Are forgeries inspired scripture?

[OzSpen]

I recognize that you have a certain framework you use to navigate the world, including the notion of sin, godlessness, etc., however, as an agnostic/atheist/humanist, the notion of sin is irrelevant for me. As for truth, I'm all for it!

Let's not kid anyone. You also have a 'framework' - I call it a worldview - to understand the world. That includes God's revelation to us in Scripture, which you reject.

The notion of sin may be irrelevant to you, but it is not irrelevant to God who has provided you with evidence of his existence (Romans 1:18-32 NIV; Psalm 19:1-6 NIV).

You say you are 'all for it', referring to truth. From where do you get your framework to determine what is true and false?

There would be no death in the world if it were not for sin. See Romans 5:12 (NIV): 'Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned'.

Like it or not, sin came into the world (original sin) through Adam's sin and death came with it (see Genesis 3). You die because Adam sinned AND because you and I are in humanity that have 'all sinned'. What, then, happens at death when you die?

What you have said about sin being irrelevant to you confirms the verse I gave to you yesterday, Romans 1:18 (NIV): 'The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness'. Your suppression of the truth about your sinfulness/wickedness is preventing you from seeing the fact of your sinfulness before God. I was in this category before Christ changed my inner being (my heart). I know where you are coming from, but because of your suppression of this truth, you will not be open to this truth.

You say, you are all for truth. No, you are not. You are not open to the truth of Scripture that tells you of your condition before God.

Oz

 

[cloudyday2]

Best as I can tell (thanks Google!) it began when an early 20th century illiterate preacher, George Hensley, became obsessed with the passage in Mark which led him to pick up a snake, bring it to church, and claim people needed to prove their salvation by picking up snakes.

It's possible there were cases of this happening before in Christian history, though I'm unaware of it, but the modern practice can seemingly be pinned directly on George Hensley.

-CryptoLutheran

It's interesting that it took 2000 years for somebody to understand those verse of Mark in that way. In some ways literacy has created a population of people who are educated enough to grossly misunderstand things that they never would have attempted to understand in centuries past. (I count myself among that population )

 

[cloudyday2]

cloudy,

Could you be missing this evidence as explained in Romans 1:18-32 (ESV):


What about this evidence according to Psalm 19:1-6 (ESV)?



Perhaps you have been looking in the wrong places for evidence of God's existence. His evidence is all around you and me as these 2 sets of Scripture explain.

Because of this evidence, God is correct in concluding, 'The fool says in his heart, “There is no God"' (Psalm 14:1 ESV).

You state, 'I sometimes wonder if there is a God of some kind, but the Judeo-Christian God seems impossible based on the history that I have read'. That evidence seems to make you an agnostic and not an atheist. If you are a full-blown atheist, you would have to look under every nook and cranny in the entire universe to be absolutely sure there was no God in existence. Even Richard Dawkins who has called himself an atheist for years, has admitted to the Archbishop of Canterbury that he prefers to call himself an agnostic and not an atheist. See: 'Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist'.

What history have you read to conclude that 'the Judeo-Christian God seems impossible based on the history that I have read'?

I look forward to further interaction with you.

Oz

Thanks, I don't know if I understand the verses Romans 1:18-32. Paul seems to be saying that people refuse to see the evidence for God, because they prefer to be sinful. There may be some truth to that, but it is a small factor.

Psalms 19:1-6 seems to be arguing for a vague creator or pantheistic God, and the Judeo Christian God is much more specific. Where is the evidence for the specific God?

On agnostic vs. atheist, any label is fine with me.

The most recent book I read is "The Mystery of Acts" by Pervo. I finished reading this yesterday, and I finally had to skip parts, because it was so poorly written (IMO). Pervo is probably an excellent academic, but he is a terrible author. He should have hired somebody else to write this book. Pervo gave too much detail for casual readers like me, but he didn't give enough detail for his reasoning to be clear. Mostly he concluded that not much can be known about Acts. Maybe that is true academically, but I feel cheated.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6098359-the-mystery-of-acts

 

[OzSpen]

Thanks, I don't know if I understand the verses Romans 1:18-32. Paul seems to be saying that people refuse to see the evidence for God, because they prefer to be sinful. There may be some truth to that, but it is a small factor.

Rom 1:18-32 is simply telling all people, to use my language, if you look out your window at the trees, flowers, birds and the bees, and human beings, you will see God's 'invisible attributes ... his power and divine nature displayed' in what God has created. We are speaking of the Lord God Almighty revealed in OT and NT and in creation. Where does that evidence leave you and me? 'They are without excuse' (1:20) in refusing to accept the existence of God.

You say that people 'prefer to be sinful' and that 'is a small factor'. You don't seem to have read this passage carefully. The unrighteousness (sinful behaviour in which people engage) is not a trifling matter. This sinfulness causes people (incl. agnostics and atheists) to suppress the truth of God made evident in creation (Rom 1:18). Rejecting this statement about the seriousness of sin means that you will be experiencing 'the wrath of God' at the end of life (1:18).

This is how bad this unrighteousness can get, according to Rom 1:24-28 (NIV):

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

You state:

Psalms 19:1-6 seems to be arguing for a vague creator or pantheistic God, and the Judeo Christian God is much more specific. Where is the evidence for the specific God?

You seem to reach that conclusion because you don't understand the meaning of the name for God used here, El, which means 'the Strong One'. This is no pantheistic God. He is El, the strong and mighty One, and not the God of reverence for the universe and for the natural earth as being sacred, which is one of the beliefs of pantheism.

The sky above the earth declares clearly that its 'glory' comes from the Omnipotent God. Do remember that the Psalms are poetry, so God's power in creation in Psalm 19 is described in poetic terms

On agnostic vs. atheist, any label is fine with me.

OK, but atheist is more absolutisticly sure.

The most recent book I read is "The Mystery of Acts" by Pervo. I finished reading this yesterday, and I finally had to skip parts, because it was so poorly written (IMO). Pervo is probably an excellent academic, but he is a terrible author. He should have hired somebody else to write this book. Pervo gave too much detail for casual readers like me, but he didn't give enough detail for his reasoning to be clear. Mostly he concluded that not much can be known about Acts. Maybe that is true academically, but I feel cheated.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6098359-the-mystery-of-acts

I haven't read this book, but I'm not surprised you gave up on it as it is published by Polebridge Press, Weststar Institute, of the Jesus Seminar fame that is one of the chief promoters of skepticism towards the Bible with its higher criticism of the Bible.

In my view, a better understanding would come in:

1. John R W Stott 1990. The Message of Acts. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. If you are a casual reader, this one would be probably a better recommendation than the following book.
   
2. If you want more history and exegesis of the meaning of the text, I'd recommend: F F Bruce 1979. Commentary on the Book of Acts. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. F F Bruce was both an historian and NT Greek scholar.

Are you seeking to discover God and Christian answers to life in the present?

Oz

 

[cloudyday2]

.
Are you seeking to discover God and Christian answers to life in the present?

Thanks for the book recommendations on Acts and the rest. Some of what you said doesn't make sense to me, but I am not at my best this morning. Maybe if I read it again later, I will see what you are saying.

On the last question that I quoted, no, I'm just socializing mostly.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you know that AV claims that Adam, Eve and Jesus all spoke King James English?

True story.

HitchSlap, where did you get the "and Jesus" part?

Do you have a link where I said that?

Am I not on record as saying this:

I also believe they spoke [Jacobean] English, up until the tower of Babel, when that language was done away with, only to start a laborious comeback through history, culminating in 1611.

SOURCE

If so, how did Jesus speak Jacobean English when Jacobean English was done away with at the tower of Babel and didn't show up again until the time of King James?

You might want to print a retraction on that.

I'm not going to hold my breath though.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

I'm trying to think of a forgery that is universally recognized. How about Mark 16:9-20? These verses were the inspiration for the idea that Christians should be immune to poison and venom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

Also, if you are tired of the discussion, then that is fine too.

No; Mark 16:9-20 are contested, but most Christians still reject they are a forgery and hold them as canonical.

The only actual case of a probable error is the Comma Johanneum, but it doesn't really matter, as the Trinitarian reference was implied in the underlying text.

 

[cloudyday2]

No; Mark 16:9-20 are contested, but most Christians still reject they are a forgery and hold them as canonical.

The only actual case of a probable error is the Comma Johanneum, but it doesn't really matter, as the Trinitarian reference was implied in the underlying text.

Thanks, I had not heard of the Comma Johanneum.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks, I had not heard of the Comma Johanneum.

It is used to support one of our six fundamental beliefs.

I'm sure you've heard of it -- probably not as the Comma Johanneum though.

Scientists blow it off all the time.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

It is used to support one of our six fundamental beliefs.

I'm sure you've heard of it -- probably not as the Comma Johanneum though.

Scientists blow it off all the time.

There is a very minor interpolation in the Latin Vulgate which nonetheless is not substantially erroneous; it makes explicit an implied Trinitarian reference.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is a very minor interpolation in the Latin Vulgate which nonetheless is not substantially erroneous; it makes explicit an implied Trinitarian reference.

-- What?

 

[Commander Xenophon]

-- What?

In other words, the rendering in the KJV and certain other Bibkes is not perfectly accurate, but it is doctrinally superior in that it makes the implied Trinitarian reference explicit. So its not a "forgery" as @cloudyday2 might think, its more like a gloss.

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words, the rendering in the KJV and certain other Bibkes is not perfectly accurate, but it is doctrinally superior in that it makes the implied Trinitarian reference explicit.

What "implied Trinitarian reference"?

Are you saying that the Comma Johanneum is an implied Trinitarian reference, and the King James Version makes it explicit?

 

[Hawkins]

As a matter of fact, no history (older than 2000 years) can be proven. That's the nature of what history is. That boils down to the question that if it's true, what else do you expect?

 

[Commander Xenophon]

What "implied Trinitarian reference"?

Are you saying that the Comma Johanneum is an implied Trinitarian reference, and the King James Version makes it explicit?

No, the original Greek text without the Comma has an implied Trinitarian reference, and the modified text which one finds in the KJV and other Bibles makes it explicit.

I believe the Comma is a legitimate gloss added in the fourth century in the struggle against Arianism. It's not a forgery; it's like a margin note which got copied into the body of the text.

The Bible is full of glosses and minor interpolations that account for the ambiguities of language. "Things" in John 1:3 is implied in the Greek and is rendered explicitly in English.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, the original Greek text without the Comma has an implied Trinitarian reference,

Not that I care, but who took it out in the first place?

Or are you saying John never wrote it to begin with?

I wouldn't give you 2¢ for "an original Greek text."

AV1611VET writes: I drove a Ford yesterday.
Greeks change it to: I drove yesterday.
1611 KJB changes it back* to: I drove a Ford yesterday.

* Actually it was never lost in history in the first place. God preserved a pure Line throughout all history.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Not that I care, but who took it out in the first place?

Or are you saying John never wrote it to begin with?

I wouldn't give you 2¢ for "an original Greek text."

AV1611VET writes: I drove a Ford yesterday.
Greeks change it to: I drove yesterday.
1611 KJB changes it back* to: I drove a Ford yesterday.

* Actually it was never lost in history in the first place. God preserved a pure Line throughout all history.

No one "took it out." It was implict and the Comma made it explicit.

It's like if you wrote in Chapter 1 of your book "My car is a Ford," and then in Chapter 18 wrote "I drove my car yesterday."

It would not be a distortion of your work if a copyist wrote "I drove my car [a Ford] yesterday," although this wound up reading as, I drove my car, a Ford, yesterday."

Everyone knows the Comma Johanneum is an interpolation, but since it's accurate, there is no point in getting excited over it. I LOL at people who say its some kind of Trinitarian conspiracy.

 

[OzSpen]

As a matter of fact, no history (older than 2000 years) can be proven. That's the nature of what history is. That boils down to the question that if it's true, what else do you expect?

From where did you get that idea about history? Are you telling me that history.com does not know what it is talking about with the history of Aristotle?

Are you telling me that Encyclopaedia Britannica doesn't know what it is telling us historically with regard to Aristotle (d. 322 BC)?

I suggest that you write to the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, and tell them to close down this Department as, according to your words, 'no history (older than 2000 years) can be proven'. There is a difference between proof of history and the process of obtaining information from ancient history.

You seem to be promoting your own assertions.

Oz

 

[ViaCrucis]

No one "took it out." It was implict and the Comma made it explicit.

It's like if you wrote in Chapter 1 of your book "My car is a Ford," and then in Chapter 18 wrote "I drove my car yesterday."

It would not be a distortion of your work if a copyist wrote "I drove my car [a Ford] yesterday," although this wound up reading as, I drove my car, a Ford, yesterday."

Everyone knows the Comma Johanneum is an interpolation, but since it's accurate, there is no point in getting excited over it. I LOL at people who say its some kind of Trinitarian conspiracy.

AV doesn't believe in history or the facts behind biblical manuscripts, their transmission, copying, translation, etc. AV is a KJV-onlyist. You'll spare yourself a great deal of frustration if you leave the issue alone.

-CryptoLutheran