Replacing Wikipedia

[230RN]

(Numeration mine)

(1) I can make the same argument about secularism or materialistic philosophy. The evidence for life and order being a natural occurrence of energy + matter + the magic pixie dust of time is just not there.  

(2) The problem is that the competing narratives are just as devoid of factual evidence. The modern edifice of secularism is based upon an appeal to authority, not to self evident facts.

(3) DeSelby has such a strong desire to not believe that he is blind to how much it colors his so called reasoning process.  

(4) I've often thought that the most reasonable unbelievers are the ones who legitimately consider themselves agnostic.

(1)  I think you're referring to evolution versus creationism.  Well, there is in-hand fossil evidence in terms of the best dating methods available (sedimentation, decay ratios of isotopes, etc) that species do change over time, whether this be due to selection or mutation or both.  

I kind of resent your calling that extremely long-term species drift magic pixie dust, but I'll let that go for now,  

(2) Frankly, except for the differentiation of sexes, secular explanations account for enough more observable and verifiable facts than the various legendary accounts of creation (I'm not just talking Judeo-Christian accounts) that I lean heavily in that direction.  The differentiation of sexes theories always seem kind of wishy-washy to me, but maybe there's been some kind of breakthrough on that since I quit examining these questions. So I'll give you points on the "modern edifice of secularism" aspect of it all.  But I'll take away points for using the semantic trick of characterizing billions of years as magic pixie dust.

(3)  I cannot comment on De Selby's motivations and thought processes.

(4)  Agreed.  My personal problem, which I alluded to already is that so many folks on both sides insist that they're right and in order to confirm their own rectitude they push their views on others.  ...As a career, mind you.  But that's a personal problem.  As evidence of this, I submit that fistful will rarely miss an opportunity to divert a secular discussion into a religious one... <grin>

Now how about we get back to talking about wiki's editorial problem?

Terry

[makattak]

You people sound ridiculous, citing the Bible, which is only self-authoritative.  I suspect that's why there is such dedicated scrabbling for scraps of "proof."  Such scraps as we have were heavily edited and flavored over almost two millenia.

This is simply wrong. The Bible is authoritative, but it is not the only proof for its claims. Archaeological evidence is but one of the means of testing many historical claims.

Further, claiming that it has been heavily edited over the past 2000 years does not match the evidence given that we have at least fragments that are 1900 years old and complete copies (of books) from the 2nd century on.

The Bible is the most studied work of all time and the best documented work as well. No other historical work has even close to the fragmentary and extant copies still in existence as the Bible.

You are free to disbelieve the claims, but you cannot make baseless claims about it being "heavily edited".

[roo_ster]

230rn:

"Time as magic pixie dust" is a fanciful way to say that there is no data to support many of the secularist contentions so there is a lot of hand-wavium and appeals to large amounts of time.  Such as gradual evolution over large periods of time.  Yes there are fossils.  No, they don't tell the story the usual suspects would like to tell.  Rudyard Kipling-like Just-So stories slathered with a stucco of masticated scientism is not all that persuasive. 



[FTR, a mechanism as described by the seculars and currently called "evolution" is not precluded by my understanding of my faith and reason.  I am merely being consistent in insisting that folk who claim the authority of "science" adhere to the rigors of science.]

[Perd Hapley]

This is simply wrong. The Bible is authoritative, but it is not the only proof for its claims. Archaeological evidence is but one of the means of testing many historical claims.

Further, claiming that it has been heavily edited over the past 2000 years does not match the evidence given that we have at least fragments that are 1900 years old and complete copies (of books) from the 2nd century on.

The Bible is the most studied work of all time and the best documented work as well. No other historical work has even close to the fragmentary and extant copies still in existence as the Bible.

You are free to disbelieve the claims, but you cannot make baseless claims about it being "heavily edited".

I think you mean 1800, not 1900. As far as I know, the Chester Beatty are still the oldest (proven) fragments, dating back to the second century.

Other than that, yeah, the New Testament is an extremely reliable document, compared to other ancient sources on which we base our knowledge of history.

[Perd Hapley]

People having believed in someone or something so hard isn't particularly unique, and is not a measure of truth fistful.  There's also no evidence of the people who actually would've been there having believed in a resurrected body.  Again, what we have are later narratives (and some of those even have the resurrection pasted on at the end).

No evidence? That's not true. You may not believe it, but you can't claim there's no evidence.

The point of bringing up the martyrdom of the apostles is not to claim that belief makes something true. Of course it doesn't. The point is, there must be a good explanation for why multiple eye-witnesses would say that someone rose from the dead. What did they gain from it? Why would they not recant, to save their lives? If they were mistaken, what happened to make them think a dead man came back to life?

And again, we've been arguing about whether this Jesus fellow is alive or dead for two millennia. Then a box of bones appears, and we're expected to believe that he was buried in his family tomb, of all places? And with a wife and kid? You're right, we should just all line up to believe that one.

[230RN]

This is simply wrong. The Bible is authoritative, but it is not the only proof for its claims. Archaeological evidence is but one of the means of testing many historical claims.

Me:
I'm not saying the Bible was written in a vacuum.  Obviously, it was generated because of some kind of motivation, as evidenced by those fragments of proof in terms of what buildings, locations, rulers, etc. were extant, as well as the geneological chains it relates.  But you ought to re-examine your concept of proof, as I did long ago.  A mere collection of corroborations is not proof of its extraorinary claims.  After all, one must believe its claims before accepting corroboration as proof.

Further, claiming that it has been heavily edited over the past 2000 years does not match the evidence given that we have at least fragments that are 1900 years old and complete copies (of books) from the 2nd century on.

Me:
I refer again to my remarks about corroboration,  I also refer to the fact that I have a Parallel Version of the Bible, with four different versions of it on facing pages, as well as a copy of the New World Testament from the Jehovah's Witnesses. They claim theirs is the most authoritative version, being an attempt at a word-by-word transliteration.  They, in fact, famously deny that J. was crucified on a "cross."  They say the truth was it was a "tree."   Now you cannot stand there on two feet and tell me that these differing versions are not "editions." <grin>  There is great wisdom in it, and I often quote the KJV <ahem> version, but my standards of provenance are somewhat stricter than most peoples'.

The Bible is the most studied work of all time and the best documented work as well. No other historical work has even close to the fragmentary and extant copies still in existence as the Bible.

Me:
"Documentation" is not proof of its extraordinary extranormal claims.  Wine into water? Feeding the multitudes?  I have seen "explanations" of this in terms of the writers using analogies, metaphors, parables, or even  "one of the mysteries of the faith."  

I can see Lazarus coming out of some kind of deep coma or his heart being re-started or something.  This would be seen by contemporaries as being raised from the dead.  But a "miracle?"  Hey, something like this could explain the resurrection, too.  I suppose someone as strong as a carpenter could recover in the tomb, move the stones away and wander around in a daze for a period before being seen again by his Disciples.  Ahhh, but that's pure conjecture.

You are free to disbelieve the claims, but you cannot make baseless claims about it being "heavily edited".

Me:
Ohhh, yes I can.  "Baseless," indeed.

You'll have to forgive me in advance, but I think I am going to disengage from this discussion, at least for now.  It is taking too much time, and I've dealt with this stuff in detail in my own mind and writings ages ago.

I will say that I am not an atheist, nor an aggressive agnostic.  But my plaint and plea is for folks to (A) realistically asses the impact of formalized religion on their thinking, and (B) allow me to be free of (what I consider to be) the constraints and restraints of formalized religion and its proselytizing.

That's all I ask.  Heck, the editing alone of this post took a half hour.

Now can we get back to a discussion of wiki's editing? :D

Terry

Edited later for typos.

[KD5NRH]

I can see Lazarus coming out of some kind of deep coma or his heart being re-started or something.

Restarting a heart after four days wouldn't help; the brain would be useless mush after that long.  Possibly if they had a hard freeze the whole time he was out, but I think that would be significant enough for the region that it would have been mentioned.

[Perd Hapley]

Now can we get back to a discussion of wiki's editing? 

Makes dubious claims about a controversial subject. Asks for a return to the OP. Not sure if serious.

I refer again to my remarks about corroboration,  I also refer to the fact that I have a Parallel Version of the Bible, with four different versions of it on facing pages,

They won't contain any significant differences, even if they read differently (unless you have something really odd in there). They all teach the same things. And that's true, even though the King James (I assume that's included) is based on much fewer, and later manuscripts, and was done before most of the older manuscripts were rediscovered. Bible scholars have gained a ton of ancient manuscripts since then, and learned a lot about the original languages, and about how to decide which variant reading is the original. Yet the churches haven't had to retouch their belief statements to accomodate any of that. The Bible still says the same thing.

...as well as a copy of the New World Testament from the Jehovah's Witnesses, who claim theirs is the most authoritative version, being an attempt at a word-by-word transliteration. They, in fact, famously deny that J. was crucified on a "cross."  They say the truth was it was a "tree." 

Many translations claim something like that. The JWs have been suspected of skewing their Bible to match their theological peculiarities. It didn't help that they were reluctant to name the translators. It got worse when they released a few names.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures#Translators

http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-world.html

 

I can see Lazarus coming out of some kind of deep coma or his heart being re-started or something.  This would be seen by contemporaries as being raised from the dead.  But a "miracle?"  Hey, something like this could eplain the resurrection, too.  I suppose someone as strong as a carpenter could recover in the tomb, move the stones away and wander around in a daze for a period before being seen again by his Disciples.  Ahhh, but that's pure conjecture on my part.

Commonly known as "the swoon theory." It's been around a while. It has its problems.

I will say that I am not an atheist, nor an aggressive agnostic.  But my plaint and plea is for folks to (A) realistically asses[sic] the impact of formalized religion on their thinking, and (B) allow me to be free of (what I consider to be) the constraints and restraints of formalized religion and its proselytizing.

This is 21st-century America, so I'm pretty sure you're allowed to be free of any constraints or restraints any of the traditional religions may (allegedly) place on you. As long as you don't draw Muhammad. For part A, I suspect that without "formalized" religion, I'd be more likely to believe whatever I wanted to believe, and less likely to skeptical of my own kooky notions. YMMV

[De Selby]

So is George Washington, but if you run across one born in the 1730s, there's a fair chance it's, you know, the one all the later ones were named after.

Don't know; there doesn't appear to be a significant Hispanic population there, though.

This is hilarious.  How many GW's had the same parents names, the same brother's names, and were buried at a family tomb in the same county as GW was born and died in!?

[De Selby]

I can make the same argument about secularism or materialistic philosophy. The evidence for life and order being a natural occurrence of energy + matter + the magic pixie dust of time is just not there.  

The problem is that the competing narratives are just as devoid of factual evidence. The modern edifice of secularism is based upon an appeal to authority, not to self evident facts.

DeSelby has such a strong desire to not believe that he is blind to how much it colors his so called reasoning process.  

I've often thought that the most reasonable unbelievers are the ones who legitimately consider themselves agnostic.

This is general stuff that has nothing to do with the point and question.

Let's say I believe the bible is an exaggerated account of the deeds of a Jewish claimant to the role of messiah in the 30's AD.  What do I have to support my claim?  Well, potentially Jesus's body sitting in a box.  Along with lots of other history.  That's not random faith based musing or philosophising.

Story about a man getting holy overtones?  It wasn't the first time even in the year 30.  Any evidence provide a historical account or match it?  Well, the body might

[Perd Hapley]

Story about a man getting holy overtones?  It wasn't the first time even in the year 30.  Any evidence provide a historical account or match it? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

[De Selby]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

Yes, the New Testament story about Jesus certainly seems to fit all the bodies in that tomb.

Citing it as authority for what happened is rich.  It's written accounts of what people a century later heard from people who claimed to have herd from the eyewitnesses.  That's certainly evidence, but it is a far, far cry from "eye witness accounts."  Not a single gospel story was written by an eyewitness.

[Perd Hapley]

Yes, the New Testament story about Jesus certainly seems to fit all the bodies in that tomb.

Except that the New Testament story doesn't place him in that tomb at all, and certainly not with the wife some are trying to give him.

Citing it as authority for what happened is rich.  It's written accounts of what people a century later heard from people who claimed to have herd from the eyewitnesses.  That's certainly evidence, but it is a far, far cry from "eye witness accounts."  Not a single gospel story was written by an eyewitness.

You can keep saying that. It doesn't make it true.

Besides, the less authority you grant the New Testament, the less reason you have to believe anyone got the names or relationships right, at all. And the less reason we have to care who's in the tomb. Is the NT reliable, or not? Is it right about names, but not about who saw what, and why?

[De Selby]

Except that the New Testament story doesn't place him in that tomb at all, and certainly not with the wife some are trying to give him.


You can keep saying that. It doesn't make it true.

Besides, the less authority you grant the New Testament, the less reason you have to believe anyone got the names or relationships right, at all. And the less reason we have to care who's in the tomb. Is the NT reliable, or not? Is it right about names, but not about who saw what, and why?

This is funny.  Proper names are one of the most endurable features of history, period.  They survive even complete extinctions of a language.  Yet the NT version of the tomb being empty (a clearly religious and fantastical element to the text) is given equal weight.

What you're doing is the equivalent of claiming that the power of soothsayers and omen readers to predict the future is on an equal historical footing with say, facts about Roman Emporers reigns because they both appear in the accounts of roman historians. 

You don't need to believe that Caeser was born to a god to believe he ruled Rome and did historical things.  You're doing just that sort of thing with the bible because you accept it as a matter of faith, not because that's the logical thing to do

[Perd Hapley]

You misread me. I am addressing two different problems.

Problem 1: You keep saying that the tomb is consistent with the Biblical account. You even called the Jesus in the tomb "the Biblical Jesus." The obvious problem with this is that the Bible maintains, as one of its most central points, that Jesus is God, and that His body is not moldering in any tomb. If you don't believe the latter, you might say that the tomb fits with certain details of the Biblical account. No one would argue with this. However, it is inaccurate, no matter your belief system, to say that the tomb is consistent with the Biblical account. The importance of the tomb, of course, is that it (allegedly) disproves the more important bits of the Biblical account, even if it correlates with others.

Problem 2: You're equating the religious window dressing of Roman cultus with what is, in the Biblical narrative, the central point. Regardless of the soothsayer's muttering, the emperor is still emperor. Not so with Christ and His resurrection. The "religious and fantastical element" is the story.

[Ron]

This is general stuff that has nothing to do with the point and question.

Let's say I believe the bible is an exaggerated account of the deeds of a Jewish claimant to the role of messiah in the 30's AD.

  What do I have to support my claim?  Well, potentially Jesus's body sitting in a box.  

Along with lots of other history. 

That's not random faith based musing or philosophising.

Story about a man getting holy overtones?  It wasn't the first time even in the year 30.  Any evidence provide a historical account or match it?  Well, the body might

You make a real big leap without anything other than your original bias, your presupposition Christ is not risen and possibly could be found in a tomb. You seem to jump from it "potentially" being his body to arguing as if it "is" his body in your argument.

It's as if the potentiality you see means we must start operating as if that is the most probable reality. Then you chastise those who refuse to make your leap without evidence.

As far as lots of history, historically we know from the 1st century on people believed that Jesus was the incarnation of God in a human body, was crucified, buried then rose from the dead.

[KD5NRH]

This is hilarious.  How many GW's had the same parents names, the same brother's names, and were buried at a family tomb in the same county as GW was born and died in!?

Gee, a guy named George with a brother named John and a mother named Mary would be so rare.  Pretty sure I can find that in my own ancestry.  (Though given my ancestors, it's more likely that would be a George Mason than a George Washington.)

[Perd Hapley]

De Selby,

There is a third problem, but it is a bit different, as it arises from your misjudging the nature of the New Testament sources, specifically the writings of John, Peter and Matthew. Because they saw the risen Jesus, an observable fact, that differs considerably from an ancient historians belief in the trustworthiness of omens or soothsayers. The historian may or may not have good reasons for his belief, and such things usually can't be proven or disproven, either way.

[KD5NRH]

I suppose someone as strong as a carpenter could recover in the tomb, move the stones away and wander around in a daze for a period

He was calling for souls, not brains.  Important distinction.

[De Selby]

De Selby,

There is a third problem, but it is a bit different, as it arises from your misjudging the nature of the New Testament sources, specifically the writings of John, Peter and Matthew. Because they saw the risen Jesus, an observable fact, that differs considerably from an ancient historians belief in the trustworthiness of omens or soothsayers. The historian may or may not have good reasons for his belief, and such things usually can't be proven or disproven, either way.

Sorry, but the evidence we have is fairly conclusive that those gospels were not written by the eye witnesses themselves.  They were written a good century later by people recording a tradition.

You can't seriously argue that the difference between biblical miracles and others is the level of eye witness testimony - there is far more direct and recorded eye witness testimony that angels appeared to Joseph Smith with gold plates for example.  Does that mean you accept Joseph Smiths revelations as historical fact?  

The list of examples is endless.  You are indeed taking the part of the record that is most obviously legend and equating it with facts that you could verify with other evidence.  Like a body and tomb.

[De Selby]

You make a real big leap without anything other than your original bias, your presupposition Christ is not risen and possibly could be found in a tomb. You seem to jump from it "potentially" being his body to arguing as if it "is" his body in your argument.

It's as if the potentiality you see means we must start operating as if that is the most probable reality. Then you chastise those who refuse to make your leap without evidence.

As far as lots of history, historically we know from the 1st century on people believed that Jesus was the incarnation of God in a human body, was crucified, buried then rose from the dead.

So the problem is that I have prejudged Jesus not to be God, and had I accepted that fact I would realise the tomb isn't real???  See the problem there?  You need the religious belief first to make the facts fit your evidence.

To crib from Mark Twain:

"When not one, but four ancient texts of unknown authorship confirm that they recorded the repeated testimony of the people who saw a man rise from the dead and knew he was god I am already inclined to believe them.  

When all of this truth has been confirmed hundreds of years later by a council of religious people who destroyed every competing story, I do not see how it could be doubted!"

Note:  a very good historical source for people not buying this story from the earliest days is in the book of Matthew.  He's got a really defensive and ridiculous explanation for why the empty tomb couldn't have been the result of a stolen body.  I guess people in late 1st century Israel were already not buying it...

[Perd Hapley]

Sorry, but the evidence we have is fairly conclusive that those gospels were not written by the eye witnesses themselves.

Sorry, but that's opinion; not fact.

[De Selby]

Sorry, but that's opinion; not fact.

That's the opinion of nearly all scholarly research on the texts.  If you have some evidence besides the fact that eye witnesses today claim miracles on the basis of their faith, you could make a real name for yourself

[De Selby]

Gee, a guy named George with a brother named John and a mother named Mary would be so rare.  Pretty sure I can find that in my own ancestry.  (Though given my ancestors, it's more likely that would be a George Mason than a George Washington.)

There is actually a statistical analysis of the tomb and its names.  The probability that there was another family of Jesus with all those exact same relatives is pretty darn small.

[Perd Hapley]

That's the opinion of nearly all scholarly research on the texts. 

Nearly all?


No matter. In any case, we agree that the tomb matches only some details from the New Testament, and that the second-century hypothesis is opinion, and nothing like a fact? Yes?