Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Do You Believe In Scientism?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="hedrick" data-source="post: 75980419" data-attributes="member: 239032"><p>Yes, but I don't think we have enough data to be specific. In particular, I have no idea what kind of environment God exists in, so there's no way to know what he is responsible for and what is just there.</p><p></p><p>The Bible is a human work, assembled over hundreds of years. The NT intends to tell about Jesus, and also incorporates early letters giving advice on various topics. The OT is more varied. The core historical books are thought to have been edited during the Exile, with the goal of showing God's care for Israel and the reasons for the Exile, which are Israel's continuing pattern of rebellion. In my view the editors used a variety of traditional material. The earliest would have been only vaguely historical. The most recent probably had at least some records behind them. They also seem to have been interested in preserving traditional stories. There are a number of examples where they preserved alternative versions, which modern scholars assume developed in different communities. (The most obvious is the two creation stories, but there are other less obvious examples.)</p><p></p><p>This means that historical accuracy has to be assessed separately for each book, and sometimes each section of a book. My guess is that the Synoptic tradition about Jesus is moderately accurate. Some material added to it is probably less so. John seems to be organized as brief accounts that probably come from reasonably good tradition, followed by theological reflections.</p><p></p><p>Critical commentaries try to assess this, though it's hard to know just how accurately they do so.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hedrick, post: 75980419, member: 239032"] Yes, but I don't think we have enough data to be specific. In particular, I have no idea what kind of environment God exists in, so there's no way to know what he is responsible for and what is just there. The Bible is a human work, assembled over hundreds of years. The NT intends to tell about Jesus, and also incorporates early letters giving advice on various topics. The OT is more varied. The core historical books are thought to have been edited during the Exile, with the goal of showing God's care for Israel and the reasons for the Exile, which are Israel's continuing pattern of rebellion. In my view the editors used a variety of traditional material. The earliest would have been only vaguely historical. The most recent probably had at least some records behind them. They also seem to have been interested in preserving traditional stories. There are a number of examples where they preserved alternative versions, which modern scholars assume developed in different communities. (The most obvious is the two creation stories, but there are other less obvious examples.) This means that historical accuracy has to be assessed separately for each book, and sometimes each section of a book. My guess is that the Synoptic tradition about Jesus is moderately accurate. Some material added to it is probably less so. John seems to be organized as brief accounts that probably come from reasonably good tradition, followed by theological reflections. Critical commentaries try to assess this, though it's hard to know just how accurately they do so. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Do You Believe In Scientism?
Top
Bottom