Inspired by the slightly off-topic discussion in another thread.

R: Now about the happier existence that comes afterwards how do you know it exists? Who told you? The Bible as we've already discussed the bible was written by humans, edited by humans and re-written by humans.

And recently re-written again.

New Bible (at CNN.com)

Wow so much for the bible being the, and I am quoting from several people, "total and unalterable word of God."

If I read the link correctly, it's the original Hebrew translation. So I think it'll be interesting.

No one has ever claimed that a particular translation into English (or any other language) is "inspired and unalterable (except for the little old lady in the joke)*.

In fact the question of which translation is best has always been a matter of controversy. Some denominations have their own translations (which other denominations claim have deliberately mistranslated words and phrases to bolster questionable doctrine.)

Even the staid and solid AV (Authorized Version, also known as the King James Version) has had its critics. Some claiming that the language has become obsolete and therefore inaccessable to modern readers, others rejecting it because of the mounting evidence that King James (who had nothing to do with it other than authorizing a royal grant to the translators) was gay, or at least bi.

*(The joke) The church hired a new pastor. While greeting the congregation after services, a little old lady came up to him, upset because he quoted all the Scriptures wrong. He explained that he was quoting from the (enter the name of your favorite translation) version.

"Hmmphh!" she sniffed. "The King James Bible was good enough for St Paul and its good enough for me."

Well you may not have had anyone tell you that but I have. Including my exbest friend and for intents and purposes brother. He said that King James is THE word of GOD. And yeah I read it that this is a translation into english of the original Hebraic translations so this might be interesting to see what kind of firestorm it starts.

Well, if it turns out that the Earth was created in 5 days instead of 6, we have a good premise for a Star Trek episode at hand...

This is an inner-church struggle again, and here is my take on the issue. I dont speak in King James English, so why would I assume that my bible should. Over the centruies Language changes, it's a fact. Gee Wiz, just look at how much language has changed since the 50's! The fact of the matter is, your everyday person might get a complete misunderstanding of a bible passage.

Olde English isn't something we're used to talking in/listening to, so it's important to update the bible every once a while to make sure the words that we are reading match the original meaning in our ears. I mean honestly, how often do i use beggoten in my every day conversations.

Not only that, but the Dead Sea Scrolls have provided new insight and help on translating the scriptures.

Since there are 5000 Greek, 10,000 Latin and 9,300 other languages among surviving copies of the scriptures, dating back as close as 30 years after the events chronicled, compared to other ancient works...

Livy's Roman History (20 copies written 900 years after)
Caesar's Gaelic War (9 or 10 copies written 950 years after)
Tacitus (20 copies written 1,000 years after)
Thucydides (8 copies written 1,300 years after)
Herodotus (8 copies written 1,300 years after)

... we can have a very high confidence in the accuracy of the broad message of the Bible and the general history of the Hebrew people and the years of Jesus' life.

In addition, the New Testament is not the only source of information about Jesus. Not only does Jesus fulfill at least 109 prophecies, but he is also covered by two Roman historians (Tacitus and Suetonius) and the Jewish historian Josephus.

In addition, for a man to fulfill even 20 of the 109 prophecies, the odds are astronomical, possibly 1,125,000,000,000,000!

How many people have been born in the last 3000 years? The population of the world didn't pass a billion until the mid 19th century, so even if 500 million people are born every 30 years, that's only 50 billion people, and a one in 22,500 chance of that person being born between 1000 B.C. and A.D. 2000! Yet, scripture shows Jesus met 20 of those prophecies, he met all 109 that some scholars have clearly identified.

What are the odds that a man could fulfill all 109? A quintillion? A decillion?

Scripture also revealed, centuries before science determined it, natural facts about the world and its origins. The Bible mentions great beasts that were unknown up until the discovery of dinosaur fossils in the 19th century. The Bible also reveals history of civilizations, for example the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which have been found in the last 60 years.

Olde English isn't something we're used to talking in/listening to, so it's important to update the bible every once a while to make sure the words that we are reading match the original meaning in our ears. I mean honestly, how often do i use beggoten in my every day conversations.

Nit: King James English is actually (early) Modern English, not Old English (Anglo-Saxon). If it were, then it would be really incomprehensible.

How many people have been born in the last 3000 years? The population of the world didn't pass a billion until the mid 19th century, so even if 500 million people are born every 30 years, that's only 50 billion people, and a one in 22,500 chance of that person being born between 1000 B.C. and A.D. 2000! Yet, scripture shows Jesus met 20 of those prophecies, he met all 109 that some scholars have clearly identified.

Eh? You really, really, really, REALLY need to take a course in basic statistics or probability theory because your numbers make no sense. If 50 billion people were born in the last 30 years, the probability that someone would "fulfill" said prophecies (or even several people) would be pretty high. That's 50 *billion* remember. A five followed by 10 zeros. In any case, given the generally flexible interpretations assigned to prophecies, your example is of little use.

Scripture also revealed, centuries before science determined it, natural facts about the world and its origins. The Bible mentions great beasts that were unknown up until the discovery of dinosaur fossils in the 19th century. The Bible also reveals history of civilizations, for example the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which have been found in the last 60 years.

Natural facts? Like what? That two of every single species of animal life was put in one boat as rain covered the entire planet? Beowulf also mentions a monster named Grendel and even features a dragon... could these by dinosaurs too? You can interpret "great beast" to mean anything. Maybe the Bible was referring to the hydra!

The Bible also provides information which is at odds with actual ancient history. Let's take Exodus as an example - the Egyptians certainly didn't record the Plagues. In any case, "history" is found in many documents, many of which contradict the Bible, some of which support it, and some of which contradict each other. One source is not the end all and be all of history.

After all, what does the Bible have to say about Ancient Mesoamerica? Or even Ancient Sumeria? Or China? Or India? Or Europe for that matter? The Bible provides some information about the goings-on in one region, that's all.

I didn't say 50 billion were born in the last 30 years.

I said if 500 million people were born every 30 years... which is a lot (I base that on a population of a billion, with a lifespan of 60 years, meaning that half of them have to be replaced every 30 years)...

then

500 million * (3000 years divided by 30 year periods) = 500 million * 100 = 50,000 million.

In fact, the population wouldn't have been a constant billion over the last 3000 years. It would have been considerably less in 1000 B.C., but by allowing a generous 500 million each year, it betters the odds by cycling a larger number of humans into and out of existence on the world.

Okay, let's assume a shorter lifespan, and an average population of 750 million, still unreasonably large for a period back to more than two centuries before the founding of Rome.

40 year lifespan? And if a new generation is born an average of every 20 years, then every 20 years, 375 million people are born.

375 million * (3000 years divided by 20 year periods) = 375 million * 150 = 56,250 million.


In fact, the average population probably wasn't 750 million over those 3000 years, so it worsens the odds.

..Not only does Jesus fulfill at least 109 prophecies, but he is also covered by two Roman historians (Tacitus and Suetonius) and the Jewish historian Josephus. ...

The Josephus cites of Jesus were falsified later by early church fathers. During the time of Jesus, he was one of many Rabbis teaching about the end of the world for the authorities, not one special one. (Even in the evangelias, you can still read mention of other preachers of his time.)

Most people in history can't be properly accounted for, if they didn't happen to be kings or otherwise famous, and Jesus wasn't famous in his own time.

So its far from proven that Jesus even existed, far less that a bunch of prophecies fits him.

Example: Two conflicting genealogies for Jesus (usual apology: one for Mary, one for Joseph. But Joseph doesn't count, does he?)
Likewise, the trick of fulfilling the prophecies of both Bethlehem and Nazarene by having his parents move to Bethlehem for a census - of which no other mention exists in this timeframe given (Cyrenius). Etc.

Oh, and the New Testament has been retranslated, too

GCapp, your numbers still make no sense with respect to probability.

Constanze:

"The Josephus cites of Jesus were falsified later by early church fathers. During the time of Jesus, he was one of many Rabbis teaching about the end of the world for the authorities, not one special one. (Even in the evangelias, you can still read mention of other preachers of his time."

Do you have proof of this?? Just wondering, I've never heard that before.

Sure, not famous world-wide. Why would anyone care about him, but he spoke in front on crowds of THOUSANDS!, By todays standard thats not very much, but in the turn of the millenium, in Judea, thats a TON. It's hard to argue that he wasn't famous...

This article by Peter Kirby takes a balanced view on the authenticity of those passages in Josephus. It examines the arguments both for and against.

Consider the following paragraphs:

It is impossible that this passage is entirely genuine. It is highly unlikely that Josephus, a believing Jew working under Romans, would have written, "He was the Messiah." This would make him suspect of treason, but nowhere else is there an indication that he was a Christian. Indeed, in Wars of the Jews, Josephus declares that Vespasian fulfilled the messianic oracles. Furthermore, Origen, writing about a century before Eusebius, says twice that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ."

Either the passage received a few glosses, or the passage was inserted here in entirety. Those who favor partial authenticity usually bracket the phrases "if it be lawful to call him a man," "He was the Christ," and "for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousan other wonderful things concerning him."

Derrick,

...It's hard to argue that he wasn't famous...

Not famous enough to be mentioned by enough non-christian writers in a time without regular newspapers. That a thousand peasant and such-like listened to him doesn't make him special in that time and place, since there were enough other Rabbis about who had followers, too. If Jesus had preached in front of a hundred high-born Roman citizens, who left records, it would be easier to prove his existence.

No surviving record...

Plus, Judea was seen by the romans as a little back water province, why would they care what went on there. It took nearly 20-40 years AFTER jesus death for christianity to get popular.

Also, keep in mind that Jesus' Ministry only lasted about 3 years. Society wasn't as instant as it was today, It would take people month or more to actually find out about Jesus.

Anyway, Jesus was target numbero uno for the religious leaders of his time (which is who cared about him). The Rulers of His area had heard about him, but as you said, there were many Rabbi's with followers, so why would they perk up to this one? Jesus was popular among the people (who didnt write much down). He was more than moderatly well known...

It is a pity that Jesus didn't preach to romans, oh wait, he didn't have a choice, he lived in Judea, and followed what the prophecies said...he preached to God's People...

Josh, my point with the numbers is to show it to be highly IMPROBABLE that the prophecies would be fulfiled in one man... there haven't been even a fraction of enough human beings for them to be fulfilled by odds alone. Thousands of times more people need to have been born for the odds to be fulfilled.

The odds are against a human being having been born to fulfill them. The divine miracle is that they WERE fulfilled.

Assuming of course, that the authors of the Gospels were telling the truth about Jesus fulfilling those aforementioned prophecies. Proof, which, unfortunately, I don't believe exist outside of the Bible.

The odds are against a human being having been born to fulfill them. The divine miracle is that they WERE fulfilled.

Cite?

Josh, my point with the numbers is to show it to be highly IMPROBABLE that the prophecies would be fulfiled in one man... there haven't been even a fraction of enough human beings for them to be fulfilled by odds alone.

Your statistical analysis fails here. Improbable does *not* mean impossible. People win lotteries, despite the odds being hundreds of millions to one against. Because sometimes, somebody has to win.

Josh, my point with the numbers is to show it to be highly IMPROBABLE that the prophecies would be fulfiled in one man... there haven't been even a fraction of enough human beings for them to be fulfilled by odds alone. Thousands of times more people need to have been born for the odds to be fulfilled.

But the probability depends entirely on how many prophecies there are. Can you limit it to Biblical prophecies? I don't think so - presumably if Jesus fulfilled a miracle, it would be far more miraculous to fulfill prophecies the world over... but did he?

The odds are against a human being having been born to fulfill them. The divine miracle is that they WERE fulfilled.

Well, no, because your probabilities don't make sense. This is not something you can express statistically.

The late Isaac Asimov once wrote an essay about this "use" of statistics. He explained that arguments of this type left him spectacularly unimpressed.

If you have a sample of ten people who each experience an average of ten "events" in their lives, then you are looking at a total of 100 events. If a particlar event has a 1 in 10,000 chance of occurring, it is not likely that you will find it occuring in your sample.

On the other hand, if your sample is 100,000 people who each experience an average of 100 events, it would be surprising not to find the 1 in 10,000 event happening. In fact, with 10,000,000 events in your sample, the 1 in 10,000 event should occur about 1000 times!

Given thousands of monkeys pounding away on thousands of typewriters for thousands of years, it is possible to find a Shakespeare sonnet in the output. Given millions of monkeys and millions of years, it is possible to find the Bible.

Asimov even gave a true historical example of an "impossibly rare" event which has never been claimed to be miraculous. The Roman General Pompey was something of a "golden boy." He almost literally could do no wrong. He made all the right political connections, won every one of his battles, etc. Suddenly, practically overnight, it all fell apart. Everything went against him. He lost his battles, his friends, and within months, his life. Just before his fortunes changed, he desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem.

In another essay he explained how often the estimates of the chances of certain events are often (naively) extremely overexaggerated. He looked at claims that the evolution of Man is "impossibly" unlikely. The specific changes in DNA required to change it from that of a primitive one-celled animal to that of a man are each individually unlikely.

For the chance all of them happening, you multiply the chance for each new change by the product of the previous changes. The number becomes astronomical fairly quickly.

But:

1) The changes were not just the ones that led directly to Man. Thousands of othe species have evolved as well, and millions of "dead-end" mutants as well. This is the same situation as described above. With enough samples to check, the chances of finding even highly unlikely combinations are good.

2) Evolution does not require that Man have evolved with exactly the the genetic code that he has. If blue eyes were the dominant trait, rather than brown, or if we had tails, evolution would be just as valid.

Consider a lottery: even if the sample is too small to guarantee that the event occurs, it does not take a miracle for it to happen. In a four-digit lottery, the chances of drawing a particular number is 1 in 10,000. Predicting a specific number is unlikely, but predicting that out of a group of 1,000 different numbers one of them will win (without predicting which one) raises the chances to 1 in 10

So it is not required that a specific change that has a 1 in a 1,000,000 chance occur, but rather that any one of 100,000 favorable changes (as opposed to 900,000 unfavorable ones) occurs. The chances climb from 1 in 1,000,000 to 1 in 10!

.....

It is a similar situation with the "20 specific prophesies." Most of the prophesies either were not clear, or not recognized as such until after they were fulfilled. How many other prophesies are still not recognized because they were not fulfilled? And they were not fulfilled to the same precision that was used to "predict" the chances of their fulfillment. For example, the child born to the virgin was Jesus named not Immanuel.

And that's not even considering the possibility that some of the stories of Jesus' life were "rescripted" to match the prophesy better.