Church Experiment(Was: Want to Read The Bible) — Page 3

I prefer the God in Battlestar Galatia.

Gaffer Tape said:

So did he misspell Galatians on the tattoo as well or just in the description?  ^_~

Looks like he might of. The o/a is too small to make out though.

C3PX said:

Nanner Split said:

Just out of curiosity, what was it that made his scholarship shitty? I seem to remember him being pretty detailed as far as citing his references and what-not.

 

Since I have noticed an increase in complaints about the length of my posts in recent weeks, I will try to keep it as brief as I can. Let's just focus on his claim that there are more variants in the text of the New Testament manuscripts than there are words in the entire New Testament. Out of somewhere just under 6,000 NT manuscripts that have been found, he claims there are close to 400,000 places in which they differ while there are less than 150,000 words in the entire NT.

That is a pretty shocking claim. And it is absolutely true... if you are willing to stretch numbers a bit.

When textual critics like Bart Erhman talk about "the autographs" they mean the original papyri that was written by the author. So in regards to the Gospel of Luke, the autograph would be the original version supposedly written by a man named Luke (probably through an amanuensis) to the addressee Theophilus. Erhman makes a big deal about the fact that we do not have the original autographs of the Gospels (or any other NT book). All we have are copies. His argument here is that since we do not have the originals, and that when among the copies 400,000 discrepancies can be found, there is no way for what we have today to be the inspired word of God. Pretty convincing, right?

Just for the sake of expediency, let's take Warb's often used quote, "Well, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree." and let's treat it like a fragment of scripture from some ancient text.

Warb writes those words on a piece of notebook paper, much like Luke's amanuensis would have written the original words of Luke's Gospel on papyrus. And much like the scribes who made hand written copies of Luke's Gospel for use in other churches in the first centuries of Christianity, Nanner, Sean Wookie, Gaffer, Fink, and I all make hand written copies of Warb's words.

Nanner comes up with: "Well, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree."

Sean comes up with: "Well I guess were just going to have to agree to disagree."

Gaffer comes up with: "Well, I guess, we are just going to have to agree to disagree."

Fink come up with: "Well, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree."

I come up with: "Well I guess, were just going to have to agree to disagree."

 

If we lost Warb's original piece of notebook paper (the autograph), and we decided to look at the hand written copies of his quote made by the five of us (the manuscripts) in order to figure out what Warb had originally said, we would realize that we all wrote something slightly different. If we use the same method of counting discrepancies on the above quotes that Erhman uses on the NT manuscripts to come up with his 400,000 figure, then our number would be 15.

We could argue that we would never be able to figure out what Warb originally wrote, after all, among our five pieces of notebook paper there are fifteen discrepancies. That is a higher number of discrepancies than the number of words in Warb's entire sentence!

Now imagine if Xhonzi comes along the day after we copied the quote off of Warb's notebook paper onto our own notebook paper, and he asks me if he can look at my hand written copy of Warb's words so that he can make his own hand written copy. He reads the words, "Well I guess, were just going to have to agree to disagree." And realizes that silly C3PX made at least one obvious mistakes, so he corrects it in his own copy. "Well I guess, we're just going to have to agree to disagree."

Throw Xhonzi's manuscript in with the rest of ours, and now our number of discrepancies is up to eighteen. Get numerous other members deciding they want to copies our copies as well, and you get the same sort of thing going on with all five of our copies. The number of discrepancies is going to keep climbing with an added or missing comma here, a left out letter there, and an occasional misspelling, but has the meaning of what Warb originally wrote been changed?

That is why we have textual critics, like Ehrman, scholars of all different belief systems who examine the manuscripts and fragments, looking for minor and major discrepancies.

In our scenario with Warb's quote, let's say we ultimately end up with 100 pieces of notebook paper containing his words. If we were to put these pieces of notebook paper through the same process textual critics put the NT manuscripts through, we would examine them all, divide them up into families (i.e. these 7 pieces contain the exact same spelling error, or the same grammatical mistake, so it is likely they all share a common source like my copy that Xhonzi copied that other people copied from him), note the type of errors or discrepancies found (grammatical, spelling, reversed wording, paraphrase, accidental inclusion of scribal note, etc.), and compare them to try to discover the original meaning, we would quickly realize that the vast majority of the pieces of notebook paper would agree in meaning, even if they do have commas in different places, and if some of them use contractions while others do not.

After all is said and done, we could probably feel safe assuming that through consensus of the majority of our pieces of notebook paper, we can pretty accurately tell what Warb originally wrote on that piece of notebook paper, even if we don't have the original any longer. Though once one of us writes a post claiming that among those 100 pieces of notebook paper 300 discrepancies can be found, no doubt many of us would find that very enlightening and find it valid grounds for completely doubting that Warb ever wrote anything close to what we have him recorded to have written.

 

So much for being short...

 

Best post ever posted on this or any other forum you win 20 infinites of Kudos points.

C3PX said:

Just for the sake of expediency, let's take Warb's often used quote, "Well, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree." and let's treat it like a fragment of scripture from some ancient text.

Warb writes those words on a piece of notebook paper, much like Luke's amanuensis would have written the original words of Luke's Gospel on papyrus. And much like the scribes who made hand written copies of Luke's Gospel for use in other churches in the first centuries of Christianity, Nanner, Sean Wookie, Gaffer, Fink, and I all make hand written copies of Warb's words.

Nanner comes up with: "Well, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree."

Sean comes up with: "Well I guess were just going to have to agree to disagree."

Gaffer comes up with: "Well, I guess, we are just going to have to agree to disagree."

Fink come up with: "Well, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree."

I come up with: "Well I guess, were just going to have to agree to disagree."

did you intentionally make Nanner's version exactly correct?

C3PX said:

Nanner Split said:

Just out of curiosity, what was it that made his scholarship shitty? I seem to remember him being pretty detailed as far as citing his references and what-not.

 

Since I have noticed an increase in complaints about the length of my posts in recent weeks, I will try to keep it as brief as I can. Let's just focus on his claim that there are more variants in the text of the New Testament manuscripts than there are words in the entire New Testament. Out of somewhere just under 6,000 NT manuscripts that have been found, he claims there are close to 400,000 places in which they differ while there are less than 150,000 words in the entire NT.

That is a pretty shocking claim. And it is absolutely true... if you are willing to stretch numbers a bit.

When textual critics like Bart Erhman talk about "the autographs" they mean the original papyri that was written by the author. So in regards to the Gospel of Luke, the autograph would be the original version supposedly written by a man named Luke (probably through an amanuensis) to the addressee Theophilus. Erhman makes a big deal about the fact that we do not have the original autographs of the Gospels (or any other NT book). All we have are copies. His argument here is that since we do not have the originals, and that when among the copies 400,000 discrepancies can be found, there is no way for what we have today to be the inspired word of God. Pretty convincing, right?

Just for the sake of expediency, let's take Warb's often used quote, "Well, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree." and let's treat it like a fragment of scripture from some ancient text.

Warb writes those words on a piece of notebook paper, much like Luke's amanuensis would have written the original words of Luke's Gospel on papyrus. And much like the scribes who made hand written copies of Luke's Gospel for use in other churches in the first centuries of Christianity, Nanner, Sean Wookie, Gaffer, Fink, and I all make hand written copies of Warb's words.

Nanner comes up with: "Well, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree."

Sean comes up with: "Well I guess were just going to have to agree to disagree."

Gaffer comes up with: "Well, I guess, we are just going to have to agree to disagree."

Fink come up with: "Well, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree."

I come up with: "Well I guess, were just going to have to agree to disagree."

 

If we lost Warb's original piece of notebook paper (the autograph), and we decided to look at the hand written copies of his quote made by the five of us (the manuscripts) in order to figure out what Warb had originally said, we would realize that we all wrote something slightly different. If we use the same method of counting discrepancies on the above quotes that Erhman uses on the NT manuscripts to come up with his 400,000 figure, then our number would be 15.

We could argue that we would never be able to figure out what Warb originally wrote, after all, among our five pieces of notebook paper there are fifteen discrepancies. That is a higher number of discrepancies than the number of words in Warb's entire sentence!

Now imagine if Xhonzi comes along the day after we copied the quote off of Warb's notebook paper onto our own notebook paper, and he asks me if he can look at my hand written copy of Warb's words so that he can make his own hand written copy. He reads the words, "Well I guess, were just going to have to agree to disagree." And realizes that silly C3PX made at least one obvious mistakes, so he corrects it in his own copy. "Well I guess, we're just going to have to agree to disagree."

Throw Xhonzi's manuscript in with the rest of ours, and now our number of discrepancies is up to eighteen. Get numerous other members deciding they want to copies our copies as well, and you get the same sort of thing going on with all five of our copies. The number of discrepancies is going to keep climbing with an added or missing comma here, a left out letter there, and an occasional misspelling, but has the meaning of what Warb originally wrote been changed?

That is why we have textual critics, like Ehrman, scholars of all different belief systems who examine the manuscripts and fragments, looking for minor and major discrepancies.

In our scenario with Warb's quote, let's say we ultimately end up with 100 pieces of notebook paper containing his words. If we were to put these pieces of notebook paper through the same process textual critics put the NT manuscripts through, we would examine them all, divide them up into families (i.e. these 7 pieces contain the exact same spelling error, or the same grammatical mistake, so it is likely they all share a common source like my copy that Xhonzi copied that other people copied from him), note the type of errors or discrepancies found (grammatical, spelling, reversed wording, paraphrase, accidental inclusion of scribal note, etc.), and compare them to try to discover the original meaning, we would quickly realize that the vast majority of the pieces of notebook paper would agree in meaning, even if they do have commas in different places, and if some of them use contractions while others do not.

After all is said and done, we could probably feel safe assuming that through consensus of the majority of our pieces of notebook paper, we can pretty accurately tell what Warb originally wrote on that piece of notebook paper, even if we don't have the original any longer. Though once one of us writes a post claiming that among those 100 pieces of notebook paper 300 discrepancies can be found, no doubt many of us would find that very enlightening and find it valid grounds for completely doubting that Warb ever wrote anything close to what we have him recorded to have written.

 

So much for being short...

 

;-)

Bingowings said:

This was a chap who saw no intrinsic evil in slavery because St Paul had tolerated it.

 

God tolerated it too.

It is a fascinating piece of literature but if it's the word of God it's a very strange God and not one worthy of my praise.

Read Exodus 32. God's not so bad. He wants to spite the people for some reason, and Moses is all "chill God, be cool" and God is all, "allright, no spiting toady."

Personally my favorite act of God is when he hardens the Pharaoh's heart so that the dude wont let the Jews leave Egypt, then God smacks him down for doing what God made him do. It's like wife-beating from God!

sean wookie said:

Cute, but to be fair most Christians ignore all the Levitical laws except about hating gays and Harry Potter.

TheBoost said:Cute, but to be fair most Christians ignore all the Levitical laws except about hating gays and Harry Potter.

I am Christian.   I neither hate gays nor Harry Potter.    

But do you believe that the gays and the wizards are going to hell if they don't stop and sincerely say sorry?

C3PX said:

And it isn't ignoring Levitical law, New Testament doctrine clearly teaches that Christians are under a new law, and not the old Levitical laws. I hear far too many people cite that as "cherry picking" by Christians, but it would actually be misunderstanding of Christian doctrine on the part of the one making that claim.

I'll concede that 'ignore' was a poor word choice. But given the new law brought on by JC, was there a nice index of what laws still count? How else does one define which laws about killing, hating people, menstrating or tattooing, should still be followed? Or when a Christian cites Levitical law, is it not "cherry picking" based on their own opinions?

And sheesh, YHWH sure spent a lot of time and ink on laws for him to thrown them all away a few centuries later. Seems inefficient. I wonder if Moses resents all the copying he had to do?

There are laws about menstruating?

TV's Frink said:

There are laws about menstruating?

 Tons.

 ¹⁹ " 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

 ²⁰ " 'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. ²¹ Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. ²² Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. ²³ Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening.

 ²⁴ " 'If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.

 ²⁵ " 'When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. ²⁶ Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. ²⁷ Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

 ²⁸ " 'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. ²⁹ On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. ³⁰ The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.

*speechless*

A good movie about religion is Lord Save Us From Your Followers. You might like this movie no matter what religion. It was made by an Evangelical Christian and I like it. He shares many of the same views I do. If you have any interest in religion you might like this.

Watch it here: http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi2089486617/

Ok, then I'll just focus on this:

In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.

*speechless*

It's not God's fault that women bleed, he warned Eve about scrumping but she had to listen to the speaking phallus.

I Never been to a Catholic Church(or any church) before and since I have all this interest in religion I think it would be a nice experiment and generally try to blend in as a recent Catholic convert. I'd confess my sins, converse with other Catholics, learn what they believe and why the believe it, and attend mass like everyone else, and any other Church events as long as it doesn't conflict with work. And blog about of all this.

I have a Catholic Church nearby called Mt. Carmel and this might be fun.

sean wookie said:

 I think it would be a nice experiment and generally try to blend in as a recent Catholic convert. I'd confess my sins, converse with other Catholics, learn what they believe and why the believe it, and attend mass like everyone else, and any other Church events as long as it doesn't conflict with work. And blog about of all this.

 As a recent convert, you won't confess. There's a rather rigorous training program for new Catholics, unless you're planning to bluff your way in as a fully confirmed Catholic. You also can attend mass, but not take communion.

Not that they check credentials at the door, but it depends on how dishonest you plan on being.

TheBoost said:

sean wookie said:

 I think it would be a nice experiment and generally try to blend in as a recent Catholic convert. I'd confess my sins, converse with other Catholics, learn what they believe and why the believe it, and attend mass like everyone else, and any other Church events as long as it doesn't conflict with work. And blog about of all this.

 As a recent convert, you won't confess. There's a rather rigorous training program for new Catholics, unless you're planning to bluff your way in as a fully confirmed Catholic. You also can attend mass, but not take communion.

Not that they check credentials at the door, but it depends on how dishonest you plan on being.

I don't want to be that dishonest. I really want to observe their culture and mingle. This is the churches web site: http://www.ourladyofmountcarmel.org/

I wish there was some email address I could like ask permission to do this with.

sean wookie said:

TheBoost said:

sean wookie said:

 I think it would be a nice experiment and generally try to blend in as a recent Catholic convert. I'd confess my sins, converse with other Catholics, learn what they believe and why the believe it, and attend mass like everyone else, and any other Church events as long as it doesn't conflict with work. And blog about of all this.

 As a recent convert, you won't confess. There's a rather rigorous training program for new Catholics, unless you're planning to bluff your way in as a fully confirmed Catholic. You also can attend mass, but not take communion.

Not that they check credentials at the door, but it depends on how dishonest you plan on being.

I don't want to be that dishonest. I really want to observe their culture and mingle. This is the churches web

I wish there was some email address I could like ask permission to do this with.

 Just show up.

Most Catholic churches have a little pamphlet for non Catholic visitors, as well as for new members. These'll help you.

There won't be Pope's guards with laser scans at the door to judge you. I'm not Catholic, but have never felt unwelcome at a Catholic church.

TheBoost said:

sean wookie said:

TheBoost said:

sean wookie said:

 I think it would be a nice experiment and generally try to blend in as a recent Catholic convert. I'd confess my sins, converse with other Catholics, learn what they believe and why the believe it, and attend mass like everyone else, and any other Church events as long as it doesn't conflict with work. And blog about of all this.

 As a recent convert, you won't confess. There's a rather rigorous training program for new Catholics, unless you're planning to bluff your way in as a fully confirmed Catholic. You also can attend mass, but not take communion.

Not that they check credentials at the door, but it depends on how dishonest you plan on being.

I don't want to be that dishonest. I really want to observe their culture and mingle. This is the churches web

I wish there was some email address I could like ask permission to do this with.

 Just show up.

Most Catholic churches have a little pamphlet for non Catholic visitors, as well as for new members. These'll help you.

There won't be Pope's guards with laser scans at the door to judge you. I'm not Catholic, but have never felt unwelcome at a Catholic church.

Do I have to dress nice? I'd imagine I shouldn't wear a Rage Against The Machine shirt.