7 (and yes, I have read "A History of the Johanine Comma..."). Do you consider that spurious and added, or is it a part?
You're right. I do keep slamming the KJV-Only camp, and as to who I have read. I have read some of White, Gipp, and Ruckman, and James White isn't the most friendly to KJV-Onlyism. What I know about Burgon comes only from the books I have read which talk about him (briefly), as something of the fount of the KJV movement, and that he miscited authors, made specious arguments, and the like, and in the end, his book sat on the shelf and collected dust until later. I only own New Age Bible Versions, and why I still own it, I really cannot say. When I use the KJV-Only, I mean two classes of people, the first are those who argue that the KJV is a perfect translation, and other translations are somehow imperfect. The other, is the group (which TR advocates seem to gravitate towards), that the KJV is the standard for what is beneath in the original text. The TR, without these connections, is just another text put out by Erasmus, revised by Stephanus, and then Scrivener.
As for the scrap heap theory, I have some skepticism about it. I have never read Tischendorf, and only find these arguments in KJV-Onlyists, or people whose arguments I can trace to KJV-Onlyism.
Other arguments that seem to derive from them are the references to the "occult" books which were included, but that is false. Usually, I see them declaim modern scholars as corrupt or involved in a conspiracy (all it seems they want to do is to destroy the Bible, despite their stated purposes), so your first assertion that "it is widely known that the best Greek text is the `Textus Receptus,'" but when it was pointed out that the statement was false, you changed it to say they were on the take for Zondervan, well in-keeping with the style. The statement that "the only new translations that have been done were based on the Wescott and Hort manuscripts" is another common one, but alas, it is patently false (W&H did not include the story of the woman caught in adultry, for instance), and even if the assumption that this text was somehow corrupted were true, it would make little difference since modern versions are not based on it. Another one is that the Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text, on which the KJV was translated has been wholly vindicated by the DSS, but alas, while the Isaih scroll agrees almost entirely, Jeremiah and other books are not quite so amiable. To be fair, this is argued outside the KJV-Onlyists. The argument that translations had to be changed since they were copyrighted is another common argument, neglecting that the KJV was copyrighted. Lastly, the argument that the English language was at its zenith then is also commonly argued by them, and again, is another very poor argument.
From the preceding, you would appear to be dependent on them in the extreme, and you do cite them as an authority. If a well has arsenic in it, then not only the people who recline at that well are poisened, but so are the people who take the water to another camp to drink. Just because you aren't a KJV-Onlyist does not exempt you from repeating the same poor research they have done if you use them readily. As another question, having cited so many errors, how can you or your sources be considered reliable? That first post I responded to had more falsehoods than truth. That is a very dangerous ratio to those of us who do not agree with you.
These errors resulting from speed are classified and identified in modern scholarship. In condemning Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (and the other Alexandrian manuscripts no doubt), have you read works by men like Kurt Aland and Bruce Metzger, the two most prominent biblical textual critics of the 20th Century? Their materials explain the mechanisms to identify these occurances. It's not like speed is an unkown influence, and if Sinaiticus was being used that way, I would think it would have been worn out a long time ago, just as most teaching tools tend to get wear on them.
Xenophon wrote history in a pagan culture. That does not make his works occult works, though he must interact
I do not hold opinions on the Peshitta, because I have no access to the text and do not know Syriac. For that, I rely solely on mainstream scholarship. Even on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus my knowledge is limited, since I have no access to scans, but I know enough of their variants and have encountered enough KJV-Onlyism to know the difference. Those are, after all, only two of the more important manuscripts.
Commenting on an ancient manuscript is a lot different than knowing whether the chip in your computer functions correctly (and I am not an expert in computer technology, as you can see what I spend my time studying). However, how would an average user know that a chip is bad, even if things were going wrong on their computer? They would need greater knowledge than that just knowing how to turn it on and run a few programs. Likewise, how can you know what the quality of a manuscript is with poor sources, and when you cannot even read the language (much less do so even if you had access to a reliable copy of the manuscript).
My position is not "don't think," for there are places where I have come to convictions on the text contrary to the dominant opinion, but rather, my position is educate yourself. If you do not know about a subject, take the word of those who do, and if you doubt them, learn how to approach the issue from those who do know (the techniques and skills should remain stable). Personally, I do not listen to an uneducated man on the subject of how my brain works biologically. That is the domain of a specialist.
Why do I cite Ms. Riplinger above all others? Because her unreliability demonstrates amply what I've seen from the others, and your comment about being suprised that I have not really attacked her shows that you know that she lies in her book, and yet you also consider it a valid source. No, I do not have Sorenson's book you linked to, but I will quote from the summary to show why I doubt it: "Touch Not the Unclean Thing documents the apostasy, liberalism, and even the occult connected to the entire lineage of the Critical Text. (Please recall that it is the modern Critical Text which underlies most modern translations of the Bible including the NIV, the NASB, and a host of others.)" A simple scan of this shows that it is driven, not by scholarship, but purely by doctrine. In fact, its content sounds suspiciously like New Age Bible Versions.
I apologize for assuming that you wanted the KJV over the original, so will you point me to where the KJV differs from the original text? Your arguments sound an awful lot like a KJV-Onlyists, but that last post indicates very strongly that you believe there are inaccuracies in it where it does not represent the underlying text.
Actually, on "Expressed Reason," it does not downplay Christ's divinity. After all, that usage of the word equates it with the divine (the Eternal Logos) and the thrid clause affirms that the Word was what God was. Therefore, the translation does not do that (I woudl not emulate the NWT).
Actually, if I recall correctly, it was you who tried to downplay the manuscripts by associating them with a church "drenched in the blood of the saints," as you put it. I simply used that same standard against you, and King James killed Protestants also. So, if I understand what you are saying, you mean that since Catholics were trying to kill him, it was OK for him to kill the translators, most of whom were Protestants. Since you mentioned Bloody Mary, does that same logic apply to how she grew up? I mean, her mother was locked in the Tower of London, and there had been bitter persecution of Catholics. I, thus, do equate the actions of James with those of the Middle Ages Catholic Church, for I see no reason not to.
So, you believe the verse in Acts 8:47 should be included because it can agree with your doctrine (there's more than one way to read a verse, and some of those do not preclude the baptism of infants)? Isn't that just like rewriting the Bible, choosing the text that
Yes, I am in the camp that is strongly anti-kjv-onlyist camp. This is because the KJV-Onlyist camp seems dominated by people who seek to prove occult influences (your take on the books in the manuscripts in question), conspiracies(Zondervan pays scholars to deny the TR, or else they'd acknowledge it), and the like in everything modern translations (all examples are your assertions). I have never seen any quality scholarship in it.
Scholarship does not equate to the position I have cited. There are Byzantine priority text advocates, those who wish to rely solely on internal evidence, and others. These use facts by others, and are generally reliable. KJV-Onlyists are not. If a KJV-Onlyist published a book without asserting wild occult crap, conspiracy theories, and far-out claims, they may be able to earn their place. To date, none have done so.
The older manuscript is preferred to the younger because it is closer in time to the original. One can assert all he wants that it was put away for being corrupt, but that must be proven, as the preceding assumption is both logical and sound. Could it have been misplaced, used as a master copy for a while, not used after a standardization, or any number of other things? Why would it sit on a shelf if it was corrupt, not being used, instead of being destroyed? Such speculation, as a result, does not diminish the importance of its age. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament containing a large number of books, aren't they?
The shorter reading is preferred, because it is presupposed that expanding the formula or accidently adding to it is more likely than overlooking it, and older manuscripts tend to have shorter readings (including the papyrus fragments), right? This, of course, bars such obvious things as homoioteleuton.
These are principles which govern textual criticism today on both the Bible and secular material, and is supported by the vast majority of scholars (contrary to your first statement, and maybe they might be on the take like in your second argument, but i doubt it).
No, I do not consider HBP an authority on occult history. I think she was a charismatic and intelligent woman, but also a little on the looney side and a tendancy to operate like a psychic hotline does today. Just because she has had great influence on those who followed her, does not mean that she actually knew anything on her subject (her Atlantis is nothing more than a greatly expanded version of Plato's account and is wholly ahistorical). The two books in question are rather obscure and esoteric, as most people have never read them; I could turn Xenophon into an occult writer for most people with just a few lies, since most people have no clue who he was.
It's not so much simply attacking a position, but attacking his facts. Most of his "facts" are anything but. I don't care if he's a KJV-Onlyist. He can be if he wants, but he's not checked his sources and is repeating terrible information. It's almost akin to saying that a ten year-old computer can outpace today's.
If you want my view, here it is in a nutshell. I use today's critical texts and adhere to the theories underlying it when I take up a divergant reading from what they say. I do not accuse the scholarly establishment of being on the take for Zondervan or other such nonsense. I prefer the more difficult reading, but favor a reading found in all four textual families. Shorter readings are preferred to the longer, etc. It's the standard faire in modern circles. I hope that is sufficient for you.
No, I am not a relativist. I believe truth is absolute, and only our perceptions are relative. Hence I have no problem with his position, just his facts. I can know, for instance, that the Shephard of Hermas is not an occult book. That is an objective fact, once "occult" is defined. Whether I consider it a good book goes beyond that, and it is subjective. Likewise, it is an objective fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls do not back up the Masoretic Text in every point (Jeremiah is a prime example), but what I make of that is subjective. As a last example, it is an objective fact that most scholars call the Textus Receptus corrupt, and what I make of this is my business (e.g. his saying after that was pointed out that they were being bought out). He disagreed with all three of these objective facts, and cited almost the oppisite as an objective fact. This is not relativism, nor about his position, but what is objective; it just so happens that it all springs from his position, one that cannot be supported from facts at all.
I do consider them orthodox, because I am in the process of becoming Orthodox (as in the Church). You may, thus, condemn me as a liar, heritic, and idiot, but I, at least, do not make volumnous comments about things I do not understand.
Is Hermas Gnostic? Well, considering the book holds a high view of the material as something to cherish, then, no, it is not Gnostic. You should try again. "Keep this flesh of yours clean and undefiled, in order that the Spirit that lives in it may bear witness to it, and your flesh may be justified." (Herm. 60.1). It is interesting that this Gnostic book holds a material thing in high regard. I can post more, if you need.
As for Barnabas being anti-semitic, aren't you aware that exact same accusation is leveled on the Gospels. They have many things which are considered anti-semitic. What will you do with them?
I also don't care for your evaluation of works vs. salvation in Barnabas. That has no bearing on its being an occult book, which precipitated my quotes. It remains not being an occult book. I don't care if you like the book, or agree with it, but maybe, just maybe, you would sound better if you presented facts rather than unbased assertions. Check your sources and go get real ones. It might help.
As for HBP, how does that prove it is occultic? Do you not believe occultists have used the Bible? Does that make it occult? I doubt you are a friend of Mormons, so does Mormon acceptance of the Bible as a vehicle for their teachings make it Mormon? I seriously doubt you will practice this standard universally, but rather, only where you like it.
I have read many KJV-Only books. They are often volumnous. Unfortunately, they also contain as many lies and outright falsehoods as they do pages. I have New Age Bible Versions. Shall I document some in it?
You may consider me what you may. I don't know you, and likely never will. If it's any consolation, I could always use as an argument that you are outside the Church, but that has no bearing on the discussion, and you wouldn't care, now would you?
I doubt you will provide any documentation beyond a KJV-Onlyist book, though. It is an indefensable position. If you choose to hold it, hold it; don't site blatant falsehoods to support it.