That page also does a good job at explaining how someone could not have just lived his life in order to look like he was fulfulling prophecy (like say, "Well, the Old Testament says that the Messiah will do his first miracle in Galalee, so I better go there before I start telling people I am the Messiah.")
The King James Version (translation) was not inspired. If you read my description of what inspired means, you would see that it doesn't apply to translations, but only the autographs.
Textual criticism is the science of determining how close a copy (in the original language) is to the original "autograph".
It isn't really that much of a generalization. Bethlehem is only 6 miles south of Jerusalem.
It wasn't that good of an example anyway, because Micah 5:2 explictly says he will be born in Bethlehem.
The point I was making isn't about generality. It was that some prophetic statements don't make sense until after the event has occurred. The ones that don't make sense are usually very strange, not too general.
Let me think of an analogy.
"He will arrive in a aluminum tube with wings."
You think, "that is strange, a aluminum tube with wings, never heard of such a thing. Did someone glue chicken feathers on a can and cut the ends off?"
Then you see that he arrives on an airplane. It resembles a tube, and it has wings (not bird wings, but still). This is not at all a general statement -- if it were, you would be able to think of *lots* of other ways someone could arrive in a winged aluminum tube.
It isn't general, but it is only after the fact that it makes sense. The prophecy was completely accurate, you just couldn't understand it fully until after the event.
The jews knew the approximate time of Jesus' coming because of Daniel. They knew that he would be resurrected after three days due to Isaiah. This tablet does not prove that Jesus' story was just a rehash of an earlier story. To me, at least, it proves that the Jewish people knew that the prophecy was coming soon and there were many man pretending to be the Messiah.
This is, in fact, the Bible, much like we have it. It contains nearly the entire New Testament, and large parts of the Old Testament. This is not the oldest copy of the manuscripts that we have, not by far, but it is considered the oldest collection of all the books in the NT canon.
The Codex Sinaiticus does contain resurrection details. What the summary fails to point out that the Book of Mark ends before the resurrection. I will say that again, it is only the Book of Mark that does not contain a resurrection narrative. The narrative that we have in modern translations is considered by most to be properly included. By studying older manuscripts of Mark which do contain the resurrection narrative, it was eventually concluded that it does belong.
Codex Sinaiticus was written before this conclusion, and therefore, left out the part that the writers felt were not inspired.
He is saying that it is written in a way that doesn't particularly make sense until the even occurs. At that point you look back and say, "oh yeah, this did happen like he said it would happen."
It is still prophecy even if God didn't say, "He will be born in Bethlehem", but rather said, "He will be born in a city south of Jerusalem".
Inspired doesn't mean either of the things you say it means. The word translated "insipred" is "" which literally means "God breathed". It refers to the fact that the concepts the authors were writting came from God via the Holy Spirit.
It has nothing to do with translations or even manuscripts in the original language. It simply means the the autographs (the original work of the author) are free from factual error because the facts where given to the author by God.
It isn't 4th century BCE, it is 4th century CE (AD). That is a typo in the summary.
The summary is also in error that there is no mention of the resurrection. It is only the Book of Mark which doesn't mention the resurrection, it ends right after the women enter the tomb and find it empty. There are various reasons for this, and you are free to research them.
While this may be the "world's oldest Bible", it does not contain the oldest manuscripts. There are manuscripts dating to 1st century CE.
I have no doubt that there are people who have objections to publishing this, but I don't understand the objections.
Large swaths of the resurrection details were fortold in Isaiah (and in many other OT books).
Apple may have a higher market cap, but it has less cash than IBM. It also has a much lower EBITDA. So, IBM isn't really smaller than Apple, they are about equal.
"...software was a market where innovations tended to be sequential, in that they were built closely on the work of predecessors, and innovators could take many different paths to the same goal. In such markets..." Out of curiousity, what are the other "such markets" that he is referring to?
I have never heard free defined as "knowing exactly how much I'm going to have to pay".
My mortgage payment is $1000/month, it will be for the next thirty years. I guess that is free though, because I know exactly how much I am going to have to pay.
I live in St. Cloud, FL. City managers tell us that our taxes are essentially $300/year lower because they provide Internet access (estimated that we would normally pay $25/month to an ISP).
However, I only know of one person who can actually get the service in his home. The WAPs are too spread out to get coverage unless you are outside. Or unless your are downtown, they have them concentrated there.
I cannot get the WiFi from my home, so I still have to pay for my own Internet access.
So, not only am I not saving those $300, I am actually spending an additional $300.
If a city is going to charge everyone in the city for a service, they better provide it to everyone in that city. Kinda like garbage service... I don't see anyone in the city not getting their garbage picked up.
I was cool with it when they only provided it downtown (the pilot program). It was sort of an economic boost for the businesses there, but it was a waste of money to deploy it for the entire city.
Where is responsibility or freedom removed? You can choose not to use this technology... it isn't like the TV comes pre-programmed based on government standards.
"Irreducible Complexity basically states, "I don't know what is smaller than this, so it's irreducible, and therefore proof for the existence of god." It's a huge fallacy."
That is not what Irreducible Complexity states. It states that for a given system, it is irreducible if removing any part causes the system to cease functioning.
Along with that is the argument that the probability of building up complex systems would be huge since you need all required pieces to be in place at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
[[I thought I posted this last Friday, but it looks like I didn't. Sorry for the wait.]]
Sure, there are many lists. Just search "list of messianic prophecies".
Here is one that I reviewed, it even highlights the ones that are patently obvious: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/m_prophecies.shtml
That page also does a good job at explaining how someone could not have just lived his life in order to look like he was fulfulling prophecy (like say, "Well, the Old Testament says that the Messiah will do his first miracle in Galalee, so I better go there before I start telling people I am the Messiah.")
I don't quite agree with you.
The King James Version (translation) was not inspired. If you read my description of what inspired means, you would see that it doesn't apply to translations, but only the autographs.
Textual criticism is the science of determining how close a copy (in the original language) is to the original "autograph".
It isn't really that much of a generalization. Bethlehem is only 6 miles south of Jerusalem.
It wasn't that good of an example anyway, because Micah 5:2 explictly says he will be born in Bethlehem.
The point I was making isn't about generality. It was that some prophetic statements don't make sense until after the event has occurred. The ones that don't make sense are usually very strange, not too general.
Let me think of an analogy.
"He will arrive in a aluminum tube with wings."
You think, "that is strange, a aluminum tube with wings, never heard of such a thing. Did someone glue chicken feathers on a can and cut the ends off?"
Then you see that he arrives on an airplane. It resembles a tube, and it has wings (not bird wings, but still). This is not at all a general statement -- if it were, you would be able to think of *lots* of other ways someone could arrive in a winged aluminum tube.
It isn't general, but it is only after the fact that it makes sense. The prophecy was completely accurate, you just couldn't understand it fully until after the event.
The jews knew the approximate time of Jesus' coming because of Daniel. They knew that he would be resurrected after three days due to Isaiah. This tablet does not prove that Jesus' story was just a rehash of an earlier story. To me, at least, it proves that the Jewish people knew that the prophecy was coming soon and there were many man pretending to be the Messiah.
This information is nothing new.
This is, in fact, the Bible, much like we have it. It contains nearly the entire New Testament, and large parts of the Old Testament. This is not the oldest copy of the manuscripts that we have, not by far, but it is considered the oldest collection of all the books in the NT canon.
The Codex Sinaiticus does contain resurrection details. What the summary fails to point out that the Book of Mark ends before the resurrection. I will say that again, it is only the Book of Mark that does not contain a resurrection narrative. The narrative that we have in modern translations is considered by most to be properly included. By studying older manuscripts of Mark which do contain the resurrection narrative, it was eventually concluded that it does belong.
Codex Sinaiticus was written before this conclusion, and therefore, left out the part that the writers felt were not inspired.
He is saying that it is written in a way that doesn't particularly make sense until the even occurs. At that point you look back and say, "oh yeah, this did happen like he said it would happen."
It is still prophecy even if God didn't say, "He will be born in Bethlehem", but rather said, "He will be born in a city south of Jerusalem".
Inspired doesn't mean either of the things you say it means. The word translated "insipred" is "" which literally means "God breathed". It refers to the fact that the concepts the authors were writting came from God via the Holy Spirit.
It has nothing to do with translations or even manuscripts in the original language. It simply means the the autographs (the original work of the author) are free from factual error because the facts where given to the author by God.
It isn't 4th century BCE, it is 4th century CE (AD). That is a typo in the summary.
The summary is also in error that there is no mention of the resurrection. It is only the Book of Mark which doesn't mention the resurrection, it ends right after the women enter the tomb and find it empty. There are various reasons for this, and you are free to research them.
While this may be the "world's oldest Bible", it does not contain the oldest manuscripts. There are manuscripts dating to 1st century CE.
I have no doubt that there are people who have objections to publishing this, but I don't understand the objections.
Large swaths of the resurrection details were fortold in Isaiah (and in many other OT books).
"Would the answer tell me about the future?"
What would the answer to this tell me about the future? Nothing. Therefore, logical positivism is meaningless.
"without knowing which country you were talking about"
So, I guess you just happened upon a single comment in this thread?
Didn't you know which article you were looking at?
I have a moral principle against it.
There you go.
Could you please provide a link to the definition that people who study evolution use?
This is not a troll, I really am curious to find a standard.
Yeah, but what if there is no arm nearby? huh?
Apple may have a higher market cap, but it has less cash than IBM. It also has a much lower EBITDA. So, IBM isn't really smaller than Apple, they are about equal.
No, this is not about illegal wiretaps. The summary is wrong.
I have never heard free defined as "knowing exactly how much I'm going to have to pay".
My mortgage payment is $1000/month, it will be for the next thirty years. I guess that is free though, because I know exactly how much I am going to have to pay.
Reflector was built by Lutz Roeder who is a Microsoft employee. Also, it is highly praised on many Microsoft Employee blogs and Channel9.
I live in St. Cloud, FL. City managers tell us that our taxes are essentially $300/year lower because they provide Internet access (estimated that we would normally pay $25/month to an ISP).
However, I only know of one person who can actually get the service in his home. The WAPs are too spread out to get coverage unless you are outside. Or unless your are downtown, they have them concentrated there.
I cannot get the WiFi from my home, so I still have to pay for my own Internet access.
So, not only am I not saving those $300, I am actually spending an additional $300.
If a city is going to charge everyone in the city for a service, they better provide it to everyone in that city. Kinda like garbage service... I don't see anyone in the city not getting their garbage picked up.
I was cool with it when they only provided it downtown (the pilot program). It was sort of an economic boost for the businesses there, but it was a waste of money to deploy it for the entire city.
That is funny, I did the exact same thing.
I didn't read the article, but does it really say that those are the *only* three?
Probably would block "Google" and "Sony" as well.
Where is responsibility or freedom removed? You can choose not to use this technology... it isn't like the TV comes pre-programmed based on government standards.
Um, part of the law is the ability to exempt companies from it... therefore (since an exemption was granted) this is not against the law.
"Irreducible Complexity basically states, "I don't know what is smaller than this, so it's irreducible, and therefore proof for the existence of god." It's a huge fallacy."
That is not what Irreducible Complexity states. It states that for a given system, it is irreducible if removing any part causes the system to cease functioning.
Along with that is the argument that the probability of building up complex systems would be huge since you need all required pieces to be in place at the same time.
I think it was Mindscape that was a cheap ISP for a while.