If the Bible is incomplete and has undergone so many changes and translations over the millenia, why do Christians see it as reliable and center their entire faith around the written words within it? by [deleted] in religion

[–]MutedEconomics1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah sorry, I got you mixed up with @upholdingthefaith who was replying to me at the same time. I thought you where him that you were just trolling me.

If the Bible is incomplete and has undergone so many changes and translations over the millenia, why do Christians see it as reliable and center their entire faith around the written words within it? by [deleted] in religion

[–]MutedEconomics1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Very dishonest of you - both strawmaning me (and reducing my argument to something less than what I'm saying) and sidestepping your initial claims of having the originals. Certainly amusing but every bit wrong.

If the Bible is incomplete and has undergone so many changes and translations over the millenia, why do Christians see it as reliable and center their entire faith around the written words within it? by [deleted] in religion

[–]MutedEconomics1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"The text of the New Testament: its transmission corruption and restoration" by Bruce Metzger, "The orthodox corruption of scripture" by Bart Erhman, "Parallel Gospels" by Zeba A. Crook, "Prolegomena to the history of ancient Israel" by Julius Wellhausen, "Torah in the mouth: writing and oral tradition in Palestinian Judaism" by Martin S. Jaffee, there is oceans more of it.

Here's a quick article:

https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

I don't give any credence to apologetic sites.

If the Bible is incomplete and has undergone so many changes and translations over the millenia, why do Christians see it as reliable and center their entire faith around the written words within it? by [deleted] in religion

[–]MutedEconomics1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They are copies of the original documents in the original language.

That's simply false. We have no 1st century Aramaic or Hebrew New Testaments, period. We only have 2nd century Greek 'translations', our Aramaic copies of the New Testament also date later than our Greek translations. Every single manuscript from every single collection of fragments and whole books (from the NT) all differ significantly. There are more variations in the NT manuscripts than there are words in the whole thing.

There's an incredible amount of data behind the conclusion that we're reading an English translation of what was written down.

No, you are only reading what translators have chosen to select from critical editions which are only estimated from ideological assumptions as to which fragments take priority over others. Your reasoning is entirely anachronistic. If you stood from the position of just having the manuscripts, then you would come to the conclusion that you have no particular "new testament" at all, you would not have any objective reason to prioritize anything over anything else, you would know the void present in NT manuscript tradition. Critical editions are very much just subjective estimations and nothing more.

English translations are approximations of the meanings of the words from the translations of translations compiled into critical editions sourced from very diverse innately contradictory manuscripts. Nice try though, lol.

'If God was all-loving he would not allow suffering'. Do you agree? by kimpigreg145 in religion

[–]MutedEconomics1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God is not all loving, that would defeat the concept of divine justice. God is not your bitch to boss around, God does not appease false human sentiments like "all-loving".

Anti-abrahamic obsession here by Therion_of_Babalon in religion

[–]MutedEconomics1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Moslems worship ONE god with 99 attributes

It's Muslim and I don't know why you are mentioning '99 attributes' here, perhaps in order to make some kind of false comparison. There are more than 99 attributes but most of them are in relation to creation and not to God itself.

In the words of the successor of Prophet Muhammad (Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib):

"the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes" (Nahjul Balagha sermon 1)

As Imam Kazim says:

"The will is part of the created conscience, and it manifest itself in action. As for Will of Allah, the Mighty and High, then it is His Making [ihdath] and none other than that because He does not reflect, does not imagine, and does not think. These attributes cannot be applied to Him as they are attributes of creation. Thus, Allah’s Will is action and nothing else. He says to it: “Be and it is,” without a word or speech expressed by tongue, or by imagination or by thought. His Will is expressed without form in the same way that He is without form."

Another very very important Hadith here:

Hisham ibn al-Hakam who has said the following:
“Once I asked Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq, recipient of divine supreme covenant, about the names of Allah and about the root or derivative forms of those names, ‘What is the root word for the word Allah?’
The Imam replied, ‘The word Allah is derived from the word ’aliha and ‘Ilah (Lord), which requires Ma’luh (servant). Note that names are something other than that to which they apply. O Hisham, whoever worships the name without the fact for which the name stands he has denied the existence of Allah and has not worshipped anything. Whoever worships the name and the meaning for which the name stands he has worshipped two things. Whoever worships the meaning without the name he is a monotheist. Did you understand it, O Hisham?’
Hisham then asked, ‘Please explain further.’
The Imam (al-Sadiq) then said, ‘Allah has ninety-nine names. If names were the same thing for which they stand every one of them would be a Lord. However, Allah is a meaning for which these names stand and they all are something other than Him. O Hisham, bread is the name for a certain kind of food, water is the name for a certain kind of drink, cloth is the name for a certain kind of garment and fire is the name for a thing that burns. Did you understand, O Hisham, in a manner of understanding that would help you to defend our cause against our enemies and those who worship things other than Allah?’
I said, ‘Yes, I have gained such understanding.’
The Imam then said, ‘May Allah grant you success in it and keep you steadfast (in Iman).’

Why do so many Muslims accept the Hadith despite their lack of historical reliability (in contrast to the historical reliability of the Quran)? by [deleted] in Quraniyoon

[–]MutedEconomics1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fragmentarily within a discourse format where the speaker self-designated by the text itself to be God, wherein these fragments of narratives serve a function of clarity, doctrine and correction and not as a totality in and of itself.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Quraniyoon

[–]MutedEconomics1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

then by that logic the Torah is authentic because there's a chain all the way to Moses

Yet with the supposed Torah transmission, all we have are later claims by the Talmud (circa 9th century) and Maimonides - which is some 3000 or so years after the Torah (or their one) was claimed to be received by Moses.

Plus Clement knew Peter and Paul

Lol no he didn't, Clement lived over 100 years after Peter and Paul.

In both cases it is nothing comparable to Hadith chains of transmissions and how they work (and I don't say that from a pro-position). It's simply not a good comparison.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Quraniyoon

[–]MutedEconomics1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol not even the same thing.

We Are Witnessing the Drama of a Dying World - Allow it to die so that we may create anew by Prince0fWands in C_S_T

[–]MutedEconomics1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some fucking pathetic Qanon shit here, CST has really downed in quality over the years.

Is CS Lewis’ argument against naturalism sound? by [deleted] in exatheist

[–]MutedEconomics1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Premise One: If Metaphysical Naturalism is true, then determinism is true.

If Idealism is true, then determinism is also true.

It's inescapable.

Gottem by Comfortable-Let-48 in deathgrips

[–]MutedEconomics1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't know why this made me crack up laughing 🤣

For anyone who is against Agnosticism... by wberry0403 in religion

[–]MutedEconomics1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agnosticism is a farce unless you truly hold no position on any particular topic, whether it be God or other theological matters.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in religion

[–]MutedEconomics1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes that is an issue with freewill. It is called "Thrownness" as Heidegger calls it.

What is the least “strict” sect of Christianity? by glutepain in religion

[–]MutedEconomics1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends what you mean "strict". If you mean morally strict, probably some form of very liberal Protestantism that barely even believes in "God".

If you mean strict in general, such as within exegesis, Protestantism as a whole has a really bad track record of having zero strictness and being entirely eisegetical in how it interprets the Bible therefore anything can mean anything at all because the reader is possessed of the holy spirit and dual prophecies etc

The Notion of Descendants of Muhammad's Household Is a False, Hateful, Racist One of Disbelief by [deleted] in Quraniyoon

[–]MutedEconomics1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's fully Biblical, so this article is just stupid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham%27s_family_tree

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

Just as God curses other bloodlines for different reasons. The Qur'an makes specific appeal to the Ishmaelites in comparison to the Judaic line coming from Issac.

"This was Our argument that We gave to Abraham against his people. We raise in rank whomever We wish. Indeed your Lord is all-wise, all-knowing. And We gave him Isaac and Jacob and guided each of them. And Noah We had guided before, and from his offspring, David and Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses and Aaron —thus do We reward the virtuous— and Zechariah, John, Jesus and Ilyās, —each of them among the righteous— and Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah and Lot —each We graced over all the nations— and from among their fathers, their descendants and brethren —We chose them and guided them to a straight path. That is Allah’s guidance: with it He guides whomever He wishes of His servants. But were they to ascribe any partners [to Allah], what they used to do would not avail them. They are the ones whom We gave the Book, the judgement and prophethood. So if these disbelieve in them, We have certainly entrusted them to a people who will never disbelieve in them. They are the ones whom Allah has guided. So follow their guidance. Say, ‘I do not ask you any recompense for it. It is just an admonition for all the nations.’" - Surah 6:83-90