Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

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.

quote:

---

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."

---

Of course it isn't my idea - it was yours. And I stated that it was not the usual position of literalists. And no, parables are not the same thing as proverbs. A parable is a story, completely comprehensible at a naive literal level, and yet to read it that way misses the point. Indeed a parable is a fiction, so, obviously pretty much everyone concedes that the Bible does contain fictions.

quote:

---

The Bible is no obscure text, although of course there are parts that aren't easy to understand.

---

Which is not what you said a little while ago. And parts of the Bible are very obscure today.

quote:

---

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

---

The people who have actually studied it have found it's not that simple. There's doubling up of stories, for instance. It's very apparent that the idea that Genesis is like modern history is wrong.

quote:

---

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.

---

Only as literal truth. But was Daniel intended to be seen as literally true? And if the evidence indicates that it is not literally true, why should that fact be suppressed? Honesty and good scholarship would seem to demand that it be brought out into the open, no matter how much you hate it.

quote:

---

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.

---

But there are parts that you struggle with, so it's hardly as easy as you say. And why add "illiterates" to "uneducated" if lack of education is the only barrier to their understanding that you will allow? Worse, you forget that the cultural context of today is very different from the times when the Bible books were written. Things that were well-known then may be the province of the educated now.And if course if we read the bible as you say we will see that it is the work of men, not God.

quote:

---

Amazing how willing you are to twist things.

---

On the contrary. I see you opposing scholarship and even the Bible itself so that you can put words in God's mouth. That isn't a good or Christian thing to do, even by the standards you'd claim to follow.

quote:

---

My own ponderings concerning how this might come about are just that, my own ponderings, the idea being that the body would have to be made up of churches that are in general agreement about the inerrancy of the Bible

---

Putting people who value doctrine over the text in charge doesn't seem to be a good way to get an accurate text.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Oh we should definitely follow Burgon, he's the only one who understands.

---

Proverbs 18:17

quote:

---

In this case the arguments for the modern Bibles, the Critical Text and all that , were "first in their own cause" in my personal experience, promoted in every church and by every pastor, and it was after a long time that neighbor Burgon came along and searched them out and proved himself to be the one to trust.

---

Except even your familiarity with Burgon's arguments is obviously limited. And you show no sign at all of knowing the answers to Burgon - answers which, I remind you - have convinced the scholars.

quote:

---

Burgon IS a scholar and a much better one than all the rest of them combined. There are no good answers to Burgon. Don't worry, I've read them.

---

Like you've read Metzger's arguments for the dating of Daniel ?Can you give any valid reasons supporting your judgement of Burgon's greatness ? Or for thinking that your judgement is better than that of the vast majority of scholars who actually ARE familiar with the issues ?

quote:

---

Gosh you're right I haven't studied Metzger, I'm enough familiar with his attitude toward God's word to despise the man and never want to read more than I absolutely have to. Burgon has the preeminent qualification of respecting and believing God's word.

---

Condemned out of your own mouth.Prejudice is no friend to the truth.

quote:

---

Prejudice acquired by knowledge of the truth versus the lies of the devil is definitely a friend to the truth.

---

And if you were to show the humility proper to a Christian - or any honest person with a concern for the truth - you would know that YOUR prejudice is no friend to the truth..

quote:

---

The Lord once "spoke" to me about humility, pointing out that it is not humility to submit meekly to false doctrine.

---

But it is humility to accept the possibility that you are in error. To take pains to try to avoid error. To not judge others based solely on your prejudice. To avoid double standards. To allow evidence that speaks against you, instead of seeking to suppress it.This is not a great level of humility -even unbelieving sinners can manage it. Why is it so far beyond you ? Ask yourself that, if you your pride will allow you to admit it, for it is a truth that you have made obvious.

quote:

---

Not necessarily, which is what I've been trying to get across. It depends on the circumstances. It was when I was having strong inner objections to something a pastor had preached, but was trying to be generous and hunble about it and give him the benefit of the doubt and all that, that God clearly "told" me that stance I was taking was not humility, not audibly but unmistakably in the very words "That is not humility." I knew in my spirit the preacher was wrong but I was ignoring what I knew in the effort to be humble.

---

That would really depend on when you have good grounds for your knowledge, wouldn't it ? If you don't, then admitting that what you "know" is uninformed opinion, not fact, would be simple honesty.

quote:

---

Sometimes that is what is called for, sometimes not, and in the case of knowing the character of a God-fearing man like Burgon and a man who puts himself above God's word like Bruce Metzger, there is no doubt what is the right position to take. When I know my "prejudice" is solidly grounded in God's word then I have no reason to vacillate on my judgment. This isn't about evidence against ME, some opinion of my own, this is about knowing what GOD's position is, and that is never ever to be compromised.

---

If course it is evidence about you. You make it all about you. That's why you complain so bitterly when you are caught saying something silly. That's why you claim that your arguments are good even when it has been shown that they aren't.But by your own words you do not care about the actual facts. Your views about Burgon's great scholarship, the value of his arguments, even his morality are all dictated by the fact that his position and his conclusions are the ones you agree with. Likewise you see no need to find out the truth about Metzger, hating him because he disagrees with the unBiblical doctrines you cling to.That's bad enough when it's just your own opinions but when you expect us to believe it ? When you expect us to accept your opinions as fact based on your own prejudice and hate ? You are setting yourself up as a false God - there is no other description - you are asking us to accept that your belief dictates reality.But it doesn't.

quote:

---

Again, this is not about me, this is about God and that can never be compromised. It's not that hard to know if it's you or if you are being true to God or not, as long as you are committed to God's word above all else.

---

Being committed to words you put into God's mouth is no virtue.

quote:

---

Westcott and Hort, and Metzger and company are the ones putting words in God's mouth, and you too.

---

Of course you are lying again. And proving me right by doing so.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, I am not lying. That leaves certain others who may be.;

---

Then please show me where I have put words into God's mouth.

quote:

---

By accusing me of putting words into God's mouth, and by falsely quoting scripture against me, and by supporting Metzger who supports Westcott and Hort you put words into God's mouth, or let's say you are in danger of doing so although you weren't so circumspect in your accusation of me.

---

Of course this is untrue. And it is obviously untrue that I could be guilty of putting words in God's mouth by asserting that you had put words into God's mouth.