|
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? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Bible is not to be approached "normally," it's not a normal production.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, but you'll remember it when the time comes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Instead of these threats why don't you try and figure out why you're always wrong. But I KNOW why I'm "wrong." It's because you need me to be wrong so you trot out everything you can come up with to create the illusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
After you've all made just a miserable mess of the supposed discrepancies that are easy to resolve, although there are a few that are much harder than that, I know it's time to throw in the towel. The forces of darkness have won again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The evidence we have says that the Pentateuch had many authors over a long time period, and that the two accounts in Genesis derived from two similar but divergent traditions by different authors that were later combined into one. No you don't, Percy. Produce the evidence. I'll tell you what it is: it's a bunch of self-styled "scholars" sitting around imaging things, that's ALL it is. They subjectively decide that this part of the Pentateuch just doesn't sound to them like that part. Yep, that's the sort of "evidence" you are putting above thirty five hundred years of knowledge of the source of the texts.
There is no evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Only that the Jews knew it was and they were obsessive about their texts, about precise copying and preserving and so on, so that our own OT is just about identical with the Dead Sea Scrolls.. They'd preserved and read their fanatically preserved texts every Sabbath down through the centuries. All you have is a few modernday self-appointed destroyers that make up their own stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I often wish I had the ability to defend it better but it's a tremendous study to learn all the supposed discrepancies and the orthodox understanding that resolves them. The reason to do it is to help those whose faith is challenged by such things, I feel bad for them and know God would reward helping them get back on track.
But as I said the study it would take is really more than I can handle, and as this discussion shows, even knowing how to resolve the discrepancies -- and the ones given here were really not discrepancies anyway, just willful misreadings -- doesn't convince those who are committed to finding fault with the Bible, which makes the effort doubly futile. Whether showing that there are resolutions could really help someone in this environment I don't know. I DO feel we have an obligation to do our best to convince people of the gospel, that's our most basic calling as Christians. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I haven't made an unsubstantiated assertions, I've argued for the orthodox views of the examples given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If I'm reading you correctly Faith, you realize the study of biblical inerrancies & contradictions takes a lifetime of commitment, a tremendous undertaking you are just not able to do. So you rely & depend on scholars you trust, knowing that they have taken the time to study all of the Bible over the course of decades. You must have faith that they have all the answers to support your position. In many cases I don't even have a position until I've read all the various ways a passage might be understood. I don't take any of it on faith, I have to make my own judgment in the end whether their explanation is convincing. Usually they agree with each other but occasionally there is disagreement.
And we are to take your word for it, Well, it would be nice if once in a great while my knowledge and judgment counted for something around here. But I usually try to present the reasoning so that even the sourest of debunkers might be persuaded by it.
and stop bringing up all these pesky Bible quotes that seem to be contradictory - they have been all answered by someone, somewhere, who knows better than we. That is really quite true, the arguments are pesky because so wrong while being stridently defended; the understanding here of the quotes presented is generally based in ignorance, bad methods of Bible interpretation, or in some cases even malice, though perhaps not even recognized by the malicious one.
But when it comes to the other side of this discussion site, evolution, you take the opposite position. Those of us who rely on experts in the field are ridiculed, and you scoff at all of the time & study scientists have put into understanding evolution & the role it plays in life on this planet. Yes, I must confess I favor the scholars who support Biblical tradition and reject those who reinvented it all in the last couple hundred years, which of course, contrary to your statement, shows I distinguish between good and bad scholarship rather than favoring it wholesale in one case aqnd rejecting it in another. Evolution is likewise to be judged according to the orthodox reading of the Bible.
Do you see your hypocrisy? No, I really don't, but I do see your need to find me guilty of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Documentary Hypothesis, remember, is just that, a hypothesis. The "evidence" is the subjectively determined differences in the text and there is no proof of any of it whatever. It's all overheated imagination that there were many authors. Many scribes working under Moses perhaps but it was all Moses' production.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Believers have NO problem with any of the supposed discrepancies you all have. There are no different "god types," there is God. Too bad you all can't see it. The Bible is to be believed, not torn to pieces.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Moses lived six or seven hundred years before the Pentateuch was written down during or after the exile. The Pentateuch was written by Moses. The most hideous evil thing the revisionists do is redate the writings. The Jews had the books of Moses from Moses' time. They were found lost in the temple in Josiah's time, BEFORE THE EXILE.
There's a tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch but no evidence, and both the internal and external evidence discredit the idea. THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE IN THE HISTORICAL USAGE OF THE BOOKS. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You have no evidence, why should I?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There couldn't be a more perfect example than your post of wrongly dividing the word of truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I bet with some effort we could show that your own posts vary as to vocabulary and style over many threads of different content.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Again this is a subject that requires an immense amount of study to answer all the allegations against the integrity of the Bible as traditionally understood. There are Christians who could answer you, but they aren't here. I'm hoping NoNukes can go some way in that direction at least.
I did find this page that deals with some of the allegations made here against Mark, his identity and his supposed lack of knowledge of Palestinian geography.
Does the little we know of John Mark from the New Testament present any difficulty to identifying him as the author of the second gospel? Some scholars think so, pointing to Mark’s alleged ignorance of Jewish customs and errors about Palestinian geography.[14] But neither difficulty stands up to scrutiny; careful and sympathetic interpretation of the alleged problem passages reveals no errors in such matters. In contrast, two features of Mark and his career as they are presented in the New Testament fit the author of the second gospel. The Greek style of Mark’s gospel is simple and straightforward and full of the kind of Semitisms that one would expect of a Jerusalem-bred Christian.[15] And Mark’s connection with Paul may help explain what many scholars have found to be a Pauline theological influence in the second gospel. Both features are far too general to offer any positive evidence toward an identification. But the important point is that nothing in the second gospel stands in the way of accepting the earliest tradition that identifies John Mark as its author. Our decision, then, will rest almost entirely on external evidence, and especially on the tradition handed down through Papias and Eusebius from the unnamed presbyter. ‘Those who are sceptical of the reliability of Papias conclude that the author of the gospel is unknown.’[16] Yet, as we have seen, there is nothing in the New Testament that is inconsistent with Papias’s claim that Mark wrote the second gospel. And since we have no indication that anyone in the early church contested Papias’s claim, we see no reason not to accept it. and
Most think that geography plays a significant role in the gospel’s structure, and there is truth to this. But the significance of the geography lies not in some particular theological scheme of Mark’s but in the actual sequence of the ministry of Jesus. As C.H. Dodd has noted, the sequence of Mark’s gospel follows the same sequence revealed in the early church’s preaching.[73] In the table note the parallels between the preaching of Peter in Acts 10:36—40 and the structure of Mark. While the sequence in the table is to a considerable extent dictated by the actual course of events, Mark’s straightforward, action-oriented account preserves the sequence more clearly than do the other gospels.
ABE: This site also has a page discussing the basis for believing in the Bible as the word of God. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024