How do we deal with textual criticism?

gradyll said:

yes taking the Bible literally is recommended when reading it. Allegory, parables etc are less than 1% of the Bible. You should read it as any history book. This week I posted a thread proving one of josiah's servants in the old testament, as a seal was found with his unusual name on it, dating to the same time period. (archaology proves most of the bible, as there are hundreds of finds, if not thousands of finds validating the scriptures).

Click to expand...

Steve Petersen said:

So you keep saying. Because a document is correct about SOME history does not mean it is accurate about ALL history, let alone accurate about the miraculous.

Click to expand...

InterestedAtheist said:

Exactly. The discovery that the city of Jericho existed does not mean that it's walls fell down when someone blew a trumpet.

Click to expand...

InterestedAtheist said:

Anyone who is reading - yes, I totally agree. Please do read the Bible as a history book. If you read it, it happened, just as the Bible said.

And then go and read this:
Creationism: Snapshot No. 3

"This was, roughly, what was going on in my poor classmate's head as he stared at those rocks, which had been carefully put in place by some ancient citizen of Jericho thousands of years before the tiny literal god of the fundies had gotten around to creating the universe. If he were to cling to the framework he had been raised to believe, then either he must reject the existence of that wall, or he must reject everything he thought he believed about God."

Perhaps it isn't a good idea to take the Bible literally. You might bump into things you weren't expecting.

Click to expand...

InterestedAtheist said:

Anyone who is reading - yes, I totally agree. Please do read the Bible as a history book. If you read it, it happened, just as the Bible said.

And then go and read this:
Creationism: Snapshot No. 3

"This was, roughly, what was going on in my poor classmate's head as he stared at those rocks, which had been carefully put in place by some ancient citizen of Jericho thousands of years before the tiny literal god of the fundies had gotten around to creating the universe. If he were to cling to the framework he had been raised to believe, then either he must reject the existence of that wall, or he must reject everything he thought he believed about God."

Perhaps it isn't a good idea to take the Bible literally. You might bump into things you weren't expecting.

Click to expand...

gradyll said:

I have seen archeology of jericho. And it proves the Bible. I am sure you never heard what I included in my last post about jericho.

Click to expand...

gradyll said:

If you could summarize that article with just the facts of the matter. What dig he was on, the date, and the find. I could not bring myself to read such a harassment of the christian faith. It is important to fill your mind with good things, especially in a world of negative fake news.

Click to expand...

gradyll said:

I have seen archeology of jericho. And it proves the Bible. I am sure you never heard what I included in my last post about jericho.

Click to expand...

InterestedAtheist said:

It Ain't Necessarily So.
It Ain't Necessarily So.
The Things That Ya Preacher Is Liable To Teach Ya
No It Ain't Necessarily So.

Click to expand...

Steve Petersen said:

Walls of Jericho
The Biblical account of the destruction of Jericho is found in the Book of Joshua. The Bible describes the destruction as having proceeded from the actions of Joshua, Moses' successor. The exodus is usually dated to the 13th century B.C.E. (based on Ussherian calculation) according to interpretation of archeological evidence from the Merneptah Stele, followed by new settlements in the next century. At that time the pharaoh of Egypt would have been Ramses II. Alternatively, the exodus is dated to the 15th century B.C.E.according to a prevailing Christian reckoning of biblical chronology, which is synchronized with several ancient calendars with astronomical observation. At that time the pharaoh would be Thutmose III (1490-1430B.C.E.). Neither biblical chronology matches the popular interpretation of the archeological evidence at Jericho.

A destruction of Jericho's walls dates archeologically to around 1550 B.C.E., at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, by a siege or an earthquake in the context of a burn layer, called City IV destruction. Opinions differ as to whether they are the walls referred to in the Bible. According to one biblical chronology, the Israelites destroyed Jericho at the end of the 15th century, after its walls had fallen around 1407 B.C.E. Originally, John Garstang's excavation in the 1930s dated Jericho's destruction to around 1400 B.C.E., but like much early biblical archaeologists, he was criticized for using the Bible to interpret the evidence rather than the hard facts on the ground. Kathleen Kenyon's excavation in the 1950s re-dated the fall of the walls to around 1550 B.C.E., a date that most archeologists support.[5] In 1990, Bryant Wood critiqued Kenyon's work after her field notes became fully available. Observing ambiguities and relying on the only available carbon dating of the burn layer, which yielded a date of 1410 B.C.E. plus or minus 40 years, Wood dated the destruction to this carbon dating, confirming Garstang and the biblical chronology. Unfortunately, this carbon date was itself the result of faulty calibration. In 1995, Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht used high-precision radiocarbon dating for 18 samples from Jericho, including six samples of charred cereal grains from the burn layer, and overall dated the destruction to 1562 B.C.E. plus or minus 38 years.[6] Kenyon's date of around 1550 B.C.E. is more secure than ever. Notably, many other Canaanite cities were destroyed around this time.

Scholars who link these walls to the biblical account must explain how the Israelites arrived around 1550 B.C.E., but settled four centuries later. They must also devise a new biblical chronology that corresponds. The current opinion of many archaeologists is in stark contradiction to the biblical account.

The widespread destructions of the 16th century B.C.E. are often linked with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt around this time. Interestingly, the first-century historian Josephus, in Against Apion, identified the Exodus of Israelites according to the Bible as the Expulsion of the Hyksos according to the Egyptian texts. Nevertheless, Josephus's historical inaccuracies should be considered and his word not taken as law.

A few scholars follow the controversial new chronology of David Rohl, which postulates that the entire mainstream Egyptian chronology is three hundred years misplaced; therefore, the exodus would be dated to the 16th or 17th century B.C.E., and the archaeological record on Jericho would be much more aligned with the biblical account. Despite this, a number of literalist Christians, most prominently the respected Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen, have vehemently attacked Rohl's chronology, since it introduces a number of other problems and issues (such as identifying the biblical Shishak as Ramses II, rather than the far more obviously named Shoshenq).
​

Jericho - New World Encyclopedia

Click to expand...

No Username Found said:

I think textual criticism is a good thing. Because of it, many hermeneutical problems have been resolved.

Click to expand...

Steve Petersen said:

Walls of Jericho
The Biblical account of the destruction of Jericho is found in the Book of Joshua. The Bible describes the destruction as having proceeded from the actions of Joshua, Moses' successor. The exodus is usually dated to the 13th century B.C.E. (based on Ussherian calculation) according to interpretation of archeological evidence from the Merneptah Stele, followed by new settlements in the next century. At that time the pharaoh of Egypt would have been Ramses II. Alternatively, the exodus is dated to the 15th century B.C.E.according to a prevailing Christian reckoning of biblical chronology, which is synchronized with several ancient calendars with astronomical observation. At that time the pharaoh would be Thutmose III (1490-1430B.C.E.). Neither biblical chronology matches the popular interpretation of the archeological evidence at Jericho.

A destruction of Jericho's walls dates archeologically to around 1550 B.C.E., at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, by a siege or an earthquake in the context of a burn layer, called City IV destruction. Opinions differ as to whether they are the walls referred to in the Bible. According to one biblical chronology, the Israelites destroyed Jericho at the end of the 15th century, after its walls had fallen around 1407 B.C.E. Originally, John Garstang's excavation in the 1930s dated Jericho's destruction to around 1400 B.C.E., but like much early biblical archaeologists, he was criticized for using the Bible to interpret the evidence rather than the hard facts on the ground. Kathleen Kenyon's excavation in the 1950s re-dated the fall of the walls to around 1550 B.C.E., a date that most archeologists support.[5] In 1990, Bryant Wood critiqued Kenyon's work after her field notes became fully available. Observing ambiguities and relying on the only available carbon dating of the burn layer, which yielded a date of 1410 B.C.E. plus or minus 40 years, Wood dated the destruction to this carbon dating, confirming Garstang and the biblical chronology. Unfortunately, this carbon date was itself the result of faulty calibration. In 1995, Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht used high-precision radiocarbon dating for 18 samples from Jericho, including six samples of charred cereal grains from the burn layer, and overall dated the destruction to 1562 B.C.E. plus or minus 38 years.[6] Kenyon's date of around 1550 B.C.E. is more secure than ever. Notably, many other Canaanite cities were destroyed around this time.

Scholars who link these walls to the biblical account must explain how the Israelites arrived around 1550 B.C.E., but settled four centuries later. They must also devise a new biblical chronology that corresponds. The current opinion of many archaeologists is in stark contradiction to the biblical account.

The widespread destructions of the 16th century B.C.E. are often linked with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt around this time. Interestingly, the first-century historian Josephus, in Against Apion, identified the Exodus of Israelites according to the Bible as the Expulsion of the Hyksos according to the Egyptian texts. Nevertheless, Josephus's historical inaccuracies should be considered and his word not taken as law.

A few scholars follow the controversial new chronology of David Rohl, which postulates that the entire mainstream Egyptian chronology is three hundred years misplaced; therefore, the exodus would be dated to the 16th or 17th century B.C.E., and the archaeological record on Jericho would be much more aligned with the biblical account. Despite this, a number of literalist Christians, most prominently the respected Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen, have vehemently attacked Rohl's chronology, since it introduces a number of other problems and issues (such as identifying the biblical Shishak as Ramses II, rather than the far more obviously named Shoshenq).
​

Jericho - New World Encyclopedia

Click to expand...

FireDragon76 said:

Could you elaborate on that? I'm curious how you think the two are linked . Hermeneutics is the theory of interpretation of texts, especially in religion or philosophy.

Click to expand...

No Username Found said:

For example, if you compare John 5:1-9 in the King James Version (Textus Receptus) and the New International Version (Critical Text), you will notice that verse 4 is missing from the NIV. In the KJV, John 5:4 reads, "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had." Why is this verse missing from the NIV (and the other Bible translations which use the Critical Text)? The eclectic method works as follows: (1) The text of John 5:4 does not occur in most of the oldest manuscripts. (2) The text of John 5:4 occurs in all of the Byzantine manuscripts, but not many of the non-eastern manuscripts. (3) It is more likely that a scribe would add an explanation than it is that a scribe would remove an explanation. John 5:4 makes it more clear why the crippled man wanted to get into the pool. Why would a scribe remove this verse? That does not make sense. It does make sense for that the tradition of why the crippled man wanted to get into the pool would be added. As a result of these concepts, the Critical / Eclectic Text does not include John 5:4. The same can be applied to Mark 16:9-20.

Click to expand...

FireDragon76 said:

Yeah, that's what is called a gloss. Somebody basically added a footnote, commentary, or retold something in their own words.

Click to expand...

gradyll said:

The NIV is missing dozens of verses, including the full ending of mark.

Click to expand...

FireDragon76 said:

Textual scholars made a judgement that they were likely not in the original documents.

Protestantism implicitly relies upon the best humanistic scholarship, not Church tradition, in deciding these issues.

Click to expand...