Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah i find that the idea of "proof" from Theists a tad ridiculous. Would any of this stuff hold up in a court of law?

Gwar! and Albatross--now your just being silly, it's a amazing what a book of fiction like the davinci code will create. The gnostics were a cultic group that sprang up around the 2nd century AD. In fact they were decnounced as heretics by our friend Iraneus.

It's very disengenuious of you to waive the gnostic gospels in our faces and pretend that they are as equally valid a source as orthodox scripture.
You may as well say "Well what about the New World Translation that the Jehovas witnesses use!" they like the gnostics have written their own Bible, which cannot be backed up by the many 1,000's of manuscripts, that textual historians have, to cross check them.

GG

Didnt a whole bunch of people just get together and vote for what should be in the bible about 400 years after it was all written down?

It seems to me GG that considering how much human interference has been involved with getting your bible to you that surely you cant REALLY take it all as "gospel" right?

If God wanted it in a pure form, why didnt he just, i dunno, cast copies of it into loads of rocks or something?

GG wrote:Gwar! and Albatross--now your just being silly, it's a amazing what a book of fiction like the davinci code will create. The gnostics were a cultic group that sprang up around the 2nd century AD. In fact they were decnounced as heretics by our friend Iraneus.

Who mentioned the Da Vinci Code? I am holding in my hand a copy of The Gospel Of Judas, produced by National Geographic - yes, I am aware of Gnosticism and the timeframe it occupies. It precedes the first and second councils of Nicea. I am also aware of the fact that early christianity consisted of many conflicting strands. you just happen to belong to one of the successful ones.

"book created by a committee," etc = ignorant unto meaningless


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, since when does practical certainty require faith in a religious sense? I am certain that tomorrow will happen. I do not have religious faith that this is so. I am certain that atoms always behave in the same way. Again, no religious faith is necessary. Similarly, atheists can be certain that God does not exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Albatross: The National Geographic publication "Gospel of Judas" was a scandal in academia. Their translation and interpretation proved to be faulty when it was finally opened up to other scholars (yes, after they bought the manuscript, NatGeo hired scholars and made them sign non-disclose agreements) and the corporation has been accused by academics of willful sensationalism in order to sell more books/magazines. The "Gospel of Judas" has not proven to be a very significant text outside of this controversy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:Thanks for the Orson Scott Card link. Definitely an interesting read, especially where he talks about how if the book was a forgery written by the best science fiction authors fully aware of Meso American culture , it still would have been readily apparent as a fake, but he can't find any flaws in the Book of Mormon that would demonstrate it as such.

Yes, Card shares some very interesting personal reflections about his literary affection for the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, he completely ignores the many anachronisms found within it as well as the many sound plagiarism arguments, not mention the complete lack of archeological evidence. I think Card's main point, or at least what I took away from the piece, is that he is able to ignore all of these solid criticisms of the book's authenticity because he believes that it is a great story.

@Manchu,
It appears the fate of religious books to be controversial, be it the Book of Mormon or the Bible.
Many people have been willing to lose everything up to and including their lives due to their testomony of the truth of the Book of Mormon. I can only say that I know it's a true book and it changed my life for the far better.

Here's what you had to say about the gospel of Judas

"@Albatross: The National Geographic publication "Gospel of Judas" was a scandal in academia. Their translation and interpretation proved to be faulty when it was finally opened up to other scholars (yes, after they bought the manuscript, NatGeo hired scholars and made them sign non-disclose agreements) and the corporation has been accused by academics of willful sensationalism in order to sell more books/magazines. The "Gospel of Judas" has not proven to be a very significant text outside of this controversy."

The book of Mormon was translated by an unschooled farm boy out in the middle of the woods in the 1820's, yet has endured and been the basis for what is now a worldwide church that has helped countless millions since it's inception. You say the book of Gospel of Judas, written by scholars will prove not significant.

Orson Scott Card goes beyond saying the Book of Mormon is merely a great read, he calls it the most important book in his life and he also calls it life changing.
It appears we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, no hard feelings, but plenty of thanks for the discussion. I've been learning a lot on this thread about other's beliefs and hope to continue to do so.
This thread has so far been a great springboard for research.

@Relapse: Losing one's life to promote the truth of the Book of Mormon is an interesting subject. If Joseph Smith lied about the authenticity of the book--actually, drop the word "lie" given that the man's motives could have been much more complex than simply trying to drum up fame and followers--but if the Book was not what he claimed it to be, a lot of people would have lost their lives for . . . what? Well, like you and Orson Scott Card have said, for the chance to change their lives and other people's for the better, right? So even if the text is not actually the history of God's relationship with a lost tribe of Israel intermingled with meso-American peoples (as it pretty much cannot be given the dearth of archeological, literary, and genetic evidence) it is still an important work that has been able to move people to do incredible things. To be honest, I find the LDS movement to be very disheartening. On the one hand, the imagination and conviction of men like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are admirable. On the other hand, it is saddening that Mormons claim that Christianity represents an apostasy, a lie, a sham perpetuated by the very guardians of His message that He Himself chose. I am grateful for my Mormon friends and family members, grateful that they are people of integrity and generosity, but I find their beliefs at heart alien and pernicious. I don't mean to offend. At this point in the conversation, I think it's best to be sincere and open.

Also, the Gospel of Judas was not written by scholars. It was merely translated by them. I'm not following your comparison, however.

Albatross wrote: No change? Really? So the translations from Aramaic through to Hebrew, Greek and Latin, which meant that 'young maid' turned into 'virgin' haven't changed anything?

Well, as GG already noted, we can compare modern translations of Scripture to scrolls and text that date back as early as AD 120. That is less then 100 years after the death of Christ, and only 20ish years or so after the death of St. John the Apostle. If Scripture had such wildly inaccurate translations, as you claim, I am sure such men as Mr. Dawkins would have made it incredibly clear that our text is wrong and used such evidence to back up their claims. Other then minor grammatical errors in translation and so on, the book has been largely unchanged. And the language of the text did not change as much as you might suggest. The vast majority of the New Testament was written in Greek, and some even in Latin. St Paul, who authored most of it, was a Roman Citizen (which was a big deal), and would have definitely written in Greek and Latin. Very few, if any, of the books of the NT were written in Aramaic, and it is almost certain none were written in Hebrew.

Albatross wrote:Plus have you seen The Gnostic Gospels? They are radically different to modern christian teaching.

That is because they are false heretical writings. Whereas the Synoptic Gospels, and the Gospel of St. John were written within 50 years of the death of Christ, the oldest Gnostic Gospel, the gospel of Thomas, was written no earlier then AD 150. Some scholars believe it was written after AD 172, because they theorize that it was influenced by Tatian's Dietessaron.

Thorgut wrote:Also, it's hilarious to suggest the bible never changed. It's a book created by committee and apart from that, once bits were proven illogical or impossible, they suddenly became allegory and metaphor.

Your understanding of Church history and proceedings is sorely lacking. The Ecumenical Councils were no mere committee. They were made up of all the Bishops of the Church, and the greatest minds in the realm of Christendom. They poured over the books that were suggested to be part of the canon, and painstakingly pieced together what would be our modern Bible. And as far as it being proven wrong or otherwise, your claim is just amusing. The Church, in all its long history, never assumed the Bible to be completely, literally true. That is a product of the Enlightenment, and it has ever caused the Church problems. There are some parts that are very literally true, and other that are poetic and allegorical. To assume otherwise is ridiculous.

mattyrm wrote:Didnt a whole bunch of people just get together and vote for what should be in the bible about 400 years after it was all written down?

No, not really. It was created in list form by St. Athanasius, and was promoted by St. Augustine, and was adopted in the Council of Carthage in 397.

mattyrm wrote:It seems to me GG that considering how much human interference has been involved with getting your bible to you that surely you cant REALLY take it all as "gospel" right?

We have evidence to back up our Faith, and the Scriptures are considered to be some of the most, if not the most, accurate text from Antiquity.

Albatross wrote:Who mentioned the Da Vinci Code? I am holding in my hand a copy of The Gospel Of Judas, produced by National Geographic - yes, I am aware of Gnosticism and the timeframe it occupies. It precedes the first and second councils of Nicea.

And it is also wrong, and wildly inaccurate and has no historical founding.

Albatross wrote:I am also aware of the fact that early Christianity consisted of many conflicting strands. you just happen to belong to one of the successful ones.

It wasn't as divergent as you might assume. The councils were called to order to combat heresy as it arose. The first problem was that of Arianism. Gnosticism was a long dead issue, as it was not accepted by the early Church Fathers as valid. The Apostles left behind very clear definitions of the Faith for Church leaders to adhere to, and they were, and still are, very sound, useful pieces of Scripture.

To sharpen JEB's point about the conciliar ratification of the biblical canon, it was not as if the bishops came together to create and promulgate a new collection of texts. That is not the way Councils work. Rather, the bishops at Third Carthage merely authoritatively confirmed what was already the practice of the Church.

double post in the roast

Manchu wrote:To sharpen JEB's point about the conciliar ratification of the biblical canon, it was not as if the Bishops came together to create and promulgate an new collection of texts. That is not the way Councils work. Rather, the bishops at Third Carthage merely authoritatively confirmed what was already the practice of the Church.

Thanks for that Manchu, I thought I left something out in that text wall.

@Manchu,

My bad on saying written instead of translated.

The comparison I had in mind was the significance of a book worked on by scholars backed by the National Geographic with all the modern resources available as compared to a book translated by someone with no formal schooling in his early 20's in the middle of the backwoods in 1820's America.

If you are saying that the LDS church says the Apostles perpetuated a sham, you are wrong. In our meetings, the Apostles are quite often quoted and set up as examples to follow.

If you mean that we believe large parts of the truth were lost over the course of time you are correct. Just looking at the conversation going on in this thread shows the truth of that.

Your comparison is not very credible because, and this is a conclusion of textual criticism and not merely my personal opinion, it is not the case that Joseph Smith translated (from what language even?) the document he called the Book of Mormon. Actually, according to the unscientific standards employed by Orson Scott Card, it is more likely that J. R. R. Tolkien translated the Silmarillion from Elvish. The Book of Mormon no doubt has had and will continue to have a greater influence than the so-called "Gospel of Judas" (which is, at the end of the day, just one more Gnostic text to add to the pile) but the Gospel of Judas is a document from the ancient past while the Book of Mormon is a document from nineteenth-century America. The only view to the contrary is based upon willful avoidance of empirical evidence. It has the same validity as the claim that the Koran was revealed to Mohammed by Allah word for word. These are faith claims but they are not historical claims.

I am not merely talking about the Apostles but also the successors of the apostles right down to the (Catholic and Orthodox) bishops of today. This is a documented historical succession.

@Manchu,

I have to disagree with you about the Book of Mormon merely being a 19th century document based on my faith in its truth and the difference I see it make in people's lives.
At the end of the day, that's what it comes down to.
I won't deny there is a debt owed for a lot of preserved knowledge that came down from the Catholic church, however.

Relapse wrote:If you mean that we believe large parts of the truth were lost over the course of time you are correct. Just looking at the conversation going on in this thread shows the truth of that.

Not intending to pile on, but how can you say "large parts of truth were lost" when we have been trying to show you, that the science of textual critisism whereby many 1,000's of texts make our bible more accurate because, the more texts you have, the more easily it is to find errors by comparison. This in't some guy in an RV and comic book gloves comparing iron man vs spider man and what happened in issue 35 vs issue 58. You have PHD's who have dedicated their entire life to this field of study, to compare extremely minute differences, even down to where a period should be. All this to find out if there are any valid differences that could be "significant" enough to rise to the level of relooking at a certain passage.

And also as has been said, this "course of time" argument doesn't really hold water either, since we have texts that have shown to be unchanging(except for minor transcription errors) over a period of 2,000 years. NO element of truth have been lost, and certainly no major doctrine of Christianity has been effected by the variants that have been discovered.

Compare this to the book of mormon. Joe Smith makes a claim that the angel moroni dictated the book of mormon. All we have is Joe smiths word and the document that he wrote. I'm sorry, but that single source does not compare equivalently to the many thousands of sources that our Bible is based on. Not to mention the fact that, apparantly the angel moroni speaks king james english in the 19th century.

GG

@Relapse: I'm not doubting your faith that the Book of Mormon is authentically what it claims to be. I'm also not denying that it has had a significantly positive effect on people's lives. What I am saying is that there is as much evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims as there is evidence that the Silmarillion is an authentic, historical account of a civilization of elves in ancient Europe. By contrast, it is a scientific fact that the books of the New Testament are from the first century AD. Whether the supernatural incidents described within it are literally true (or even meant to be taken as literal truth) is another question.

Edited.

mattyrm wrote:Yeah i find that the idea of "proof" from Theists a tad ridiculous. Would any of this stuff hold up in a court of law?

Sorry Mattrym I think you misunderstand us.

Theists generally been saying here 'there is no no proof' with careful consistency and it is odd that you are reading it read in the same context as claiming 'proof'.

Most theists dont require 'proof' for their world view as faith is a more actively integral part of it. This is not to say that proof would be very nice.

I could even say to some extent an honest theist would 'welcome' proof of the non existence of God. We would be shocked and bitterly disappointed but at least we could dismantle religion at the point and do something else more worthwhile.

@GG,

A fair comment, but if large portions of the truth were not lost, wouldn't we all be the same religion?

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Thorgut wrote:Also, it's hilarious to suggest the bible never changed. It's a book created by committee and apart from that, once bits were proven illogical or impossible, they suddenly became allegory and metaphor.

Your understanding of Church history and proceedings is sorely lacking. The Ecumenical Councils were no mere committee. They were made up of all the Bishops of the Church, and the greatest minds in the realm of Christendom. They poured over the books that were suggested to be part of the canon, and painstakingly pieced together what would be our modern Bible. And as far as it being proven wrong or otherwise, your claim is just amusing. The Church, in all its long history, never assumed the Bible to be completely, literally true. That is a product of the Enlightenment, and it has ever caused the Church problems. There are some parts that are very literally true, and other that are poetic and allegorical. To assume otherwise is ridiculous.

A committee of bishops is still a committee. To say that some books are true but others aren't is convenient. Who is to say they made the "right" choices?

In regards to allegorical stories; if Adam and Eve isn't true, then where does the concept of original sin come from?
Is Noah's Ark just allegory?

Manchu wrote:@Relapse: I'm not doubting your faith that the Book of Mormon is authentically what it claims to be. I'm also not denying that it has had a significantly positive effect on people's lives. What I am saying is that there is as much evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims as there is evidence that the Silmarillion is an authentic, historical account of a civilization of elves in ancient Europe. By contrast, it is a scientific fact that the books of the New Testament are from the first century AD.

If it's a made up book, then it's one of the most amazing made up books the world has ever seen considering its origin and the effect it's had almost 200 years later.

@Relapse and GG: You both seem to assume that the "truth" is primarily contained in written texts. Why should this be so? The Church is older than the epistles or gospels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:If it's a made up book, then it's one of the most amazing made up books the world has ever seen considering its origin and the effect it's had almost 200 years later.

I agree. The only other made up book in the same ballpark is the Quaran.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thorgut wrote:A committee of bishops is still a committee. To say that some books are true but others aren't is convenient. Who is to say they made the "right" choices?

You're still not understanding how this works. The Council affirmed the already existing practice of the Church.

In regards to allegorical stories; if Adam and Eve isn't true, then where does the concept of original sin come from?
Is Noah's Ark just allegory?

The word allegory simplifies it too much but essentially yes.

What Manchu said...

Thorgut wrote:
A committee of bishops is still a committee. To say that some books are true but others aren't is convenient. Who is to say they made the "right" choices?

I'm not an expert on how the canon was complied, but what I have read is that the notion "If in doubt, throw it out" was the operative of the day. That's why there are books called apocrypha and psuedopygrypha (spelling?) and probably others I don't know about. It's certainly possible that they may have disgarded a work that was inspired, but I don't think it's likely that a work that was uninspired was included. I make this claim because of the remrkable synergy that the non apocryphal books of the Bible have which each other. They all seem to mesh perfectly in theme and content.

Of course denominations disagree on whether or not to include the apocrypha, however we all agree on the main canon.

Thorgut wrote:
In regards to allegorical stories; if Adam and Eve isn't true, then where does the concept of original sin come from?
Is Noah's Ark just allegory?

I agree with the concept of Biblical literalism and the need to be carefull of that. The thing is, and this another area where Christians can disagree, that using the principle of exegesis(literally "to dig up") helps you to find the true, or at the very least the most likely meaning of a passage.

My favorite example is from Mark 16-17,18 (NIV){17} And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; {18} they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

Of course these things did come to pass and examples are given in the bok of Acts of these incidents. Some Christians however take the term literally about "pick up snakes" and "drink deadly poison" to mean that they can freely do these things without consequence. This Bible passage is a perfect example where Biblical literalism takes something out of context.

And on the other hand in Mark 15:33(NIV)At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour.
We have no reason to believe that this was allegory about the "darkness coming over the whole land" and therefore we have no problem taking it literally.

Those are just a fraction of examples I could give.

I also want to say that in the case of Noahs ark, Adam and Eve, Genesis chapter 1, I believe should be taken literally, and I believe that a proper exegesis would back me up on that,but I know some Christians would disagree with me.

Hope that helps.
GG

Thorgut wrote:A committee of bishops is still a committee. To say that some books are true but others aren't is convenient. Who is to say they made the "right" choices?

You're still not understanding how this works. The Council affirmed the already existing practice of the Church.

I do understand how it works. What I don't understand is how people can place faith in such few men to dictate what is canon to the religion and what isn't.

In regards to allegorical stories; if Adam and Eve isn't true, then where does the concept of original sin come from?
Is Noah's Ark just allegory?

The word allegory simplifies it too much but essentially yes.

Then why do we have Young Earth believers and Creationists? Where is the line drawn?

If we are to say then yes, what these people chose is exactly the right message, then how is it that parts of it can be conveniently ignored?

Thorgut wrote:I do understand how it works.

Nope, you still don't.

Then why do we have Young Earth believers and Creationists? Where is the line drawn?

Give this a read: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503

Its been fun again folks, im off to bed. Night Night Dakka.

Manchu wrote:

Thorgut wrote:I do understand how it works.

Nope, you still don't.

Then why do we have Young Earth believers and Creationists? Where is the line drawn?

Give this a read: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503

I'm well aware that the Catholic church supports evolution. I wasn't aware that this discussion was limited to their views.
EDIT: Also, I hope no one thinks I'm taking this too seriously. I don't harbour any bad feelings towards my fellow Dakka members.

Manchu wrote:@Relapse and GG: You both seem to assume that the "truth" is primarily contained in written texts. Why should this be so? The Church is older than the epistles or gospels.

I'm not sure why would think that from what I've said. Sure people speak truth all the time, however I believe that ultamately anyone claiming to speak truth must do so with the Bible as the ultimate authority.

I.E. If I was to come to you and say, Jesus told me that God was from another planet, and that we could all make little planets and have offspring and be gods ourselves. You wouldn't just take my word for it would you? You would test what I said by the "light" of scripture to see if I were making something up or not.

GG

@Thorgut: If you're asking me to accept that authentic Christianity teaches one scientific theory or another then you are asking too much. Christians who believe in the Intelligent Design theory are just as aggravating to me as to you, I'd imagine.

@GG: How did the Church exist before the books of the New Testament were composed if the Bible is the "ultimate authority"?

Night mattym, see ya tomorrow.

Also, in regards to the line between allegory and literal meanings never causing problems: that is incorrect.
I'm sure we are all aware of Galileo. He argued that his heliocentric view of the universe did not contradict the bible, saying it did not literally say the earth did not move. Unfortunately, his view was not shared by high up members of the church.

So yes, there are examples of where "literal" parts are later declared to be allegorical.