Biblical Tall Tales

Just to elaborate, idontlikeforms, if we have only copies.... what to we compare it to to guage weather it's well preserved or not?

....Thats a big problem. I mean, some books were written a long ass time ago. Hundreds of years before they were ever compiled into the bible. Meaning at that point they were just copies upon copies.Not to mention the council of nicea where they actually compiled the bible. You are basically saying god made those clergymen inerrant when compiling the bible. Despite the fact, of course, that they were all male, and had bitter disagreemends over various issues.ABE: You may as well have an errant bible and not an inerrant bible. Seriously, why bother claiming inearncy at all? For all intents and purposes you have a falible book.This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-01-2006 10:18 PM

That's fine, but it still renders claims of inerrancy or "specialness" useless. You basically got a fallible book by your own admisions. Only the very fist copies pened were correct, well, what we have today are liek thousandth generation copies. I mean, really.By the councils time, they had copies several hundred generations old. It's useless to claim any sort of inerrant quality in the bible or any sort of supernatural accuracy etc.Whatever of that there was in the past, simply isn't even there anymore.

I shouldn't be the one to correct someones spelling, but I think you meant 'editions' not 'additions'

s8int! Come on! You know that site is pure hokum... do you really want to go thrugh it again so we can show all the fraudulent crap on that place?Please refrain from using them as a source.

I'm sorry if you saw that as directly aimed at you, I was characterizing the christian position as a whole. Basically, a position that says: "This book, the bible, is special. Because it is inspired by god, and as such is infallible." Oh? How do you know the content is the same? Things could have been omited, embelished, added, etc. Not to mention that for most of christian history, each book of the bible was it's own thing. Meaning you got hundreds of editions, copys, and variations of 66 books running around the middle east (and who knows where else). How do you know what was changed and what wasn't?Ever played a game of telephone? A general idea isn't going to cut it when it comes to claims of the supernatural. No. Generations, editions, copys, whatever you want to call them. You don't think there was a standard torah lying around back then do you?This was pre printing press. Scribes were copying these things left and right and circulating different versions of the same texts all over the place. What OT? No such thing back then. No bible, remember? There are alot more sacred jewish books than are in the OT. Ask any Rabbi. Oh! Isn't that nice. Some guys got together, using a bunch of errant texts, with an agenda, and basically labeled everyone else they disagreed with a heratic. Isn't that a sweet way to establish an infalible text. I didn't know you could 'vote' on inerancy. Seems obvious to me. You don't have a "first edition" of any of the books in the bible. The books have been passed down thrugh thousands upon thousands of manuscripts, oral traditions, and whatever else. There is no reason to expect that any sort of "inerrant" quality is still resident in the darn thing. Ever play telephone?

You have been asked to defend your source before randman. You ran from the discussion like a forest fire. Whatever happened to your boy, Michael Cremo?

Actually, the wiki was updated with more accurate info. You will note the newer article is longer, and has more refrences. This has been pointed out to you before: Meganthropus - WikipediaAnswers.com just archives a bunch of crap on the net. Including the wiki. It's not necisseraly up to date.Your citation mentions tools, this is under the "extream claims" heading: There are plenty of refrences at the bottom.ABE: Just so you know a little about Rex Gilroy. He is a prominent UFO researcher in Australia iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voipHe wants to put Meganthropus up as the Yawie from Aboriginal mythology. He is also a pyramidiot: iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voipAs usual, randman puts up phoney crap as his deffence.This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-02-2006 09:26 AM

from:iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip

quote:

---

Rex Gilroy widely regarded as the foremost authority on the "unknown" history of Australia, for his dedicated, lifelong fascination and research into our "hidden history", with this book, dares to question the blind dogmas of scientific conformitism, with evidence for which, Australian university text books have no answers.

​

An historical researcher, archaeologist and naturalist, Rex frequently tours the country to give slide lectures on his findings. His files bulge with thousands of reports concerning mystery rock inscriptions, ancient megalithic stone structures and other relics, as well as ancient historical written accounts of contacts with Australia and its near island neighbours, by many ancient maritime civilisations, which throw doubt upon the time honoured, indoctrinated belief that this land had remained unknown to Old World nations, until the arrival of the first Dutch explorers of the 17th century.

​

This daring and outspoken researcher, also claims that Australia was inhabited by far earlier stone-age races than the Aborigines, and has gathered a mass of evidence to support his claims.

​

With "Pyramids in the Pacific" Rex hopes to inspire future researchers to follow his example and dare to question long-established dogmas of our ancient past; and like him, reveal evidence of long-hidden mysteries about which, the historical and scientific establishment would prefer we knew nothing.

​

When not in the field, Rex and his wife heather {a nursing sister by profession} live in Katoomba, New South Wales, together with a huge library of books, and his natural science collection of thousands of insects, fossils, rocks and minerals, zoological anthropological and archaeological specimens and which is the largest privately owned collection of its kind in Australia.

​

Besides their many and varied researches, Rex and Heather are also involved in community service work, through there local Lions Club. They have two daughters.

---

Isn't it odd how there seems to be a krank behind every creationist claim?ABE: If you click on the link above, and scroll down, at the botom of the bio. There are some tantilizing articles by mr. Gilroy. HAHAHAHHAHAHA!This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-02-2006 09:43 AM

... So how do you go about proving inerrancy?

What does that have to do with anything?I'm simply pointing out that claiming inerrancy is worthless. There is no way to prove that the text was ever inerrant. By the very admition of those on this thread, the current texts we have ar fallible.Unless you have a first edition laying around, I ask you, how do you know the plan of salvation has remained the same?Certainly I can show you several churches that don't hold the same views you do on the subject. The least of which is the catholic church, greek orthodox, and let's not forget our old friends the jews.This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-02-2006 02:32 PM

That's a wonderful assertion, really it is. How about some proof?Any 'first editions', archeological evidence, anything other than your assertion?Specifficaly, how do you go about proving a manuscript inerant when:a) no origional manuscripts remain.b) tons of contradictory manuscripts exist.c) all manuscripts currently in existance are 1000th hand copies done by various people, from various places, with various agendas.The bit that's lacking in your argument is proof.This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-02-2006 03:16 PM

Excelent. I glad we agree on that then. So I guess you can understand why it's hard for folks like me to take claims of inerrancy seriously. That's cool with me. I think it's a very honest position. We deal with folks who waltz in here and claim they can show, unequivicaly, that the bible is 100% correct etc. You are obviously not one of those types. Ya, sure. But as most folks would tell ya, science doesn't deal in 100% proof. It deals in evidence. All claims are either supported by evidence or not. It's the evidence which leads to conclusions.Evolution is just as supported by evidence as the theory of gravity is.We lay folks tend to use the terms proof and evidence interchangebly but there is a difference between the 2 terms. 'proof' sort if implies absolute truth, 'evidence' is beyond a reasonable doubt.Anyway, that's what I find to be lacking in biblical inerrancy claims. Evidentiary support. I am not required to have that proof, I am not makeing the claim. Do you have any proof that there aren't invisible pink unicorns having an orgy on pluto? Well, since we don't have origionals, it's sort of hard to prove that ain't it All that aside, we know there are several texts that contradict each other as well as several texts that didn't "make the cut" for one reason or another. Seems to me like a wholey political endevour less than some divine entrprise. I think what I am asking for is not unreasonable to claim origional inerrancy. To claim that there was an origional "magic" manuscript requires lots more proof.To claim historicity, I agree with you there. It's a historical text. To say it's inerrant or supernatural, that requires some extra evidence. Ok, that's fine. I say the evidence is not persuasive so far. It doesn't 'smell' like an inerrant text to me. Well, hopefully you understand my possition better. I cerainly understand yours. Again, I'm not makeing the claim. Burden of proof falls on the person making the claim.

Sounds like an apeal to authority. "My scholar is bigger than yourse!"Post some actual translations or some links. This actually standard practice in this forum and is part of the forum rules. You need to supply external supporting evidence, especially when making claims like these.The amount of scholars is irelevant to the truth of the matter. Lots of folks (many of those same scholars in the fine christian scholarly tradition) thought tourching infidels to be a perfectly justifyable thing to do in the name of god.

oh... so moby dick is just not AS accurate. Let's see, moby dick is about 60% as accurate as the bible. That's a pretty good score!Cool. I bet britanica will be like 90% as accurate.Thanks for pointing out that it has nothing to do with what book it is and everything to do with the score it gets. I guess we now have a scientific test for inerrancy and supernatural god-breathed works This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-02-2006 10:48 PM