ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
This is another conversation we were having that I would like to continue if you are game.
Patters: Not if the designer became the universe. Perhaps the designer elected to yield its position and turned itself into the universe? Perhaps the designer existed in a universe that was part of another universe created by an even more powerful designer? And why limit ourselves to one designer; maybe there was a whole team of them? Maybe the Greeks were right! At any rate, it seems unnecessary to suggest that everything had to be designed but the designer.
All I was pointing out is that the designer transcends the creation that is designed. The designer is not part of what is created, the designer â€ścreatesâ€ť what is created. You are positing that the designer became the creation after creating it? As I have said before the ToID does not attempt to philosophically explain the intelligence behind the design, religion can tackle that one, it simply points to the evidence of intelligent design.
Originally Posted by CPF: I never said anything about reliable I just said they were valid, reliable is a whole other subject and requires quite a bit of fleshing out. Do you want to discuss the reliability of the New Testament accounts of Christ?
Are you aware of how many extant copies of the NT exist? How about papyri fragments? Are you aware of the fact that while variances exist between many of the copies available to us, that not a single variance damages any major doctrine of Christianity? Do you have any specific evidence of tampering that you would like to share?
I am aware there there are a number of issues with regard to translations of the Bible. I'm sure you've heard them, too. Do a search for Bible Translation Errors in Google.
Iâ€™m aware of the popular â€śBible errorsâ€ť that are used by Atheist; do you have one in particular you would like to hash out?
Also, who declared what went in and what did not go in the Bible? Who were its first editors? Some say politics played a role early on.
I believe there was much debate on what should be included in the official canon, it centered around what was considered inspired as opposed to what was merely useful. There was certain criteria set forth to confirm inspiration and the original â€śeditorsâ€ť used this criteria as a guide to formulate what we now consider Scripture today.
Also, I don't think there are any original pieces of the Bible existing. There are some scraps that date close to when the original Bible was written, but by and large, the Bible is based on transcribed and retranscribed, translated and retranslated material that may have been influenced by Church politics.
No we do not have any original fragments of the NT but that should not surprise us as we have no original fragments of ANY document of antiquity on par with the NT. For this reason documents of antiquity are submitted to a rigorous â€śacid testâ€ť in order to gage their authenticity. The test usually follows this recipe,
1)How close to the original are the oldest surviving copies? 2)How many copies survived? Do the surviving copies agree with each other? 3)Can the text be confirmed from external citations?
Now using this criteria;1)the most replicated document of antiquity we have available to us is Homerâ€™s Iliad believed to have been written about 900 BC. There are 643 surviving manuscript copies available, the earliest of these dates from around 400 BC, leaving a gap of 500 years from the original. Virgilâ€™s Aeneid actually has less of a time span between the original and the earliest known copy, 350 years, but only 7 manuscripts are available. By contrast, not only is the interval between the date of writing of the New Testament documents, their earliest fragments and the full manuscripts shorter than any of the above, the number of surviving manuscripts exceeds the combined total of all other well documented works of antiquity by a factor of twenty. The earliest complete copy we have of the NT is about 300 years removed from the original but many of Paulâ€™s letters as well as the Gospels can be dated to within 40 to 175 years of the original. That is unparalleled as far as documents of this type are concerned. Next; 2)Do the surviving copies agree? Out of the roughly 20,000 lines in the NT, only about 40 are in doubt. By way of comparison Homer's Iliad, which has the next largest number of extant manuscripts, has 15,600 lines, of which 764 (5 percent) are in doubt. Even of the variations that do exist, it is found that the vast majority are trivial matters of spelling, word order, etc.. Those that are in any sense 'substantial' equate to something in the order of one thousandth of the entire text. Even the more substantial variants are of no real doctrinal significance. In the words of the editors of the Revised Standard Version:
"It will be obvious to the careful reader that still in 1946, as in 1881 and 1901, no doctrine of the Christian faith has been affected by the revision, for the simple reason that, out of the thousands of variant readings in the manuscripts, none has turned up thus far that requires a revision of Christian doctrine."
Last test; 3)Can it be confirmed from external citations? The NT is cited extensively in early Christian writings such as, The works of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Eusebius. In all they quote the NT over 36,000 times. In fact it has been estimated that the entire New Testament, barring just eleven verses, can be found in quotations from church sources of the second and third centuries.
So I would say that the NT certainly exeeds it's peers where the "acid test" of authenticity is concerned
[b]Originally Posted by CPF: Read this paper by William Dembski and then tell me that the ToID is as simple as you claim it to be.
I have skimmed that paper, and there's no reason to dispute that we do not fully understand the processes by which some things occur, but just because something's really difficult to figure out, doesn't mean we have to credit some mythological character.
He uses the ink bottle example. A supercomputer could reasonably calculate what a spill would look like if provided with all the variables, I would think. If that's true, then we can say that what we thought was random was actually the logical outcome of known forces. I would say that's the biggest flaw in I.D. It presupposes an intelligent designer, where science would simply look deeper into the problem until it found the answer.
About halfway down the page is Dembski's position statement followed by a rebuttal.
I think we are pretty much going down this road in our other discussion so in less you have something specific you would like me to address, Iâ€™m going to drop this part of the thread. Take care.
There is a way which seems right to a man, but the end of it is the ways of death.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98