Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 207 posts

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#81

Post by rvz »

josephcsible wrote: post #28
emmelaich wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gimp eh? Well we're not going to put that in the article. We're serious people.

I would have been fine with not mentioning GIMP had they said "an open-source alternative" or something. It's the fact that they called it a "knockoff" that made me realize they have no idea what they're talking about.

This is exactly how non-techies see 'free' programs 'competing' against the big names like Photoshop.

They don't care, and why should they? They're so much used to Photoshop the name has become a verb, and just want to get things done.

It is not the end of the world that GIMP is being compared to as a Photoshop "knockoff". Many would also agree that to get users to even consider or migrate to using GIMP, it would need to look more like Photoshop and be compatible with it.

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#82

Post by torben-friis »

ars wrote: post #69
toast0 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You certain can ignore their claim. It's an unfalsifable claim, so it should be ignored in a context of formal logic. But you can't assert it's negative. That's just as unfalsifable, and that claim should also be ignored in a context of formal logic. Of course, we don't always work in a system of formal logic, and it doesn't much matter to me if you choose to assume/believe works are inspired or not.

> it's an unfalsifable claim, so it should be ignored in a context of formal logic The claim might be unfalsifiable, but the question is still valid. Basically you are required to answer the question. If you answer "I can't know" your answer is also unfalsifiable, and no better than theirs. i.e. your position on this matter is not superior to theirs.

Admittance of ignorance is undoubtedly better than a lie, in general.

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#83

Post by Mikeb85 »

waynecochran wrote: post #33
Minor49er wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Books of Enoch" by Paul C. Schnieders is an interesting read if you're curious about their contents. The general consensus from my understanding is that none of the ones we have today are the one referenced in The Bible

Thanks for the reference. I have read Enoch 1 and it is a wild story that in my view is pure fantasy (e.g., giants were 300 cubits tall!?). I have always just assumed that Jude and Peter were quoting some authentic version from earlier and the version I have read was the creation of an imposter.

I mean, Genesis has people that are 900 years old, a talking serpent, a boat that can fit every type of animal, and you take issue with giants lol?

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#84

Post by Mikeb85 »

waynecochran wrote: post #38
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Catholic Church at the Council of Rome formally defined what books were considered authentic and which ones were not (and this list was, with some reduction, also used by Protestants). The Book of Enoch was a bit contentious because of the quotation in an inspired book - but it was ultimately determined to be not inspired, and the quotation not necessarily either. (I.e. Imagine if scripture quoted a Roman decree…

I have a copy of Enoch 1, 2, 3; but I have not seen it included in any Bible. It is not part of the Apocrypha -- you don't find in the Orthodox Study Bible or a Catholic Bible. What Bible is it in? I would like to get it.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Bible.

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#85

Post by gattilorenz »

tshaddox wrote: post #78
gattilorenz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few billion people in the world who consider it a sacred book, to begin with. And historians, obviously. But this is like asking “well clearly Romeo and Juliet was a fictional story, who cares if we find out that Shakespeare didn’t write it”.

Indeed, I suspect a large portion of those few billion people would in fact be surprised to learn that, for instance, the New Testament books called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written by those people (if they even existed) and the texts do not even make any claims about their own authorship.

Yes, and that is probably true for a lot of other things that we assume as cornerstones of Western culture (e.g. Homer).

Many people would be surprised at the realisation that Christianity is a eastern religion (having originated in what we call “the Middle East”).

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#86

Post by Dma54rhs »

Fezzik wrote: post #64
ars wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A forger knows he is faking something. Someone who sincerely believes what he is writing is not a forger - even if you think he's wrong.

By your logic absolutely anything that is written down is not a forgery so long as the author believes the claims in its writings sincerely enough. That is clearly an awful standard for assessing truth claims or the veracity of stories.

You redefine the meaning of word forgery. When a scientist gets proved wrong the work of his is not forgery.

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#87

Post by shhdhsheh »

NateEag wrote: post #22
lapestenoire wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Naturalism insists that anything which is supernatural cannot be scientifically investigated, by definition. If you want to live your life via the scientific method, awesome - it's a really powerful technique for refining the accuracy of predictions. It can't ever rigorously conclude whether anything was ever divinely inspired, though.

And it can't even tell you if science is perhaps the unified tool from god to us.

What if our world was designed on purpose including drugs like LSD to enlightenment and all earth religions are wrong because they stopped listening?

But hey true we don't know :-)

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#88

Post by Eleison23 »

bentley wrote: post #74
andrewflnr wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but just a couple lines. Most of the mystique is probably from the Book of Enoch et al.

The Book of Enoch certainly has mystique, but even the brief mentions of Enoch in canonical scripture attract a lot of commentary, because they say he never died: “Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.” (Genesis 5:5, ESV) “Thus all the days of Seth were 912 years, and he died.” (Genesis 5:8, ESV) “Thus all the days of Enosh were 905 years, and he died.” (Genesis 5:11, ESV) “Thus all the days…

Technically, Jesus rose again and left Earth alive, without dying again. The Blessed Virgin Mary is certainly mentioned in the New Testament, and her death is an open question, but her assumption into Heaven is a fact.

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#89

Post by Minor49er »

waynecochran wrote: post #33
Minor49er wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Books of Enoch" by Paul C. Schnieders is an interesting read if you're curious about their contents. The general consensus from my understanding is that none of the ones we have today are the one referenced in The Bible

Thanks for the reference. I have read Enoch 1 and it is a wild story that in my view is pure fantasy (e.g., giants were 300 cubits tall!?). I have always just assumed that Jude and Peter were quoting some authentic version from earlier and the version I have read was the creation of an imposter.

Not to mention that the nephilim may not have even been giants to begin with. They are ambiguous

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#90

Post by smeagull »

NateEag wrote: post #22
lapestenoire wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Naturalism insists that anything which is supernatural cannot be scientifically investigated, by definition. If you want to live your life via the scientific method, awesome - it's a really powerful technique for refining the accuracy of predictions. It can't ever rigorously conclude whether anything was ever divinely inspired, though.

There is space for divine inspiration as a hypothesis in science. It fulfills the same role as a flat earth hypothesis. It's up to the weirdos to prove their insane leaps, not on us to disprove.
Post reply on HN