Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

Then I am sorry for suggesting that you had sources. Obviously the lie is yours. To anyone capable of reading the quote only states the cinclusion, not the evidence or reasoning that lead to the conclusion. It provides no support to your assertion at all.

Daniel has always traditionally been dated in the sixth century BC, where it obviously belongs due to its content, Daniel's service to Nebuchadnezzar for instance. To date it later destroys its cohesiveness and its self testimony, and the only reason to date it later is to deny its prophecies of events that occurred before that late date. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Daniel has always traditionally been dated in the sixth century BC, where it obviously belongs due to its content, Daniel's service to Nebuchadnezzar for instance

---

Actually, it is the content that points to a later date. Naively taking the text at face value is not in any way a decent analysis of the content.

quote:

---

To date it later destroys its cohesiveness and its self testimony,

---

Hardly a threat to it's cohesiveness!

quote:

---

and the only reason to date it later is to deny its prophecies of events that occurred before that late date.

---

Of course that is just an assertion. I still wait to see any actual evidence.

Naively taking the text at face value is exactly the only way the Bible should be read. The Bible is meant to be BELIEVED, and it was written for everybody including the illiterate and uneducated, even particularly for credulous children. God would not have inspired a text that excluded anyone from understanding it, except of course those who refuse to take it at face value, the "wise of this world" who put themselves beyond its reach.Daniel is a straightforward narrative of events, which includes descriptions of visions and prophetic symbolism as Daniel experienced them. NOT to read it naively is almost impossible and the attempt would be preposterous.However, you are apparently right that there isn't a direct quote from Metzger denying prophecy as I had thought there was, or at least I can't find it online, it may be in a book I have. In any case it's clear from his views of the various books of the Bible that I posted above, which he shares with most modern scholars, that he's no believer.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Naively taking the text at face value is exactly the only way the Bible should be read

---

Even most literalists would concede that that is going too far. Taking the parables at face value would be foolish in the extreme.

quote:

---

The Bible is meant to be BELIEVED, and it was written for everybody including the illiterate and uneducated, even particularly for credulous children. God would not have inspired a text that excluded anyone from understanding it, except of course those who refuse to take it at face value, the "wise of this world" who put themselves beyond its reach.

---

Thiat is your opinion, and a rather silly one, as we shall see.

quote:

---

Daniel is a straightforward narrative of events, which includes descriptions of visions and prophetic symbolism as Daniel experienced them. NOT to read it naively is almost impossible and the attempt would be preposterous.

---

And the presence of symbolism destroys your claim that it can be understood by taking it naively at face value. You can't understand symbolism that way.

quote:

---

However, you are apparently right that there isn't a direct quote from Metzger denying prophecy as I had thought there was, or at least I can't find it online, it may be in a book I have.

---

Anyone familiar with Biblie scholarship could tell you that there are other reasons for dating Daniel later. I have even pointed some out to you. To insist that Metzger was unfamiliar with that evidence is foolish indeed. And that is why I am confident that the claim is a lie, in fact the usual lie used to dismiss the later date.

quote:

---

In any case it's clear from his views of the various books of the Bible that I posted above, which he shares with most modern scholars, that he's no believer.

---

It certainly doesn't show that he wasn't a Christian or even a Protestant, and in fact we know that he was both.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Faith. Did Metzger believe that Jesus was the Son of God and that he died on the cross and rose again on the third day? You went to great lengths earlier in this very thread to support the "faith only" doctrine. Now you have added the criteria that one must accept the traditional dating of the Bible. Those quotes you provided by Metzger say nothing about his faith in Christ, or his acceptance of the truth of the Bible or the inspiration of its original authors. For instance, he suggests that 2 Peter may not have been written by the apostle Peter, but by a disciple of his. But does he suggest that this unnamed disciple was not inspired by the Holy Spirit?Additionally, provide a quote where Metzger states that he does not believe in prophecy, otherwise it is just an unmerited assertion.I found what appears to be your source for your Metzger quotes (which shame on you for not providing a source on such an extended quotation). Here is something else the editor says ...

quote:

---

Bruce Metzger is a Liberal. He piously claims on one hand
that the Bible is the inspired Word of God; but out of the other
side of the mouth he claims the Bible is filled with myth and lies.
He denies the Bible's history, its miracles, and its authorship,
while, in true liberal style, declaring that this denial does not
do injustice to the Word of God, for the Bible is not "written for
history but for religion" and is not to be read "with a dull
prosaic and literalistic mind"!

---

He "claims the Bible is the inspired Word of God!" Where does Metzger say the Bible contains lies? He doesn't say that. Myths and legends doesn't mean that the stories are not based on truth. He doesn't deny the Bible's history, but only states that it wasn't written FOR history. It was written FOR religion - so that people would know who God is. Which quote denies miracles? He questions (or denies) traditional authorship of some books, but is there no way tradition could be wrong? (remember the evil Catholic Church had control over traditions for ~ 1000 years)Do you suppose that Moses had never heard the stories of Joseph or the other patriarchs or the creation? Do you suppose that there was no written or oral accounts of the stories of history? Do you think that God one day came to him and said "Hey Moses, write this down." and then dictated the whole of Genesis to him? No, that's not likely. It's more likely that God inspired Moses to take the stories and documents that he had available and compile them into a single document or series of documents that could then be passed on through the generations. Did the Bible come about by magic or did it come about as God inspired different people to write down their stories and stories about God?So it looks as if we need to add another criteria to salvation... You have to believe the Bible came about by supernatural means, not by any human, natural means - ie. people writing down stories.It seems that you think that Metzger's attitude that the Bible "is not to be read 'with a dull prosaic and literalistic mind' " is heretical. Its as if faith should mean "believing without thinking." Oh wait ...Faith, all this nonsense about modern Bible translations is nothing but a 20th century witch hunt."She's a witch!"
"How do you know she's a witch?"
"Well, she looks like a witch."HBD

I allowed that you may be saved even if you reject a literal reading of the first part of Genesis, and even then I was careful to say it's between the person and God, being generous because I think if you tamper with any part of scripture you risk not being saved. If it is the word of God. But if you don't think it's the word of God then you aren't saved anyway.These scholars deny almost everything held by traditional believers back to Moses, they deny traditional authorship, they deny dates, they call accounts myths and legends that were always regarded as true historical accounts, and they do all this on the basis of their own subjective judgment. This is practically the definition of the scriptural phrase "There is no fear of God before their eyes" If Metzger is saved he's saved by the very skin of his teeth, and my inclination is to say he couldn't possibly be saved. Once you've desupernaturalized the Bible to the extent he and his fellow scholars did you've pretty much elminated the basis for the need for a Savior and the prophecies of His coming, you've contradicted in fact a great deal of what Jesus Himself said, since he affirmed as true history much of what the scholars treat as legend.I can't call someone who does that a believer. A believer, as I say above, reads the Bible "naively," which PaulK said we shouldn't do. Oh but we should. That's the faith of a little child that Jesus said we must have, simply to believe what God tells us. You destroy the context of the narrative if you don't read it simply and naively as written. PaulK doesn't think that matters. Is the Bible the Word of God or not? If it is you don't change it to suit yourself, you read it as written.I allowed that you could still be a Christian and reject the first chapters of Genesis. If you follow the modern scholars beyond that I can't regard you as a believer. Just saying you believe these things is meaningless if you've gutted them of their historical and prophetic content.=================
ABE: Your distinction between history and religion is an attack on Biblical faith, which is not just a religion but a historical narrative. You are deceiving yourself, and any others you influence with such lies.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK, I see I'd better take on your statements more precisely. This is some kind of delusion. Ask any ordinary person what a myth or legend is and he'll tell you it's a made up story. He's not going to get all fancy and say it might be "based on truth." Which is a weasel idea anyway when it comes to the Bible. In the worldly religions and cultures myths and legends abound, and should be regarded either as distortions of reality or outright inventions, but the Bible has always been regarded as actual historical and revealed truth in CONTRAST with those very tendencies of the world, until the 19th century when these revisionist scholars came along and treated it just like any other religion. This is mealymouthed weasel talk. The Bible is first and foremost history. You can't "know who God is" from the Bible if you deny that it is first and foremost history AS WRITTEN, not as rearranged and mythified by these presumptuous "scholars." This is essentially calling the writers and preservers of the text down the centuries liars. And by dating Daniel (or any prophetic book) past the dates of the events Daniel prophesied these scholars destroy the historical context in which Daniel wrote, make Daniel out to be a liar, turn the book into myth or legend, meaning a pack of lies, and of course absolutely destroy the prophecy, turning it into a mere report after the fact. This is vandalism, wanton destruction of God's word. You obviously have no idea what I mean about any of that. What sort of nonsense question is that? Of course he had. I assume such reports were much of the basis for his inspired account. Of course there were. So what? What a ridiculous straw man. Which I've myself said even at EvC. Do you have a point?Your problem is that you think such methods turn factual history into myth and legend. But God preserves His word and inspired Moses to write true history using ordinary means under supernatural inspiration.Sorry, I didn't mean to leave out my source. Shame on you for not giving me the benefit of the doubt. You have no idea what supernatural inspiration means. God didn't move on people in a vacuum but in the context of their own experience and knowledge. You have no idea how the Holy Spirit works.I can't find the specific quotes I want but the idea is that men prepare themselves but God orders their steps, men make plans but God determines the outcome, the horse is prepared for battle but God guides the battle... . Yes the way he meant that IS heretical. You and he seem to have some idea of a kind of thinking that contradicts what you read rather than thinking that penetrates into the depths of the reality revealed in what you read. Funny, I would have thought the evidence shows that it's an important revelation of truth about tamperings with the revealed word of God that the Church desperately needs to know.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

On April 11, 1939, he was ordained in the Presbyterian Church in the United States...

---

Bruce M. Metzger - WikipediaYou do realize that those damn Presbyterians are heretics that will burn in hell. For christsake they are practically Catholics. I am sure the church was started by Jesuits. I read that they secretly worship directly to the Pope. I can't find that source right now but I am sure I an find it someplace. I'll start a blog and post it when I come across it again.

There are many Presbyterians who ARE heretics and WILL burn in Hell.

There are many fundamentalists as well, who are heretics and will burn in hell.

The face value of a proverb is that it is a proverb so you read it as a proverb. Why you would think anyone could mean anything else is beyond me. There is no such thing that I know of as a "literalist" who reads proverbs as historical reality. To read "naively" is to read it AS WRITTEN. Complete silliness. You are inventing an artificial idea of "taking it naively at face value" that describes nobody who actually does that.If there are "other reasons for dating Daniel later" they are imposed against the obvious reasons for dating it during the time of the occurrence of the events in the narrative. This destroys the testimony of Daniel, makes a liar of Daniel and of every reference to Daniel in other parts of scripture, turns a true historical narrative into a pack of lies and destroys the prophecies. This is a hatchet job. There is no justification for such treatment of God's word.Anyone who would treat the word of God so cavalierly and destructively cannot possibly be considered to be a believer. Just another wolf in sheep's clothing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yup even as a Poe I cannot sound as unhinged as you.

quote:

---

The face value of a proverb is that it is a proverb so you read it as a proverb.

---

I was talking about parables, not proverbs.

quote:

---

Complete silliness. You are inventing an artificial idea of "taking it naively at face value" that describes nobody who actually does that.

---

I agree that nobody does it. But that's because taking it naively at face value is silly. Although you might be surprised how far some people go.

quote:

---

If there are "other reasons for dating Daniel later" they are imposed against the obvious reasons for dating it during the time of the occurrence of the events in the narrative. This destroys the testimony of Daniel, makes a liar of Daniel and of every reference to Daniel in other parts of scripture, turns a true historical narrative into a pack of lies and destroys the prophecies. This is a hatchet job. There is no justification for such treatment of God's word.

---

In other words nobody must know that the Bible isn't what you say it is. I guess that,s why you think that the Bible was written for illiterates - you don't want people to really read it.

quote:

---

Anyone who would treat the word of God so cavalierly and destructively cannot possibly be considered to be a believer. Just another wolf in sheep's clothing.

---

That fleece you're trying to wear is really, really tattered and thin. I can see right through it.

Sorry, should have said parables instead of proverbs but it's really the same thing. Neither is to be read like history which is the usual straw man caricature of "literalism." Nobody does your straw man caricature that is. Maybe, but I know there is an enormous variety of ways to misread the Bible, so maybe not. The Bible is no obscure text, although of course there are parts that aren't easy to understand. For the most part there is little question about how a particular passage is to be read. Genesis presents itself as historical narrative, with some genealogies here and there that relate to the historical narrative, and the silly thing is to read it any other way. What? Anybody who reads Daniel ought to be able to tell that if you move it out of the time of the kings and empires in which the narrative of his life, events, visions and prophecies is unfolded, you destroy it. But of course I didn't say that. I said it was written so as not to exclude anybody, including illiterates, who will need it read to them, and the uneducated and most especially credulous children, as we are all to be trusting as children are and read it the way it is written. ABE: Except of course the "wise of this world" who exclude themselves by refusing to read it naively. /ABE The twisted sophistry of the "scholars" would require us all to become twisted sophists. Fortunately credulous children don't have that option. Amazing how willing you are to twist things.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : add signatureEdited by Faith, : No reason given.