|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men? | |||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Golffly writes:
Was Robert Louis Stevenson a forger when he wrote Treasure Island pretending to be Jim Hawkins?
I consider writing in somebody else's name and pretending it's them....forgery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Golffly Member (Idle past 3109 days) Posts: 287 Joined: |
Ringo,
I fail to see the comparison is valid. It's misleading at best. Jim Hawkins is a fictional character in a book of fiction. Instead, what we have is somebody pretending to be the real Paul, writing as Paul. Somebody pretending to be the biblical Peter writing as Peter. What we have is logical deceit. If Treasure Island was non-fiction then Stevenson is committing forgery. Falsely pretending to be someone he isn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Golffly writes:
You're assuming that there was a real Paul and a real Peter. I'm not.
Instead, what we have is somebody pretending to be the real Paul, writing as Paul. Somebody pretending to be the biblical Peter writing as Peter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Golffly Member (Idle past 3109 days) Posts: 287 Joined: |
Jar: "Yes, I do not doubt that you consider it forgery but that simply indicates ignorance of common practice of the period and of Talmudic Discourse. Your claim though was that scholars consider them forgeries which I really doubt."
It may very well have been common but that certainly doesn't make it right. Nor was it thought of as right according to Christian scholar Bart Ehrman. Rather Ehrman suggests whenever we see examples of people pretending to be someone else in ancient writing, this is referred to as "falsely inscribed", "lies" or "bastards" by the ancient people themselves. They had no more respect for that falsehood than we do. Ehrman calls this forgery and does not apologize for that and gives compelling justification for why it is exactly that.So someone pretending to be Paul and writing in Paul's name, somebody pretending to be Peter and writing in Peter's name.. is a forger. I can't see how attempting to rationalize or sanitize the reality of what it is helps. It's forgery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Golffly Member (Idle past 3109 days) Posts: 287 Joined: |
ringo " You're assuming that there was a real Paul and a real Peter. I'm not".
Why would you assume that?I think the bible is fiction. Is there some truth.. probably. What? no clue. I am not convinced there was a Paul, Peter or Jesus actually. But I am convinced Christians believe that. So they believe that the characters are not fictional but real. If they are reality in the minds of Christians then the 6 letters of Paul listed and two from Peter are forgeries because Paul and Peter did not write them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Golffly writes:
Neither am I - and if they don't exist, there is no forgery. It would be like signing Donald Duck's name to a cheque.
I am not convinced there was a Paul, Peter or Jesus actually. Golffly writes:
You seem to be reasoning in both directions at once. (Most) Christians believe that Paul and Peter were real but they also (tend to) believe that they wrote the epistles attributed to them.
If they are reality in the minds of Christians then the 6 letters of Paul listed and two from Peter are forgeries because Paul and Peter did not write them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, I understand that you believe that.
And yes, Bart Ehrman has made a good living being controversial. But in this matter he is simply wrong. Please study Talmudic discourse.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Golffly Member (Idle past 3109 days) Posts: 287 Joined: |
ringo,
Of course I am arguing two sides at once. :-)))) Forget what I think or you think. The Christian mindset is the one to what I mean to refer. By their own belief and not you or I. By that standard, we have to say there is a real Paul and real Peter. So the real Paul and real Peter did not write some books in the NT. By the Christian perspective and standard, they must be forgery. By your perspective and possibly mine as well, it's just poppycock whether a first faker Paul wrote it or another faker Paul latter wrote some other letters. I am saying from the Christian perspective they must have at least 8 forgeries in the NT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Golffly Member (Idle past 3109 days) Posts: 287 Joined: |
jar,
When I get time I'll check Talmudic. No clue what that is actually. But saying Ehrman is simply wrong, is no better than me saying he's simply right. However, if you suggest there is some proof to your statement contained in Talmudic discourse, I'll check it. Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Golffly writes:
They might be, if it wasn't for double-think.
By the Christian perspective and standard, they must be forgery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Golffly Member (Idle past 3109 days) Posts: 287 Joined: |
Ringo,
It's double think to you. It's reality and thus forgery to Christians. It simply logically has to be. I'm not saying I get get a devout Christian to admit it's forgery. I do say it has to be by their standard. You might be the wrong guy to debate this with. Your logic and rational thought make it meaningless. )))) You know what I mean here, I know you must.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
A good indication that Bart is just looking for reactions and money is the Books of Moses, attributed to Moshe. What I posit is not really even unusual at the period. For example Exodus ends with a description of Moshe's death and burial, hardly likely if as attributed Moshe was the author and not something that required revisionist movements for someone to notice.
We really have no idea who were the actual authors of much of scripture. There are likely three different authors attributed to John when it comes to the Gospel of John, Revelation and the Epistles of John. There are several Talmuds, they are the written versions of various opinions related to tradition, law, scripture and practices, of the Oral Law. It was originally only oral but sometime around 200CE (about the same time the Western Canons were being decided) it was written. Since the oral tradition had gone on for hundreds if not thousands of years it is impossible to verify actual attributions. But here is an example from the discussion on Shabbat, the Sabbath. It's only a very, very small example but will give you an idea of what was involved.
quote: Just as a matter of perspective there were 24 Chapters just on the topic of the Sabbath.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Golffly Member (Idle past 3109 days) Posts: 287 Joined: |
Jar,
It seems to me you are attempting to justify the pattern of scholars for a long time, which is avoiding calling forgery what it is. If a writer dies and his prodigies carry on in his name. Despite that fact they may very well think they know what the originator thinks..they can in no way KNOW in fact this is what he would say. So writing in his name is clearly forgery, no matter how altruistic the motives may be to the prodigies. So for say 18 centuries people believe the original writer called Paul wrote all the letters. Well, he didn't write all the letters. For 1800 years people were deceived and indeed still are today. The fact many scholars seem immune to this type of forgery, siting various justifications for it- says more about the scholars. To any person that is forgery. For some reason religious books get a pass and the same behaviour outside the holy books is forgery. However, repeat that behaviour where a writer pretends to be somebody he isn't, well in holy books that is okay. Why? Well precedent is the only logical reason. Scholars have accepted it as not forgery, when it clearly is, and trying to call it what it is, is not the problem. The problem is accepting it as okay and not deceitful. The famous interpolation at the end of Mark you brought up, is really just a fraudulent insert. An unknown writer inserts several passages into an unknown writer Mark. That's fraud. It's fraud because nobody says " hey, we are trying to get this Mark gospel to jive with some other gospels. The ending sucks, so we have to modify the ending to add some continuity to this whole gospel theme". That's fraud. Whether scholars have been habituated to the habit of this type of stuff and indeed conditioned over studying this stuff, to accept fraud as something else..does not make it right. Nor does the "turn the other way " attitude of scholars make it right either. This stuff is logically forgery and fraud and meant to deceive the readers. Whatever the motives were, it still deceit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I understand that is what you believe right now. Continue studying, questioning and growing.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
In the NT, there are books such as 1/2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians ( letters of Paul), 1/2 Peter are recognized by many scholars to be forgeries. Do you think "recognized by many scholars" is enough to convince believers that those texts are forgeries? Most scientists think disagree with the description of creation in Genesis. Does that convince fundamentalists that the Bible is wrong? Yes there is some dispute about the authorship of some of the Pauline epistles. But if you want to accuse people of ignoring forgeries you need to do a mite better than just pointing to controversy.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024