I didn't write it, but I'll also respond if you don't mind.
> 1. How is 'translated' defined and why is it a problem? Do you apply the
> translation principle
> universally or *only* to the Bible? If universally, then present-day
> information exchange is a
> problem (yours or any other field of expertise). Assuming English, all
> posts to this forum
> from people of non-English language origin could not be trusted, as we
> would not know if
> the translation mechanism and their application of it were applied
> correctly to the original
> content.
Translation is universal. The problem with the Bible and a lot of other ancient documents is that words change meaning over time and many, if not most Bible translations simply translate the words without giving us the cultural and linguistic context which they came from. Without that context, the Bible is worse than worthless, it is completely misleading.
> 2. How do you conclude that the testimonies are 'hearsay' and that the
> communicators were
> 'mystics?'
We know through textual examination and criticism that the claimed authors could not have written the books. Therefore, any claimed witnesses (those that did not write their own books are by definition "hearsay") are not trustworthy.
As for mystics, many of the earliest Christian traditions came straight from mystic traditions such as the Essenes etc.
> 3. What defines 'pre-scientific?' Do you have a date/period of time/person
> in mind to
> draw the scientific/pre-scientific line?
Pre-scientific: any time when natural events were attributed to supernatural causes.
> 4. What testimonies do you believe are scientific in nature and yet show
> poor/lack of scientific
> method? Do you regard the Bible as a scientific document? What about
> the newspaper,
> love letter from your significant other or other written documents? If
> they are not scientific,
> do you throw out/disregard their information content?
The Bible isn't even remotely scientific but some adherents try to make it scientific. Ask the "scientific creationists" if their Bible is a book of science.
> Also, a couple of additional questions:
> 1. What keeps you interested in discussions like these? Do you really want
> to know if there
> is a God nor not?
Absolutely. I spent a lot of years as a Christian and it was only by examining the Bible in detail that I rejected it. In the past decade or so that I have been discussing God with theists, I have yet to see a rational argument for the existence of God. I hold some measure of hope that there must be *ONE* theist out there who has something but blind faith.
-Brian