posted
Well, I’ll disagree with the statement that the bible has been revised over and over. Yes, we don’t have the 1st Greek and Hebrew, but we do have a lot of ancient texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls helped show that our original texts are very accurate. I know they have taken many many old artifacts together to get the original Greek and Hebrew. Sure there are many versions of the bible today. But the original text is what be considered holy writ. I think what you’re wanting to know is the great debate about the source for the translators. This site gives an interesting overview of Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus along with the majority texts: http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.htmlPosts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Is God only limited to the use of unknown and unknowable processes? If all natural processes are known or knowable, does that mean there is no God?"
Once all natural processes are known, we'll be able to see what role -- if any -- a god played in the universe.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Tom, we won't. Many traditions of God won't be dealt with in that way at all. For instance, the belief that it is God who created and maintains the physical laws would not be affected at all, because it is outside the realm of science to determine any root why. In a scientific sense, some things just are. Perhaps they come from God, or perhaps that's just the way it is, but there will continue to be plenty of room for God.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Jay I'm referring to changes made to the bible by various popes and emperors during the fall of Rome, and in the following centuries. During the persecution of Christians emperors sought of destroyed an incredible number of bibles. Bibles were only reconstructed by using the memories of people in the Palestinian area, one book at a time.
But even with the flawed reconstructions, popes and emperors (like I said before, if you wait a day or two I can get you more details and sources) would cut out entire books from the bible, or edit sections of the bible to suit them. So I don't mean translations, and I don't mean multiple versions of the bible. I know we have some very ancient texts, such as the dead sea scrolls. I'm saying that even the ancient texts aren't what you would consider the "true bible."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"For instance, the belief that it is God who created and maintains the physical laws would not be affected at all, because it is outside the realm of science to determine any root why."
Assuming that God does, however, do things outside the bounds of normal "science," any natural law which did not take this into account would be, by definition, incomplete. That this law could not predict Acts of God does not mean that it could not make exceptions for them.
It's true that a God which works exclusively through mechanical forces would be an undetectable god. Of course, such a God is largely worthless.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
If the universe wouldn't exist without him, that's hardly worthless.
I should note that I don't believe in God, but there can be a completely undetectable God who is completely essential, and that's pretty obvious from a little basic philosophy and a little basic science.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect TomD meant 'worthless' in the scientific-hypothesis sense that such a God would have no explanatory or predictive power.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. It's like the Catholic concept of item attributes which can change without the item changing in any detectable way by any mortal science. These attributes might exist. But it is absolutely irrelevant to mortal science whether they exist or not.
Clearly, if mortal science is itself irrelevant, they might be highly relevant. But if that's the case, any scientific discussion of God is, again, worthless.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Skillery, Mormons often forget that we are one of the few Religions that believe that God is a Scientist. For most other religions, such a statement is blasphemous and materialistic. Finding physical answers to miracles in other religions is damaging to their belief in the Immaterial and Omnicience of God.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Skillery, Mormons often forget that we are one of the few Religions that believe that God is a Scientist. For most other religions, such a statement is blasphemous and materialistic. Finding physical answers to miracles in other religions is damaging to their belief in the Immaterial and Omnicience of God.
I have no idea what bizarre place you get your ideas about religions from, but I would go so far as to say most modern religions have perfectly respectable (and typically very large) branches, at the least, which are completely comfortable with considering God as a scientist.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anticool and Noemon, I will get to your questions when i have time to elaborate. I'm at work right now and deadlines are looming. Maybe this weekend I can go into some in-depth responses.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
