MuttleyLaff:

Jedidiah, the wisest man who ever lived, did.
Not depressive but woke.

johnydon22:
My description of the premise was not a verbatim quote.



Life; everything related to it is meaningless and of no value except that which we ascribe it.

This very opening statement that you brought actually demonstrates this premise clearly enough.

hence; "Rather a challenge to the fundamental premise of the OP which is "life is meaningless by default except that which we ascribe" so I am trying to ascertain the benchmark for meaning implied by the OP"

MuttleyLaff:
What our friend doesnt want to acknowledge is that
the person famous for that "life is meaningless" remark, said it, after being woke.
Apparently there is more to life than seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines
and there is a conclusion of the whole matter of life.

johnydon22:


Oh I did. My question to the OP wasn't on our imposition of meaning to life and everything.

Rather a challenge to the fundamental premise of the OP which is "life is meaningless by default except that which we ascribe" so I am trying to ascertain the benchmark for meaning implied by the OP.

Maybe read my questions with more clarity.

MuttleyLaff:
Recall I mentioned that meaning is related to PURPOSE
and now you're asking how purpose is derived

Purpose, of course, is derived through and/or by discovery, through and/or by information, through and/or by invention, through and/or by delusion, through and/or by definition understanding, through and/or by definition, through and/or by assumption, through and/or by realisation, through and/or by etcetera and the list of indicators goes on

johnydon22:


So summarily, your assertion that "life is meaningless" is at best without absolute basis therefore arbitrary at best.

Yes?

francis247:
Life; everything related to it is meaningless and of no value except that which we ascribe it.

PastorAIO:


How specific does an intended message have to be? i.e Can a double entendre be intended? In which case the intention is not one point or the other but the contemplation of the possibility of both points.

On the other hand in communication how accurately does received understanding reflect intention. You say what you mean but do I get what you mean? Or did you mean what I Understood?

These and many other interesting questions can be addressed to the issue of communications.

Dizang asked Xiushan, “Where do you come from?”
Xiushan said, “From the South.”
Dizang said, “How is Buddhism in the South these days?”
Xiushan said, “There is extensive discussion””
Dizang said, “How can that compare to me here planting the fields and making rice to eat?”
Xiushan said, “What can you do about the world?”
Dizang said, “What do you call the world?”
-- Book of Serenity

PastorAIO:


How specific does an intended message have to be? i.e Can a double entendre be intended? In which case the intention is not one point or the other but the contemplation of the possibility of both points.

On the other hand in communication how accurately does received understanding reflect intention. You say what you mean but do I get what you mean? Or did you mean what I Understood?

These and many other interesting questions can be addressed to the issue of communications.

PastorAIO:




For me personally, I like to define Truth as That Which Is And Always Is The Case.

johnydon22:
Nope

johnydon22:


Nope. Meaningless

johnydon22:


Even though I think the context of your definition is not even close to the context which "meaningless" is used in theOP. Ok though.

So, when the OP said everything is meaningless what does that imply?

johnydon22:


The question here is; When you say "meaningless" what are you implying?

Define "meaningless"

Ihedinobi3:
So, after nine days, you come back to throw more insults and make spurious claims.

I believe we are done now. You have no further arguments to make, no ability to hold up the claims in your OP and no ability to actually effectively counter anything I have said. And I am not just saying that: the proof is in the reading.

Basically, your thread fails to show that the Bible that Christians rely on today has any problems such as you labored to show in your OP. The Septuagint was a fair work as far as it went but it was problematic and the work of the Masoretes later on to produce a faithful reproduction of the original Tanakh did not produce anything that can be considered an invention without connection to what existed prior to the Septuagint nor can it be considered a derivative of the Septuagint in any way.

Furthermore, the Bible is a living book able and ready to declare its identity to anyone who asks. It is not some dumb book that councils pronounce upon and events happen to. It defends itself and has remained accessible through the millennia to all those who seek the Truth in spite of the obvious attacks on it by men like you, PastorAIO.

That is my conclusion.

Ihedinobi3:


It should have been obvious by now that as far as you are concerned, there is no stopping my being a dunce since I am not going to agree with you on the reliability of the Bible. That is why I am a dunce, isn't it? Because I disagree with you and have the temerity to say so, right?

Ihedinobi3:


It is false that you said that you had a penchant for making up words. You said, "I made the word up myself". As I said, you've lost track of this discussion.

And why would I be googling a word in this case if I wasn't researching your arguments?

Ihedinobi3:



I'll take this to mean that you're unwilling for reasons of your own to engage productively anymore.

Ihedinobi3:

It's been proving rather impossible so far for you to show the rubbish in my posts.

And you're the one talking about likes, not me. Classic appeal to popularity...or lack of it.

JMAN05:


I understand your point. Considering the fact that even some books like Chronicle and Nehemiah were written many years after the Pentateuch was written. Yet we see the writers used Hebrew in the write-up. Again, The translators of the OT into what we know as LXX, had to understanh hebrew VERY WELL to translate, and at about the third century. Checking it from 1200 BC, that is a whole lot of time. Yet they did the translation. But those in Judah was still using Hebrew before the LXX came to them.

Secondly, we see Paul even make use of Hebrew.

Acts 21:39-40

Then Paul said: “I am, in fact, a Jew, of Tarsus in Ci·liʹcia, a citizen of no obscure city. So I beg you, permit me to speak to the people.” 40 After he gave permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned with his hand to the people. When a great silence fell, he addressed them in the Hebrew language, saying:...."

Paul said alot there in Hebrew. These shows that those there understood Hebrew. I do understand your point, but since Hebrew played a significant role both in the Leturgy and religious instruction, it may not have died out as we see in other languages.

UgwuAghachi:



Are you aware that Ebonyi was formed by the merging of 2 provinces, the Abakaliki province from Enugu and the Afikpo province from Abia. The Afikpo province share cultural similarities and dialect intelligibility with the Ohafia, Abriba, Arochukwu, etc of Abia North. Do your research well before posting half truths in a public forum

Ihedinobi3:



LOL. Now I'm supposed to research your own arguments too? You told me that you made up the title of the thread and it became my duty as a seeker of the Truth to go and determine whether you did in fact or not? Because it matters to me why?

Ihedinobi3:

About the clause in question, there is a difference between:

"(may) Grace be with you" or "the Peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit" and other blessings like that

And

"Grace TO you and Peace FROM God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ" and other such statements.

The first is a prayer and a desire for God to grant Grace and Peace. The second is a definite statement informing the receivers that God was sending His Grace and His Peace in the letter. This is exactly like when you say that "so-and-so sends their love" or "so-and-so greets you". The difference here is that it is put at the beginning of the letter to tell the readers that, yes indeed, this letter is coming from God through our agency. He is not just sending His Grace and Peace in the manner that a loved one asks another who is writing a letter to send their love to a dear one but effectively confirming that the letter is from Him..

PastorAIO:


You said that Paul's greeting of 'Grace of God be on you' is evidence that He was speaking for God and those were God's words. I refuted that. There is nothing I said that repeated what you said.

If I have agreed with you, or repeated your words, on this matter then show me where I agreed with you.

Ihedinobi3:

As I said, you are now practically a dog with a bone with this issue, so much so that you've lost the thread of thought in the conversation.

This is what you were talking about:

Ihedinobi3: 'About whether or not God preserved His Witness, here are some other things I said:

|"Regardless of this desire on the part of the majority of human beings to distort God's Truth, God's Truth is still preserved in the world because of others who not only want to know it in its pure form but want to keep it accessible to others who may come to seek it. This is how God counteracts the power of the Lie. So, in every generation, there have been true believers equipped with the abilities and resources required to either reclaim the Truth from increasingly elaborate distortions that the Enemy and his agents have tried to mire it in."

"Why did God not prevent anyone from corrupting the Scriptures though? It is a fair question because obviously God can and He loves us and wants us to know the Truth or else the Bible is lying about Him, that is, He would be lying about Himself if the Bible is truly His Testimony. The answer to that question is that we have a free will. All sane human beings (the overwhelming majority of human beings) do. Therefore, each of us has a God-given right to decide what to do with God's Testimony. We can receive it in humility. We can ignore it. Or we can actively try to destroy it like King Jehoiakim of Judah tried to do in Jeremiah 36:21-26. Active physical destruction of the Bible has been attempted multiple times in human history but it is not the only way that people have actively attempted to destroy the Scriptures. They have tried too to add or remove or change material in them so that those who read their production will be misled into believing lies masked as Truth. This is hardly novel since Satan himself has been doing that since the beginning of human history, that is, presenting the lie as the truth to try to deceive those who want to be listening to God.

God allows this to make sure that every human choice about him is clearly demonstrated in the eyes of men and angels. But He is also God and He does have people who love His Truth and He commits Himself to helping them to preserve it, covering their weaknesses with His Strength so that His Testimony is preserved pure in the earth. There has never been a time in human history when such people did not exist. Nor has there ever been a time in human history when their opposite didn't either. So at all times throughout human history, both the pure Testimony of God and the adulteration, distortions and outright invented alternatives have always existed together so that everyone can choose what side they want to be on."'


PastorAIO: "I believe you haven't really given much thought to the idea of Free Will in your entire life.

There are a variety of bibles and they are different enough from each other to be able to facilitate the development of quite contrary doctrines in the many different types of Christian churches.

I never tire for marveling at how people like you take it upon yourself to speak for God and tell us the inner workings of God's mind."

Source: https://www.nairaland.com/1224167/contra-bibliolatreia-ii-septuagint/2#72675233

That was what we were talking about.

Ihedinobi3:

As I said, you are now practically a dog with a bone with this issue, so much so that you've lost the thread of thought in the conversation.

This is what you were talking about:

Ihedinobi3: 'About whether or not God preserved His Witness, here are some other things I said:

|"Regardless of this desire on the part of the majority of human beings to distort God's Truth, God's Truth is still preserved in the world because of others who not only want to know it in its pure form but want to keep it accessible to others who may come to seek it. This is how God counteracts the power of the Lie. So, in every generation, there have been true believers equipped with the abilities and resources required to either reclaim the Truth from increasingly elaborate distortions that the Enemy and his agents have tried to mire it in."

"Why did God not prevent anyone from corrupting the Scriptures though? It is a fair question because obviously God can and He loves us and wants us to know the Truth or else the Bible is lying about Him, that is, He would be lying about Himself if the Bible is truly His Testimony. The answer to that question is that we have a free will. All sane human beings (the overwhelming majority of human beings) do. Therefore, each of us has a God-given right to decide what to do with God's Testimony. We can receive it in humility. We can ignore it. Or we can actively try to destroy it like King Jehoiakim of Judah tried to do in Jeremiah 36:21-26. Active physical destruction of the Bible has been attempted multiple times in human history but it is not the only way that people have actively attempted to destroy the Scriptures. They have tried too to add or remove or change material in them so that those who read their production will be misled into believing lies masked as Truth. This is hardly novel since Satan himself has been doing that since the beginning of human history, that is, presenting the lie as the truth to try to deceive those who want to be listening to God.

God allows this to make sure that every human choice about him is clearly demonstrated in the eyes of men and angels. But He is also God and He does have people who love His Truth and He commits Himself to helping them to preserve it, covering their weaknesses with His Strength so that His Testimony is preserved pure in the earth. There has never been a time in human history when such people did not exist. Nor has there ever been a time in human history when their opposite didn't either. So at all times throughout human history, both the pure Testimony of God and the adulteration, distortions and outright invented alternatives have always existed together so that everyone can choose what side they want to be on."'


PastorAIO: "I believe you haven't really given much thought to the idea of Free Will in your entire life.

There are a variety of bibles and they are different enough from each other to be able to facilitate the development of quite contrary doctrines in the many different types of Christian churches.

I never tire for marveling at how people like you take it upon yourself to speak for God and tell us the inner workings of God's mind."

Source: https://www.nairaland.com/1224167/contra-bibliolatreia-ii-septuagint/2#72675233

That was what we were talking about.



LOL. Now I'm supposed to research your own arguments too? You told me that you made up the title of the thread and it became my duty as a seeker of the Truth to go and determine whether you did in fact or not? Because it matters to me why?



First off, how reliable is Wikipedia as an academic resource, PastorAIO?

Regardless, did I claim that the MT was the original text? Is this not rather what I said:

"The original OT was preserved in the Masoretic Text"?

If it was copied and edited from faulty or otherwise imperfect manuscripts in order to regain the original rendering, would the original OT not be preserved in it?

Now, here is Encyclopedia Britannica which while not being recommended as an academic source, mind the word, is very admissible as a resource. Its information is not as comprehensive and detailed as a source would be but it is generally an excellent summary of the research out there:

"Textual criticism
Textual criticism is concerned with the basic task of establishing, as far as possible, the original text of the documents on the basis of the available materials. For the Old Testament, until 1947, these materials consisted principally of: (1) Hebrew manuscripts dated from the 9th century AD onward, the Masoretic text, the traditional Jewish text with its vocalization and punctuation marks as recorded by the editors called Masoretes (Hebrew masora, “tradition”) from the 6th century to the end of the 10th; (2) Hebrew manuscripts of medieval date preserving the Samaritan edition of the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible); (3) Greek manuscripts, mainly from the 3rd and 4th centuries AD onward, preserving the text of the pre-Christian Greek version of the Hebrew Bible together with most of the apocryphal books (the Septuagint); and (4) manuscripts of the Syriac (Peshitta) and Latin (Vulgate) versions, both of which were based directly on the Hebrew. Since 1947 the discovery of Hebrew biblical texts at Qumrān (then Jordan) and other places west of the Dead Sea has made it possible to trace the history of the Hebrew Bible back to the 2nd century BC and to recognize, among the manuscripts circulating in the closing generations of the Second Jewish Commonwealth (c. 450 BC–c. AD 135), at least three types of Hebrew text: (1) the ancestor of the Masoretic text, (2) the Hebrew basis of the Septuagint version, and (3) a popular text of the Pentateuch akin to the Samaritan edition. A comparative examination of these three indicates that the ancestor of the Masoretic text is in the main the most reliable; the translators of the Revised Standard Version (1952) and the New English Bible (1970) have continued to use the Masoretic text as their Old Testament basis."

Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/textual-criticism



Again, rather obviously from even Ubenedictus's reference to the Qumran Caves not to mention your own narration in your OP your first paragraph is false. The Septuagint was made for those who could not read Hebrew. You know too that there were Hebrew texts in existence at the time as there have always been. It was those Jews and Gentile believers who could not access the Hebrew text who had to make do with the Septuagint. You are the one who knows what you mean when you say "bible". Until now, you have only asserted the existence of a difference. You are not big on definitions, are you? Maintaining confusion seems to be a real thing with you.

As for the existence of the Bible, again, you are weird. The Bible is what we call the collection of Christian sacred writings. It has always existed for as long as there have been Christian sacred writings. It was only completed by the Apostles and their associates. But it has always existed as long as there have been inspired writings.

So, this is your rebuttal to the explanation you asked for about Genesis 6 and 7: a straw man. So I said that two is equal to seven? Where did I say so, pray tell?



At this point, I'm rather convinced that you are thoroughly confused in this discussion. You pick and choose what arguments you will respond to, unilaterally declining response wherever you want without much explanation (in two cases, you decided the arguments were off-topic, otherwise, you offered no explanation). You keep sneaking around in the conversation sneering and hurling insults. But to actually sustain an argument or a rebuttal is just hard for you.

I will explain one last time:

My argument is that Scripture claims to be God-breathed. That means that anyone who reads it will be able to tell, if they want to, that it is God's Own Thought because - as you yourself agreed - one can tell that something was written by someone if one already knows what that person is like. Every human being has access to Natural Revelation, that is the witness of creation around them and their own conscience and can therefore tell whether something is the Word of God or not.

To illustrate the claim that the Bible makes to be Scripture, I provided Paul's benediction. I decided later that it was a bad example and retracted it when Ubenedictus countered it. A bad example is only a bad example, not a bad argument. You accomplish nothing by harping ceaselessly on it. After all, you cannot deny that Scripture claims to be God-breathed without deciding that Paul's letter to Timothy is not Scripture.

I will give you yet another to think about:

Hebrews 4:12
[12]For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

If, therefore, it is truly the Word of God, it will be alive and active. So, again, if you can detect life (incidentally, God breathed into Adam and he came to life, so if Scripture is God-breathed, then it must be living) in any writing, then you have the Word of God on your hands, regardless of claims or the absence of them

Those are my arguments. Perhaps at some point, you will actually bother to answer them rather than look for things to sneer at and insults to throw.

JMAN05:

On the issue of language of the first century jews, there is a need not to be dogmatic. For example Professor Wright says
"The language spoken by Jesus has been much debated. We have no certain way of knowing whether he could speak Greek or Latin, but in his teaching ministry he regularly used either Aramaic or the highly Aramaized popular Hebrew. When Paul addressed the mob in the Temple, it is said that he spoke Hebrew (Acts 21:40). Scholars generally have taken this to mean Aramaic, but it is quite possible that a popular Hebrew was then the common tongue among the Jews.”—Biblical Archaeology, 1962, p. 243

For example, in Ebonyi, most there speak what we might not technically call Igbo, yet some there can speak and understand the igbo we know. Yet most speak english, while likely few speak french. There maybe some that can even speak other languages. on the issue of Hebrew in the first century, it is better not to be dogmatic. As the source says, there is no certain way of knowing.

JMAN05:

Sorry, maybe something made me say that, I cant remember now. But what matters is that that wasnt what you said. So, anyhow, I may have misunderstood you.

What are you saying is not true?

But a manuscript of the septuagint available during Jesus day was found with the DIVINE NAME written there. The manuscript is Fouad Inv. 266. This shows that the removal of the divine name may not have been done by the hebrew translators. So even if Jesus read with the Septuagint, he would see the divine name there.

On the issue of language of the first century jews, there is a need not to be dogmatic. For example Professor Wright says
"The language spoken by Jesus has been much debated. We have no certain way of knowing whether he could speak Greek or Latin, but in his teaching ministry he regularly used either Aramaic or the highly Aramaized popular Hebrew. When Paul addressed the mob in the Temple, it is said that he spoke Hebrew (Acts 21:40). Scholars generally have taken this to mean Aramaic, but it is quite possible that a popular Hebrew was then the common tongue among the Jews.”—Biblical Archaeology, 1962, p. 243

You might have to research the language Matthew was first written in. That might help you see that Hebrew may not have gone out of use entirely. Secondly, they appear to use Hebrew for there liturgy. So, we cant dismiss hebrew entirely.

Ihedinobi3:


Now, I didn't bother to say all that because even those who cannot for some reason learn Ancient Greek and Hebrew can still hear God's Word even if they read the Septuagint for the self-same reason that I have been presenting in my arguments: the Word of God is inspired by God and is thus recognizable to anyone looking for it. So, even in poor translations like the Septuagint, those whose hearts are seeking the Truth will find it and still recognize in such translations what is NOT the God's Word. That is why I could tell what was wrong with the JW Bible and the Apocrypha. However, my experience is mine. I don't offer it as any sort of argument. Each person has a free will and a conscience and the witness of creation, so each person can decide for themselves what is and what is not God's Word.

Ihedinobi3:

I did say that you were grasping at straws. Any little thing that looks like a victory to you you'll milk for all it is worth.

I never offered the "Grace to You" bit as an argument. It was an illustration for an argument. I did my own further research before Ubenedictus attacked it and decided that it was a bad illustration so when he did, I acquiesced. That was well before you even deigned to respond on it today. I was only confirming to you that I had already yielded the point to Ubenedictus and now you have it in your head that I lost the whole argument to you?

Ihedinobi3:



About the clause in question, there is a difference between:

"(may) Grace be with you" or "the Peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit" and other blessings like that

And

"Grace TO you and Peace FROM God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ" and other such statements.

The first is a prayer and a desire for God to grant Grace and Peace. The second is a definite statement informing the receivers that God was sending His Grace and His Peace in the letter. This is exactly like when you say that "so-and-so sends their love" or "so-and-so greets you". The difference here is that it is put at the beginning of the letter to tell the readers that, yes indeed, this letter is coming from God through our agency. He is not just sending His Grace and Peace in the manner that a loved one asks another who is writing a letter to send their love to a dear one but effectively confirming that the letter is from Him.

Ihedinobi3:




no discernible reason. Now we are fighting over terms. I call it the Bible. You have a problem with that. I explain that Bible is only a word that describes the collection of Christian Scriptures but you still ignore that and talk about a conflation. All this because you want to argue about lists.

Ihedinobi3:

That is not true. The original OT was preserved in the Masoretic Text. The original NT was preserved in manuscripts like the Sinaiticus. Anyone who learns Ancient Greek and Hebrew can access the Word of God in its purest form in them.

Ihedinobi3:

Considering that you are the king of mystery, I would have considered it a great compliment to be told that I played it like that if I thought that that was a good thing. But I don't make up words in Latin and Greek and try to pass it off as some clear term anybody would understand. That's you. I try to explain my arguments and be clear no matter how smart or dumb the person who reads them. That is me, not you.

Bibliolatry (from the Greek βιβλίον biblion, "book" and the suffix -λατρία -latria, "worship"[1][2] is the worship of a book or the description of a deity found in a book. In Christianity, bibliolatry is used to describe extreme devotion to the Bible or to biblical inerrancy.[3] Supporters of biblical inerrancy point to passages (such as 2 Timothy 3:16–17) interpreted to say that the Bible, as received, is a complete source of what must be known about God.

Ihedinobi3:

And I did say that you were only repeating what I said. Definitely not denying or contradicting what I said. So, what are you saying exactly?