OK, I'll rephrase (although I think it's implied), He does use man in the preservation process, but is not limited to man's limitations of accuracy. He providentially guided the process in other words, therefore it was not up to man to ensure His word came to us unscathed.

And no, I will not provide you with a history of how the KJV came to be, I'm sure your research is adequate. I'm in no way, shape, or form attempting to defend the history or procedures of the translation. I will stand by the product of that translation, however, and defend it without batting an eyelash.

Thank you, Schultz. Conversations about the bible are much more productive when they are non-self-referencial (ie: scripture quotes, ie "thumping")



Now then, if we agree that as stated in Authorized KJV from Wikipedia that...




...then how do you prevent "the telephone effect" which occurs even with ONE translator?

Furthermore, how do we know that it was god telling king and these 47 scholars what was canon and what was not? If we assume these translators where guided by the holy spirit, then that is but one possibility. There are three possibilities here as I see it:

1) god though the holy spirit guided king and scholar
2) devil talked and guided king and scholar
3) socioeconomic force guided king and scholar
4) Church of England talked and guided king and scholar
5) king talked and guided sholar
6) nobody guided king and scholar

Thus, to assume that it was god through the holy spirit that guided the hand of king and scholar in this translation is but one of the many possibilities and I'm curious as to why you have chosen to believe #1 and dismiss all the rest.

Despite having difficulties following your logic of how a God would even care about books and how he would have to be a puppet master (what happened to 'free will' there?), your analogy was flawed to begin with. Shakespeare's work is hardly comparable to the Bible in terms of age, origin and preservation, as all originals were lost long before the KJV version was even made.

( On a lighter side note, this is what happens when you put too much value in a certain piece of literature: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin )

Cheers

Phemox,
How do you define free will?

I have chosen #1 and dismissed all the rest, because it is logical and rational to presuppose God. It follows logic to believe in His word as a revelation to his creation, and a perfect Bible that reflects God's nature as well. I have found the King James Bible to be that perfect revelation. You will doubtless reject that.

You will likely say you reject this because in your opinion it is illogical. However, for you to use logic you must borrow from my world view (biblical Christianity). How can there be any universal logic, since your mind is completely separate from mine. In an atheist world view, you cannot account for the laws of logic, laws of morality, or laws of science. You cannot account for universal laws (as an atheist) existing in a materialistic (from an atheists point of view), purely natural universe (which I have to assume you believe). I can. I don't have any problems accounting for them. The laws of logic, science, and morality reflect the nature of Almighty God, the creator of heaven and earth.

Psa 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

I know, you don't like scripture quotes. I don't much care for atheist quotes either, but I deal with it a lot in forums.

The "telephone effect" may be a problem if Almighty God was not overseeing and guiding and preserving down through history. But he is (see Psa 12:6-7).

I hardly think it logical to believe in the bible simply because it is the only thing with any definite answers. It certainly FEELS good to a lot of people, but many people, including myself, are not going to base our beliefs one what feels good. The truth rarely feels good, but that's a part of humanity losing its sweet innocence.

Agnostics, unlike other groups, have accepted the fact that they don't know the answers. I tend to think anyone who assumes they have the answers is far too presumptuous, and has far too much confidence in their own understanding, which everyone agrees, christian or no, is flawed. Although a believer in the bible may say that agnostics or atheists 'lean upon the understand of men', the truth is that they simply don't lean on what they have read or heard, because they, rightfully so, are not quick to trust a pile of words and the word of mouth from human beings as fallible as they are.

To simply... believe anything... one must have faith that there is no contradictory force, that the object of their belief cannot be wrong. You may say that the bible is perfect in all ways (whether it is or not). Theoretically, a well written fiction novel cannot be proven wrong either, as long as it exactly follows its own logic and does not contradict anything we 'know' to be true. The truth of something like that can be as real and solid as you want it to be, until someone points out that a human wrote it. Of course, like the atheist, I recognize that that work of fiction has names attached to it. Fallible human beings. And therefore, it cannot be fully trusted, whether it is 'perfect' or not.

If God's truth were as perfect and unquestionable as you say, he wouldn't need a bible to make his existence, or his teachings, known to us. They would simply be obvious to everyone.


I'll provide a couple conundrums that tend to keep me doubting (without bringing up the 'could god make a rock so heavy even he couldn't carry it' bit):


1) (this kind of is three questions that relate): If nothing in this universe can defy god's will, why is Satan allowed to do what he does to non-believers, as well as tempt believers, when using our god-given free will is merely the use of a gift. Why give a gift like that, and make us suffer for using it? Sounds like a game to me. (Set rules, allow for there to be winners and losers, define what makes you win, and what makes you lose, and see who the best of us are). Seems crappy to me, allowing human beings to be fallible, but then punishing them for eternity for being fallible. Also why can't he look upon 'sin'? Sins seem to be things that... he just doesn't LIKE. That's really what defines a sin to me. Which leads into the next big question:

2) Is what is 'good', good because God says it is?

Or is 'good' an unchangeable force, fundamental, universal?

It's a trick question.

If what is good, is good because god says it is, then we are following an arbitrary idea of good, which could change if god wanted to change it. How can that idea of good be considered solid morals to live by? At that point, you are merely following your leader, and not his ideals. As you are taught, God does not change, so... paradox. Why simply follow an all powerful being (besides fear) if in another universe it could very well be considered good to kill and steal. And you believers, in that universe, would be killers and thieves, if that's what god wanted from you.

We obviously would like to think of good as universal, fundamental. But if what is good, is good because it is universal and not just 'What God Says, Goes', then that means God is merely a messenger, an enforcer of good. In which case, all the believers seem to be worshiping the wrong entity. If what is good, is good without God, then why have God in the equation at all? Why not just be good people, live well, and die satisfied with your life?


Anyhow, these are the kind of thoughts that lead me away from my christian upbringing, and I guarantee more will follow, because god's presence is NOT so undeniable that we cannot deny it. If it were, we would all be believers.

One should believe what they believe because they believe it, not because they were taught it, forced by our parents to think it's true. And I, like many, refuse to let fear govern my beliefs. I will never believe in god simply because I'm afraid I may go to hell, there is not merit in that. I'm sure if god is real that he would appreciate my actual faith, built entirely upon my own shoulders.

To me it's the same as finally realizing there is no Santa. I trusted my sources, my parents, my friends, fallible human beings, songs and movies, and because of my short-sightedness, my innocence, my complete unquestioning faith, I believed he was real, and tried to be a good boy, so that I got what I wanted at christmas. Just imagine... your parents, friends, songs and movies, are your bible. Santa is your God. Christmas is your inevitable death. And your present is heaven.

Be a good boy.

ArtimusBena,
If this type of sophistry led you away from your Christian upbringing maybe you should reconsider a few things. You had a lengthy post so maybe we can deal with the issues one or two at a time.
You said "If God's truth were as perfect and unquestionable as you say, he wouldn't need a bible to make his existence, or his teachings, known to us. They would simply be obvious to everyone."
You forget one tenet of your Christian upbringing- sin. Sin defiles our mind and conscience and darkens our foolish heart.
Let me ask you briefly why it is that people get math problems wrong, disagree on scientific laws, kill each other in war, lie etc.? Or consider this, logic is something that everyone must presuppose in order to think. Why is it that logicians and philosophers disagree on what logic is, and which are laws of logic?

By the way the old "could god make a rock so heavy even he couldn't carry it' bit" is not a valid question as it presupposes God within time and space like a man. Or to 'change the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like unto corruptible man'(Rom.1)

Please showcase this logic you speak of without scriptures. It has to be without scriptures for the use the object that you are trying to prove in your proof leads to a circular argument which is not logical.

For example, I can argue that Harry Potter is real because the book tells me it's real. The Harry Potter books are teh uncontested and error free account of the life of Harry Potter. But, if I don't use the books, then there is no evidence that he is real and thus I come to the logical conclusion that outside of the books, Harry Potter does not exist.

In the same vein, you argue that god is real because the bible tells you that he's real. But, if I don't use the bible as in the Harry Potter example, then like Harry Potter, there is no evidence that he is real and thus we come to the logical conclusion that outside of the bible, god does not exist.

In counterdistinction, my physics text tells me that objects in a vacuum accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2. Now, if I don't use my physics textbook, I can go out and find independent evidence that the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2. Thus I come to the logical conclusion that this value is "real" since it is independent of the book I first encountered it.

Finally, if your logic is that the bible is error free and thus this qualifies it as divine, then the Koran is MORE error free as it is written in the original language from whece it was received. So logically if you have two books claiming divine will, one a translation of a collection of divine texts and another a non-translated single text, then logically the Koran is closer to god's word than the bible. Thus by your own logic, you have CHOSEN to believe in the bible IN SPITE of your own logic which tells you there are more direct words of god out there.

fastlane69,
What you are not realizing is that your question is related to worldviews. For example you say that I cannot use the bible to prove it otherwise it is circular reasoning and illogical. Now how would you prove logic? If you proceed to use logic to prove it you engage in circular reasoning and become illogical.
You will need to appeal to something else. What do you appeal to next? This is where you appeal to your worldview/religion which everyone has by necessity. You must appeal to your philosophy/religion to account for logic science and morality. You will find the God of the bible becomes the only valid precondition.

That's the problem exactly, it's possible to give an entirely wrong explanation to things that, for all you can SEE, is perfect in its explanation, but once it is truly examined it becomes obvious it isn't the right answer. You're leaning on your understanding, and confusing the 'easy' answers with correct ones.

Now about making god out to be 'of this world' and in our image, etc.: He's god. He pervades all existence. He is us. Therefore the passage you quoted contradicts god. The fact is that he can make a rock, no? He is a part of all existence, no? Therefore, he can make a heavy rock, and in some fashion, him being GOD, can lift this rock, if he so chooses. Ya can't just be GOD, and able to do anything you wish in any scenario, and then have someone write in the bible that there's a certain light we cannot see him in. He should be in all lights. Besides, Jesus is the 'image' of a corruptible man. (You're going to say NO, HE'S NOT CORRUPTIBLE. Yeah well neither is god and we're in HIS 'image', no?)


I would be FINE if the nature of god were stated in the bible as contradictory, to our understanding because our understanding doesn't work the same as god's existence. If it were stated so, I would have much less to doubt about it all. All the problems I find in the bible would be fixed. It would be the... oh what did you call it... the only valid precondition?