Wrong. Human nature prohibits us from making a Sinless, Holy, Just God. We are so flawed and stupid. We like to believe works save us. Read Genesis. Read the Bible. What do you know about Christianity??
The "made up" theory works better on millions years, evolution, abiogenesis, than for Christianity.
Say Aunt Sally learns in a dream the recipe for an elixir that preserves her youth. When she wakes up, she scribbles the directions on a scrap of paper, then runs to the kitchen to make up her first glass. In a few days Aunt Sally is transformed into a picture of radiant youth because of her daily dose of “Sally’s Secret Sauce.”
Aunt Sally is so excited she sends detailed, hand-written instructions on how to make the sauce to her three bridge partners (Aunt Sally is still in the technological dark ages—no photocopier or email). They, in turn, make copies for ten of their own friends.
All goes well until one day Aunt Sally’s pet dog eats the original copy of the recipe. In a panic she contacts her three friends who have mysteriously suffered similar mishaps, so the alarm goes out to the others in attempt to recover the original wording.
Sally rounds up all the surviving hand-written copies, twenty-six in all. When she spreads them out on the kitchen table, she immediately notices some differences. Twenty-three of the copies are exactly the same. Of the remaining three, however, one has misspelled words, another has two phrases inverted (“mix then chop” instead of “chop then mix”) and one includes an ingredient none of the others has on its list.
Do you think Aunt Sally can accurately reconstruct her original recipe from this evidence? Of course she can. The misspellings are obvious errors. The single inverted phrase stands out and can easily be repaired. Sally would then strike the extra ingredient reasoning it’s more plausible one person would add an item in error than 25 people would accidentally omit it.
Even if the variations were more numerous or more diverse, the original could still be reconstructed with a high level of confidence if Sally had enough copies.
This, in simplified form, is how scholars do “textual criticism,” an academic method used to test all documents of antiquity, not just religious texts. it’s a careful linguistic process allowing an alert critic to determine the extent of possible corruption of any work.
Wow, bro, only 1 reply to you and you react ultra defensively. Not even 5 comments in! Tell me, are you a coward who runs upon scrutiny of your worldview, or do you have actual defenses for it?
You think you are so right, but I wanna call that into question. Pride is bad.
Let's break this down:
I've read more ORIGINAL bible versions than your two brain cells will ever comprehend.
So you mean you read all the thousands of copies of manuscripts? How you define "original versions" is unclear.
Your lack of human history, belief systems, religions is so dumbfoundedly ignorant it is almost impossible to understand.,
"People made beliefs over time that partially echoed the truth so no faith is legit!!" This is a fallacy.
There are many people defending the Truth that is Christianity. Meanwhile, good luck seeing anyone argue for theose other belief systems!! Scrutiny and logic tends to prune away fake beliefs and leaves true beliefs standing!
For you "history", "world", "god" and belief start with the cheap re-written copy of the Torah c. 300 AD
God is eternal.
Thats what you say, and I believe history and the world started ~6K years ago. Yeah ofc you disagree but feel free to rebut that.
censored by post Roman ruling scholars.
What about the rich man and lazarus? What about "love thy neighbor"? What about Jesus' Kingdom being NOT of this world?? What about the Romans killing the literal Savior?? Given the content in the Bible, The romans musta been stupid morons who left a bunch of stuff to criticise them!! Or, you can admit God inspired people to write the Books of the Bible.
And the Torah is just a re-written censored piece of polytheist beliefs of Judaism c. 700 BC
So you believe it came from polythiesm. But i believe polythiesm came AFTER people knew about the true God. So who is right and why? It makes no sense that people would have a strict trend of reducing number of gods. Humans are rebellious by nature so they would make more gods.
to be a single god monotheistic religion in the worship of YHWH.
If polythiesm was true, there would be conflicts among the "gods".
But you know what: people existed before any of those were invented. Before Moses (copy of a Sumerian story, with name changed) left Egypt (another false story, copied from Sumer).
Did i say otherwise? Nope. Obviously humans existed before books. God created men, then men discovered the ability to write and invented books.
Why do you take a gnostic stance, rather than an agnostic one, on dates of when things were written?
Those people believed in gods (plural), knew languages before Hebrew, were in tribese before a single jew or son of Israel had born, and had a notion of history, cosmology and where we came from.
Yes. Adam and Eve existed before Hebrew and Isreal. None of this proves the Bible wrong.
books older, and less censored than the bibleS (yes, there are hundreds of bible versions, some are so drastically different
Do you know what Textual Criticism is? I will bet you have barely considered HOW we got the Bible and what went into translation. The most accurate one is NASB 1977 and 1995.
If aliens coming to earth in the year 4050 have to translate books promoting u/factdigger 's worldview written in 1995, into THEIR own language, are they out of luck?
they'd blow your mind, if you were intelligent enough to read them).
My rebuttals might make you question your worldview, if you care enough to read them.
Also, I notice you never explained how fallible stupid humans made the Sinless, Perfect God. If God does not exist, we should never be able to conjure attributes higher than ours. We are all there supposedly is, how could we concieve anything higher? All other gods lack Omnipotence, and other religions save by works. Christianity is the only one among the religions that says Faith saves, Faith is a gift from God. Faith is not blind, why would you think it is? It is athiests who believe such.
I have a big ol community full of evidence c/evidencedump.
You mention Assmann without mentioning the great work by one Coomer, namely God and Sex? That's the real Christian porn of textual originality.
I'm 100% sure you've never read a number of these authors, because you asked Grok for a top 20 list and edited his artificial answer. You're not evidencing your claims of ad fontes very well as this is all 20th-century-plus. I've looked into all the great 6-letter authors on your list, Pagels, Ehrman, Vermes, Vallee, also Israel Finkelstein, and been unimpressed by their rants, as is mainstream scholarship which has recently begun pushing back against Westcott-Hort excesses and is readmitting the Textus Receptus gradually.
Instead of fighting, let's try "something completely different":
If you think you are RIGHT and the truth of your God is on your side, you should have no problem going to text outside your small circle ..., as you'd find or at least recognize truth there as well. Because truth, actual truth does not burn in the hottest of fires. If your truth is correct, it will sustain and deflect all these attacks from other sources.
Yes, as edited! That's something I've said here for 5 years. I'm burnished bronze from the exposure to Enheduanna and Ningishzeda.
If you want to read elsewhere, you need to start textual criticism OUTSIDE The small circle of bible study, and go to ACTUAL history research books, from people whose motives are not to try and prove bible right, but to find out the truth, whatever it is. Then, when you get this, you'll develop into the study of textual transmission
Yes, with the proviso that we must by those terms also exclude all textual critics in a small circle whose motives are not to find out the truth, whatever it is, but to try and prove a bible wrong. The German higher critics starting in the 19th century, who birthed Hort-Westcott, introduced this stream of bias in the other direction, and it hasn't let up since.
Factdigger, are you a student of truth whatever it is, or do you stick to a circle that affirms your own biases? Because the truth will break you as I've been broken and will be again. You might not want it, though I hope you do. The evidence that a person is a student of truth, whatever it is, is that, as you say, a person is willing to hear all sides before judging, is patient with those who differ because the truth can defend itself, is able to laugh and admit he's been wrong before and his current apprehension of truth will be strengthened by fresh meat. Would you like to start bearing that evidence?
Add: While we're at it, what's your UAP contact's name? I have a few words for him as well, and I expect he's the same as your god so you should have no fear of naming him.
This is old. I believe I already addressed most of them in other threads. I wouldn't waste time on the details and separate claims, but I'd take him up on the paradigm level and ask him about his epistemic criteria, i.e. how he comes to knowledge about the things he asserts and what his justification is.
But there's no use because I don't think he would even understand the criticism considering the low tier arguments and word-concept fallacies he makes.
Invented by who?
Wrong. Human nature prohibits us from making a Sinless, Holy, Just God. We are so flawed and stupid. We like to believe works save us. Read Genesis. Read the Bible. What do you know about Christianity??
The "made up" theory works better on millions years, evolution, abiogenesis, than for Christianity.
Read my first reply before reading this.
part 2
Say Aunt Sally learns in a dream the recipe for an elixir that preserves her youth. When she wakes up, she scribbles the directions on a scrap of paper, then runs to the kitchen to make up her first glass. In a few days Aunt Sally is transformed into a picture of radiant youth because of her daily dose of “Sally’s Secret Sauce.”
Aunt Sally is so excited she sends detailed, hand-written instructions on how to make the sauce to her three bridge partners (Aunt Sally is still in the technological dark ages—no photocopier or email). They, in turn, make copies for ten of their own friends.
All goes well until one day Aunt Sally’s pet dog eats the original copy of the recipe. In a panic she contacts her three friends who have mysteriously suffered similar mishaps, so the alarm goes out to the others in attempt to recover the original wording.
Sally rounds up all the surviving hand-written copies, twenty-six in all. When she spreads them out on the kitchen table, she immediately notices some differences. Twenty-three of the copies are exactly the same. Of the remaining three, however, one has misspelled words, another has two phrases inverted (“mix then chop” instead of “chop then mix”) and one includes an ingredient none of the others has on its list.
Do you think Aunt Sally can accurately reconstruct her original recipe from this evidence? Of course she can. The misspellings are obvious errors. The single inverted phrase stands out and can easily be repaired. Sally would then strike the extra ingredient reasoning it’s more plausible one person would add an item in error than 25 people would accidentally omit it.
Even if the variations were more numerous or more diverse, the original could still be reconstructed with a high level of confidence if Sally had enough copies.
This, in simplified form, is how scholars do “textual criticism,” an academic method used to test all documents of antiquity, not just religious texts. it’s a careful linguistic process allowing an alert critic to determine the extent of possible corruption of any work.
Wow, bro, only 1 reply to you and you react ultra defensively. Not even 5 comments in! Tell me, are you a coward who runs upon scrutiny of your worldview, or do you have actual defenses for it?
You think you are so right, but I wanna call that into question. Pride is bad.
Let's break this down:
So you mean you read all the thousands of copies of manuscripts? How you define "original versions" is unclear.
"People made beliefs over time that partially echoed the truth so no faith is legit!!" This is a fallacy.
There are many people defending the Truth that is Christianity. Meanwhile, good luck seeing anyone argue for theose other belief systems!! Scrutiny and logic tends to prune away fake beliefs and leaves true beliefs standing!
God is eternal.
Thats what you say, and I believe history and the world started ~6K years ago. Yeah ofc you disagree but feel free to rebut that.
What about the rich man and lazarus? What about "love thy neighbor"? What about Jesus' Kingdom being NOT of this world?? What about the Romans killing the literal Savior?? Given the content in the Bible, The romans musta been stupid morons who left a bunch of stuff to criticise them!! Or, you can admit God inspired people to write the Books of the Bible.
So you believe it came from polythiesm. But i believe polythiesm came AFTER people knew about the true God. So who is right and why? It makes no sense that people would have a strict trend of reducing number of gods. Humans are rebellious by nature so they would make more gods.
(/Athiest Argument style/)Give strictly repeatable, observable, testable, science-only, lab grade evidence or youre wrong!!!! (/Athiest Argument style/)
If polythiesm was true, there would be conflicts among the "gods".
Did i say otherwise? Nope. Obviously humans existed before books. God created men, then men discovered the ability to write and invented books.
Why do you take a gnostic stance, rather than an agnostic one, on dates of when things were written?
Yes. Adam and Eve existed before Hebrew and Isreal. None of this proves the Bible wrong.
Do you know what Textual Criticism is? I will bet you have barely considered HOW we got the Bible and what went into translation. The most accurate one is NASB 1977 and 1995.
If aliens coming to earth in the year 4050 have to translate books promoting u/factdigger 's worldview written in 1995, into THEIR own language, are they out of luck?
My rebuttals might make you question your worldview, if you care enough to read them.
Also, I notice you never explained how fallible stupid humans made the Sinless, Perfect God. If God does not exist, we should never be able to conjure attributes higher than ours. We are all there supposedly is, how could we concieve anything higher? All other gods lack Omnipotence, and other religions save by works. Christianity is the only one among the religions that says Faith saves, Faith is a gift from God. Faith is not blind, why would you think it is? It is athiests who believe such.
I have a big ol community full of evidence c/evidencedump.
You mention Assmann without mentioning the great work by one Coomer, namely God and Sex? That's the real Christian porn of textual originality.
I'm 100% sure you've never read a number of these authors, because you asked Grok for a top 20 list and edited his artificial answer. You're not evidencing your claims of ad fontes very well as this is all 20th-century-plus. I've looked into all the great 6-letter authors on your list, Pagels, Ehrman, Vermes, Vallee, also Israel Finkelstein, and been unimpressed by their rants, as is mainstream scholarship which has recently begun pushing back against Westcott-Hort excesses and is readmitting the Textus Receptus gradually.
Instead of fighting, let's try "something completely different":
Yes, as edited! That's something I've said here for 5 years. I'm burnished bronze from the exposure to Enheduanna and Ningishzeda.
Yes, with the proviso that we must by those terms also exclude all textual critics in a small circle whose motives are not to find out the truth, whatever it is, but to try and prove a bible wrong. The German higher critics starting in the 19th century, who birthed Hort-Westcott, introduced this stream of bias in the other direction, and it hasn't let up since.
Factdigger, are you a student of truth whatever it is, or do you stick to a circle that affirms your own biases? Because the truth will break you as I've been broken and will be again. You might not want it, though I hope you do. The evidence that a person is a student of truth, whatever it is, is that, as you say, a person is willing to hear all sides before judging, is patient with those who differ because the truth can defend itself, is able to laugh and admit he's been wrong before and his current apprehension of truth will be strengthened by fresh meat. Would you like to start bearing that evidence?
Add: While we're at it, what's your UAP contact's name? I have a few words for him as well, and I expect he's the same as your god so you should have no fear of naming him.
u/smithw1984 Debunk u/ factdigger 's arguments? Plenty of them are in here.
This is old. I believe I already addressed most of them in other threads. I wouldn't waste time on the details and separate claims, but I'd take him up on the paradigm level and ask him about his epistemic criteria, i.e. how he comes to knowledge about the things he asserts and what his justification is.
But there's no use because I don't think he would even understand the criticism considering the low tier arguments and word-concept fallacies he makes.