How would your account be different?

[Inigo Montoya]

I've been tossing around the question as to why it is we believe written accounts of officers or soldiers in past wars, or why we believe the stories of famous men and women throughout history prior to the advent of cameras and film.


For the sake of argument, I'd ask you -- IF you were witness to the life and death of Jesus in the first century, and we assume the miracles and resurrection are true, how do YOU record your accounting of it in such a way it is believed in future generations?

Is this possible? Do we believe the events of the War of 1812 took place the way they did because there's no mention of supernatural occurrences?

If we assume for discussion the events in the gospels actually occurred, how would you have captured them in such a way as to stand up to future scrutiny?

[charles_hamm]

Just another thought. The ultimate eye-witness to the events would be God Himself.
So. If I were God, and very clever and very powerful and very prescient, and I wanted to communicate something so important I would have my own son die an agonising death as part of the message, how would I ensure that the message got through to the people I wanted to get it to, without cramping their sense of free will, or their sense that they had a choice about whether or not to know, love and serve me?
Well, I suspect I might be able to do rather better than some bunches of mutually-contradictory obscure scrolls. Maybe I'd send updated and translated versions to lots of different language-groups, every couple of centuries. When it was seen that these miraculously-appearing books contained a clear and consistent message, people would be able to choose to know love and serve me and to be happy with me forever yadda yadda. . . In which case I would feel entitled to consider myself very clever and omniscient and all that.
But if only a few scriptures turned up, all contradicting each other in various ways, both major and minor, and no-one seemed able to agree on what kind of god it was that inspired them, if any, and they spent the next 2000 years ripping each other's bellies open in religious strife, then I'd have to question my own smartness.

You would have a problem because how would you keep consistency between updates? Would you say homosexuality is a sin in 1400 A.D. but since it's more accepted in 2000 A.D. it's not? Since the people in 1000 A.D. lived before the latest revision would they be judged on the revision they lived under or the one that exist at the end of the world? Also since some languages do die, how would people know what previous revisions of a dead language said?

[scourge99]

Just another thought. The ultimate eye-witness to the events would be God Himself.
So. If I were God, and very clever and very powerful and very prescient, and I wanted to communicate something so important I would have my own son die an agonising death as part of the message, how would I ensure that the message got through to the people I wanted to get it to, without cramping their sense of free will, or their sense that they had a choice about whether or not to know, love and serve me?
Well, I suspect I might be able to do rather better than some bunches of mutually-contradictory obscure scrolls. Maybe I'd send updated and translated versions to lots of different language-groups, every couple of centuries. When it was seen that these miraculously-appearing books contained a clear and consistent message, people would be able to choose to know love and serve me and to be happy with me forever yadda yadda. . . In which case I would feel entitled to consider myself very clever and omniscient and all that.
But if only a few scriptures turned up, all contradicting each other in various ways, both major and minor, and no-one seemed able to agree on what kind of god it was that inspired them, if any, and they spent the next 2000 years ripping each other's bellies open in religious strife, then I'd have to question my own smartness.

I notice that some Christians don't like the idea that its reasonable to be skeptical about unevidenced extraordinary testimony. So they try to spin the problem by attacking skepticism instead of addressing their failure to provide a sufficient standard of evidence for belief.

[Jax Agnesson]

You would have a problem because how would you keep consistency between updates?

I'm taking the role of an omnipotent omniscient God here. A couple of centuries is not a vast sea of time to me. I'm not restricting myself to a handful of Mediterranean languages, either.

Would you say homosexuality is a sin in 1400 A.D. but since it's more accepted in 2000 A.D. it's not?

I'm God. If I could care about which persons twiddled with which other person's naughty bits, then my judgement regarding that behaviour would be the same in 3000 AD or 3000 BC. Men are fickle and slaves to fashion. God isn't.

Since the people in 1000 A.D. lived before the latest revision would they be judged on the revision they lived under or the one that exist at the end of the world?

They would be able to compare their older versions with the latest, and they would be able to see plainly that the only 'revisions' were alterations in recognition of changes in linguistic usage. I'm an almighty God. I can manage a bit of unambiguous prose! The people would receive an updated version of exactly the same message. If they chose to ignore it, fair enough.

Also since some languages do die, how would people know what previous revisions of a dead language said?

What? you don't know anyone who can read Chaucer in the original, or the prose Edda, or Tacitus or Aristotle or Egyptian hieroglyphics? I reckon if I couldn't get round that level of difficulty, I would be too embarrassed to call myself omnipotent, or even claim the level of wisdom expected of of a moderately smart human. I would have to abolish myself.

[charles_hamm]

You would have a problem because how would you keep consistency between updates?

I'm taking the role of an omnipotent omniscient God here. A couple of centuries is not a vast sea of time to me. I'm not restricting myself to a handful of Mediterranean languages, either.

Would you say homosexuality is a sin in 1400 A.D. but since it's more accepted in 2000 A.D. it's not?

I'm God. If I could care about which persons twiddled with which other person's naughty bits, then my words regarding that behaviour would be the same in 3000 AD or 3000 BC. Men are fickle and slaves to fashion. God isn't.

Since the people in 1000 A.D. lived before the latest revision would they be judged on the revision they lived under or the one that exist at the end of the world?

They would be able to compare their older versions with the latest, and they would be able to see plainly that the only 'revisions' were alterations in recognition of changes in linguistic usage. I'm an almighty God. I can manage a bit of unambiguous prose! The people would receive an updated version of exactly the same message. If they chose to ignore it, fair enough.

Also since some languages do die, how would people know what previous revisions of a dead language said?

What? you don't know anyone who can read Chaucer in the original, or the prose Edda, or Tacitus or Aristotle or Egyptian hieroglyphics? I reckon if I couldn't get round that level of difficulty, I would be too embarrassed to call myself omnipotent, or even claim the level of wisdom expected of of a moderately smart human. I would have to abolish myself.

So if I understand you correctly the only "updates" you would make are to speak in the language of the day? If the message never changed , which is what you imply in your comment regarding 3000 B.C. or 3000 A.D. and you believe men are smart enough to translate dead languages then why update it? What you've just described is the Bible. The only change you made was using the language of the day rather then staying with the original (which causes it's own problems since words have multiple meanings based on their usage).

[PhiloKGB]

So if I understand you correctly the only "updates" you would make are to speak in the language of the day? If the message never changed , which is what you imply in your comment regarding 3000 B.C. or 3000 A.D. and you believe men are smart enough to translate dead languages then why update it? What you've just described is the Bible. The only change you made was using the language of the day rather then staying with the original (which causes it's own problems since words have multiple meanings based on their usage).

Except God hasn't exactly ensured that the original language text spawns one authoritative translation.

[Jax Agnesson]

So if I understand you correctly the only "updates" you would make are to speak in the language of the day? If the message never changed , which is what you imply in your comment regarding 3000 B.C. or 3000 A.D. and you believe men are smart enough to translate dead languages then why update it? What you've just described is the Bible. The only change you made was using the language of the day rather then staying with the original (which causes it's own problems since words have multiple meanings based on their usage).

Do you believe that God hears all those people praying in all their different languages in all the Christian churches and homes on Sunday all round the world?
Do you believe God has been the same, unchanging, since before time was?
OK.
So. This almighty God, who looks upon the stumbling changes of mortals across the whole planet through many millenia, knows how to speak to each of these people-groups, in their own language, in the times and places where they live. He knows perfectly how to say whatever He wants to say, in words they will understand clearly. But He doesn't do that, does He?
And He doesn't change, does He? His message doesn't change, does it? If He thinks the indiscriminate slaughtering of every man woman and child in a town is wrong, He would have been able to communicate that in 3000 BC in Canaa just as easily as He could have communicated it in Poland in 1943 CE.
And He didn't, did He?
Do you believe that this almighty God was able to hear the prayers of all those people, all over the world, who thought the Great Creator Spirit would be pleased by the blood sacrifice of their children? Didn't He know about them? Or didn't He care?
He could have sent signs to the Aztec and the ancient Greek, as he did to Abram, saying it's OK, you don't need to do that; a small animal will suffice. Couldn't He?
And He didn't, did He?
Imagine yourself in the position of an omnipotent omniscient and loving God. Imagine that you have an important mesage for humanity that you really want to communicate to them. Imagine you knew that they will suffer terribly until they come ro understand this message.
How would you go about it? Scraps of confused tales of genocides and crucifyings, on scrolls that are prone to getting lost, miscopied, forged, in obscure, outdated and nearly-lost languages? Would you really leave most of the people on the planet out of access to any of this stuff, for thousands of years, even though you knew they were sacrificing their own children in a desperate attempt to communicate with you?
Personally, I reckon I, with all my limitations, could do a much better job than He supposedly has.. Couldn't you?
My conclusion, on the matter of communicating God's word: If an omnipotent, omniscient loving God wanted to commmunicate something important to us, He would have done a good job of it. And He hasn't. Therefore, if such a creature exists, He doesn't actually want to communicate anything to us.

[charles_hamm]

So if I understand you correctly the only "updates" you would make are to speak in the language of the day? If the message never changed , which is what you imply in your comment regarding 3000 B.C. or 3000 A.D. and you believe men are smart enough to translate dead languages then why update it? What you've just described is the Bible. The only change you made was using the language of the day rather then staying with the original (which causes it's own problems since words have multiple meanings based on their usage).

Except God hasn't exactly ensured that the original language text spawns one authoritative translation.

Neither does this idea. Since the meanings of words change (as in they have slang meanings) and new words are added to the vocabulary updating it could easily lead to confusion.

[PhiloKGB]

Except God hasn't exactly ensured that the original language text spawns one authoritative translation.

Neither does this idea. Since the meanings of words change (as in they have slang meanings) and new words are added to the vocabulary updating it could easily lead to confusion.

Jax has made it pretty clear that he's not limiting the amount of involvement his hypothetical god can have. This is a Christian problem because Christianity only posits the inspiration of the original text.

[charles_hamm]

Except God hasn't exactly ensured that the original language text spawns one authoritative translation.

Neither does this idea. Since the meanings of words change (as in they have slang meanings) and new words are added to the vocabulary updating it could easily lead to confusion.

Jax has made it pretty clear that he's not limiting the amount of involvement his hypothetical god can have. This is a Christian problem because Christianity only posits the inspiration of the original text.

The question becomes when does the involvement become enough to limit free will? What it sounds like is Jax, and correct me if I am wrong, is removing faith altogether from whatever you would call this by just dropping a new version every say 200 years. This is now just a history book that is updated to the current vocabulary. Also the amount of involvement this new god has would not matter unless he/she intended on forcing people to understand the meaning behind what was written. You would still wind up with more than one interpretation. Without this god simply forcing everyone to understand it the same way you would still get what you have today.

[scourge99]

You would have a problem because how would you keep consistency between updates?

I'm taking the role of an omnipotent omniscient God here. A couple of centuries is not a vast sea of time to me. I'm not restricting myself to a handful of Mediterranean languages, either.

Would you say homosexuality is a sin in 1400 A.D. but since it's more accepted in 2000 A.D. it's not?

I'm God. If I could care about which persons twiddled with which other person's naughty bits, then my words regarding that behaviour would be the same in 3000 AD or 3000 BC. Men are fickle and slaves to fashion. God isn't.

Since the people in 1000 A.D. lived before the latest revision would they be judged on the revision they lived under or the one that exist at the end of the world?

They would be able to compare their older versions with the latest, and they would be able to see plainly that the only 'revisions' were alterations in recognition of changes in linguistic usage. I'm an almighty God. I can manage a bit of unambiguous prose! The people would receive an updated version of exactly the same message. If they chose to ignore it, fair enough.

Also since some languages do die, how would people know what previous revisions of a dead language said?

What? you don't know anyone who can read Chaucer in the original, or the prose Edda, or Tacitus or Aristotle or Egyptian hieroglyphics? I reckon if I couldn't get round that level of difficulty, I would be too embarrassed to call myself omnipotent, or even claim the level of wisdom expected of of a moderately smart human. I would have to abolish myself.

So if I understand you correctly the only "updates" you would make are to speak in the language of the day? If the message never changed , which is what you imply in your comment regarding 3000 B.C. or 3000 A.D. and you believe men are smart enough to translate dead languages then why update it? What you've just described is the Bible. The only change you made was using the language of the day rather then staying with the original (which causes it's own problems since words have multiple meanings based on their usage).

"The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject, the want of a universal language which renders translation necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of willful alteration, are of themselves evidences that human language, whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the Word of God"

- Thomas Pain