Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Alincolnism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Faber View Post
    Not many people realize that his middle name was Ulysses.


    Hiram was his first name. I have no idea where the "S" comes from or what it stands for.

    If the prodder of bovines says "states" I swear one day I will... I love my brother. I love my brother. I love my brother.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post


      Hiram was his first name. I have no idea where the "S" comes from or what it stands for.

      If the prodder of bovines says "states" I swear one day I will... I love my brother. I love my brother. I love my brother.
      Sam. He was somebody's uncle. Hence, naming our country after him.



      ETA: Because his last name was actually States.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post


        Hiram was his first name. I have no idea where the "S" comes from or what it stands for.

        If the prodder of bovines says "states" I swear one day I will... I love my brother. I love my brother. I love my brother.
        Supposedly, he changed his name to Ulysses S. Grant because his congressman nominated him to West Point as "Ulysses S Grant of Ohio".
        He reportedly liked the sound of U S Grant.

        It's been reported that the S stood for his mother's maiden name - Simpson - but Grant said the S didn't stand for anything.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

          I often find it's a mixture of motives, and you have to use your judgement of the person asking.

          I would keep in mind that the bible's books were assembled ~400 AD. The assembly process would not have been a neutral historical collection, but one to "clean up" the various differing sources so that they DID agree with each other, (and likely to solidify any church politics they had at the time).
          Even if the books had been assembled at that late date, it remains that earlier manuscripts are extant. The latest possible date for many books of the New Testament collection is 95CE, including the synoptic gospels: they were cited in works dating to 96CE.
          sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by tabibito View Post

            Even if the books had been assembled at that late date, it remains that earlier manuscripts are extant. The latest possible date for many books of the New Testament collection is 95CE, including the synoptic gospels: they were cited in works dating to 96CE.
            I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying the bible is entirely worthless due to dates, and such. But that there are things to understand when using it (and many other sources of information) when doing research. A collection of writings, may contain edits, omissions, translation errors, etc. When there is a non-neutral motivation behind that collection, then the edits, omissions, translation errors, may all serve to skew the overall message or impression in a direction the group creating the collection wants it to.

            Just to give you an example: Imagine a two collections of contemporary writing about the Covid Pandemic. One is written by the democrats, one is written by the republicans. Think how their motivations might skew what writings end up in the collections and which ones get omitted. If you read their collection, what messages would you get? Both will contain truth, both will likely contain error. Both would be written close to the actual events.

            So, when I say, "Keep in mind", I really mean that, I don't mean "worthless", I mean "Understand how that could have influenced".

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

              I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying the bible is entirely worthless due to dates, and such. But that there are things to understand when using it (and many other sources of information) when doing research. A collection of writings, may contain edits, omissions, translation errors, etc. When there is a non-neutral motivation behind that collection, then the edits, omissions, translation errors, may all serve to skew the overall message or impression in a direction the group creating the collection wants it to.

              Just to give you an example: Imagine a two collections of contemporary writing about the Covid Pandemic. One is written by the democrats, one is written by the republicans. Think how their motivations might skew what writings end up in the collections and which ones get omitted. If you read their collection, what messages would you get? Both will contain truth, both will likely contain error. Both would be written close to the actual events.

              So, when I say, "Keep in mind", I really mean that, I don't mean "worthless", I mean "Understand how that could have influenced".
              Which really has nothing much to do with demands for more and more contemporary accounts even though it looks to be better sourced than anything from that time.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                Supposedly, he changed his name to Ulysses S. Grant because his congressman nominated him to West Point as "Ulysses S Grant of Ohio".
                He reportedly liked the sound of U S Grant.

                It's been reported that the S stood for his mother's maiden name - Simpson - but Grant said the S didn't stand for anything.
                Like Harry S Truman. He actually had no middle name, but the S was given to him to identify with two different grandfathers. Because it wasn't an abbreviation, he never put a period after it.
                When I Survey....

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Faber View Post

                  Like Harry S Truman. He actually had no middle name, but the S was given to him to identify with two different grandfathers. Because it wasn't an abbreviation, he never put a period after it.
                  There used to be this need to identify that somebody actually had no middle name, as opposed to simply not supplying it, by putting "NMI" for "no middle initial" --- I saw that on a number of my Dad's WWII Service Records because he .... had no middle initial - Cow NMI Poke, Sr.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #54

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      More proof:


                      Ye olde photoshoppe: The first ever altered images (including two pictures stitched together to make iconic portrait of Abraham Lincoln)

                      article-2107109-11F436EE000005DC-387_470x594.jpgarticle-2107109-11F436EE000005DC-675_470x594.jpg
                      This portrait of Abraham Lincoln (left) is actually a composite of Lincoln's supposed head and the body of southern politician John Calhoun (pictured right)


                      So not only was this painting of "Lincoln" a fraud, so is the painting of his supposed wife: Mrs. Lincoln, I Presume? Well, as It Turns Out ...


                      When will you Lincolnians finally come to your senses?

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Off the wall: Every time I glance at the title, I think it's a thread about alnico magnets.
                        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                        Beige Nationalist.

                        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                          I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying the bible is entirely worthless due to dates, and such. But that there are things to understand when using it (and many other sources of information) when doing research. A collection of writings, may contain edits, omissions, translation errors, etc. When there is a non-neutral motivation behind that collection, then the edits, omissions, translation errors, may all serve to skew the overall message or impression in a direction the group creating the collection wants it to.

                          Just to give you an example: Imagine a two collections of contemporary writing about the Covid Pandemic. One is written by the democrats, one is written by the republicans. Think how their motivations might skew what writings end up in the collections and which ones get omitted. If you read their collection, what messages would you get? Both will contain truth, both will likely contain error. Both would be written close to the actual events.

                          So, when I say, "Keep in mind", I really mean that, I don't mean "worthless", I mean "Understand how that could have influenced".
                          The documents dating to 400CE are written in Koine Greek, and match reasonably well with the extant earlier documents - translation errors are not in play, and any editing that may have occurred would date to an earlier time. The only part that 400CE could influence would be the books selected for inclusion in the Bible - a list that for the most part also existed before 400CE. There is no evidence to support the claim that influential writers of the late fourth and early fifth century tampered with the source texts. If commentators (e.g. Augustine) did not like what the source said, they would accurately cite and then reinterpret the text to shoehorn it into conformity with their own precepts. 400CE is therefore irrelevant in evaluating the source texts for the Bible.

                          Any material error that might exist would arise with the authors' decisions regarding which materials to include in their own works, as per your "Covid Pandemic" example.
                          sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Quick side question: Did the earliest collections of NT documents include the "long-ending" version of Mark?
                            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                            Beige Nationalist.

                            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                              Quick side question: Did the earliest collections of NT documents include the "long-ending" version of Mark?
                              FWIU neither the Sinaiticus nor the Vaticanus codices contain either long ending. It is in the slightly later Alexandrinus codex as well as the Washingtonianus and Bezae. But the primary source is the Byzantine or Majority text.

                              IIRC, the earliest extant copy of it dates to the 5th cent. but it is widely accepted that John Chrysostom was using it and he died at the start of the 5th cent. Further, I believe Irenaeus also cites from it and he's from the 2nd cent. Then there is the Gnostic Gospel of Nicodemus (a.k.a., the Acts of Pilate) from the middle 4th cent. that appears to be familiar with it as was Aphraates who was active in the early 4th cent.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                FWIU neither the Sinaiticus nor the Vaticanus codices contain either long ending. It is in the slightly later Alexandrinus codex as well as the Washingtonianus and Bezae. But the primary source is the Byzantine or Majority text.

                                IIRC, the earliest extant copy of it dates to the 5th cent. but it is widely accepted that John Chrysostom was using it and he died at the start of the 5th cent. Further, I believe Irenaeus also cites from it and he's from the 2nd cent. Then there is the Gnostic Gospel of Nicodemus (a.k.a., the Acts of Pilate) from the middle 4th cent. that appears to be familiar with it as was Aphraates who was active in the early 4th cent.
                                Thanks. I'm kind of trying to sort out whether "Is it 'original'" and "Is it canonical" are two separate questions.
                                Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                                Beige Nationalist.

                                "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                                Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by tabibito, 09-14-2021, 05:15 AM
                                23 responses
                                174 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by seer, 08-30-2021, 09:03 AM
                                243 responses
                                1,294 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by seer, 08-30-2021, 07:35 AM
                                1 response
                                24 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post eider
                                by eider
                                 
                                Started by seer, 08-28-2021, 05:41 PM
                                10 responses
                                76 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by MehdiR, 08-25-2021, 01:44 PM
                                9 responses
                                122 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Bill the Cat  
                                Working...
                                X