Higher criticism

[pshun2404]

There can't be a sensible conversation while you see everything in terms of "accusations against".

Yes there can be...look at the only actual data there is and base your theory on that. If I were to explore a crime scene and we had actual DNA and fingerprints would I say these are not related and focus on possibilities I made up? No! So it is not about accusations against on my part, it is about accusations against on their part (but based on nothing but conjecture and then consensus). This type of criticism is NOT critical thought...follow the evidence. Of all people in the entire universe Jesus would know and trust me on this one...He knows better and more than all these guys rolled into one, but whether or not YOU accept that is your choice, just do not be beguiled by what sounds like logical possibilities (which have no actual foundation)...

In His love

Paul

 

[ebia]

Yes there can be...l

Not with me they can't, because it represents gross misrepresentation before the conversation begins.

 

[pshun2404]

Not with me they can't, because it represents gross misrepresentation before the conversation begins.

Okay, now I am confused...do you believe the HC or not? And if so what is the basis for that belief...any historical, archaeological, or traditional information or facts we do not have (seriously, I am not trying to win and argument here, I am using critical thinking by applying the actual data we do have)...

I have given some of what I know to be evidence for one single author of Isaiah and shown the illogical reasoning of different Genre or language as a justifiable cause for such division. I have narratives and even poetry in my collection...am I more than one? Are these redacted evolvements from members of the Paul School?

So do you believe the HC or not? And if so what is the basis for that belief? Please share some specifics, thanks...

Paul

 

[ebia]

Okay, now I am confused...do you believe the HC or not? And if so what is the basis for that belief...any historical, archaeological, or traditional information or facts we do not have (seriously, I am not trying to win and argument here, I am using critical thinking by applying the actual data we do have)... I have given some of what I know to be evidence for one single author of Isaiah and shown the illogical reasoning of different Genre or language as a justifiable cause for such division. I have narratives and even poetry in my collection...am I more than one? Are these redacted evolvements from members of the Paul School? So do you believe the HC or not? And if so what is the basis for that belief? Please share some specifics, thanks... Paul

1. higher critisism is a broad term form a whole plethora of approaches to examining texts and thinking about them. It's not something one can believe or disbelieve wholesale
2. I see no point in discussing an particular suggestion that comes from higher critisism with someone who insists its about trashing the bible

 

[juvenissun]

What? That doesn't connect to anything I've said.


Why do you assume that critically examining something means throwing it away?

Because it questioned the validity of the Bible. If one Book in the Bible is questioned, then all Books are in doubt.

 

[juvenissun]

Not with me they can't, because it represents gross misrepresentation before the conversation begins.

Talk high is never convincing. If you don't mind, then let's go to the ground.

Please give the best example of higher criticism on any book and let's examine that particular one. I am quite sure some arguments are unfounded in their hypothesis.

If you can not do that, then you should stop arguing for H.C.

 

[pshun2404]

1. higher critisism is a broad term form a whole plethora of approaches to examining texts and thinking about them. It's not something one can believe or disbelieve wholesale
2. I see no point in discussing an particular suggestion that comes from higher critisism with someone who insists its about trashing the bible

I'm sorry...I just do not get this...let's say they were really, truly, and honestly, trying to examine the texts and think about them! They say the first 39 books are most likely written by the first Isaiah and the last 27 are written by scribes of the Isaiah School centuries later who more than likely assigned his name to the later addition, to give it the appearance of actually being Isaiah's. But based on what? For example, where did they even get the idea of an Isaiah School?!? Shouldn't alleged "historical criticism" be based at least partially on actual historical record or implication?

Ebia...they made it up! the reality is that there is not one iota of evidence, not even the commentary of another commentator's comment that indicates this. To say we are accusing THEM of trashing the Bible is ludicrous...they totally make stuff up!?! It is the truth, not an opinion.

Thus the German Scholar Feuerbach concludes (from his alleged research which is 90% fiction) that God was created by man to express the divine within himself...in other words there is no actual God...man is all the god any of us need (Genesis 3:5). "Self" is the deity and this from Feuerbach who was one of their primary authorities...

In other words, I become my own lord deciding good and evil for myself...you become your own lord deciding good and evil for yourself...joe and jane become their own lord's deciding what is good or evil for each of their selves, and then we agree or disagree by consensus and the more powerful groups rule it over the less powerful (might makes right in a survival of the fittest world).

If this is true, then this justifies one group of self lords killing Jesus who was claiming to be the one and only God which later has been interpreted politically to be a form of hate, and the crucifixion becomes a good or at least rational thing carried out by an other group of self lords who (the two groups) came together in agreement. Does this sound reasonable to you? Do you believe there is really no God and that YOU are actually lord of your own life?

Say-e-er-er...are you out th-e-e-r-r-r-e-e?

 

[hedrick]

I've dropped out of this. I don't see any point in arguing. Pshun and I are part of what are effectively different religions. You seldom affect that kind of basic faith choice by argument.

To me the question in cases like Daniel is doing justice to the intent of the book, looking at who it was written to and why. That's not throwing away the book at all. Normally I find the critical views of the Bible allow me to more straightforwardly appreciate the books as they are. The one exception is the NT letters whose authorship is false. I do believe that the usual critical view of at least some of these books (e.g. the Pastorals) undermines their authority, quite significantly. I don't feel that way about apocalyptic works though.

 

[juvenissun]

I've dropped out of this. I don't see any point in arguing. Pshun and I are part of what are effectively different religions. You seldom affect that kind of basic faith choice by argument.

To me the question in cases like Daniel is doing justice to the intent of the book, looking at who it was written to and why. That's not throwing away the book at all. Normally I find the critical views of the Bible allow me to more straightforwardly appreciate the books as they are. The one exception is the NT letters whose authorship is false. I do believe that the usual critical view of at least some of these books (e.g. the Pastorals) undermines their authority, quite significantly. I don't feel that way about apocalyptic works though.

OK. Let's see that a little bit more:

Are the messages in the Book of Daniel intended for me?

If you say no, then what is the point for me to read it? In other words, if I threw away the Book of Daniel, what would I miss? Just missed a good story?

 

[ebia]

Because it questioned the validity of the Bible.

Saying, for instance, that Daniel was written around 267BC isn't equivalent to saying Daniel is not valid or that Daniel is not inspired. It might well challenge what sort of book you think Daniel is and how you use it, but that's quite a different matter.

 

[ebia]

Talk high is never convincing. If you don't mind, then let's go to the ground. Please give the best example of higher criticism on any book and let's examine that particular one. I am quite sure some arguments are unfounded in their hypothesis. If you can not do that, then you should stop arguing for H.C.

To engage in a conversation about any one conclusion with someone who thinks the question is unaskable would be daft.

 

[ebia]

OK. Let's see that a little bit more: Are the messages in the Book of Daniel intended for me? If you say no, then what is the point for me to read it? In other words, if I threw away the Book of Daniel, what would I miss? Just missed a good story?

In the first instance the book was written for an immediate audience.
Hendrick is not saying that it's not of use to us, but that we can best make use of it if we understand how it would have worked for that original audience.

 

[hedrick]

OK. Let's see that a little bit more:

Are the messages in the Book of Daniel intended for me?

If you say no, then what is the point for me to read it? In other words, if I threw away the Book of Daniel, what would I miss? Just missed a good story?

Are the messages of Isaiah or Jeremiah intended for you? In some general terms yes. But the specific judgements were for the people at the time. They are part of a broader story in the OT of the history of Israel, with God guiding and discipling the people.

As I understand it, the visions up to 11:39 describe contemporary events. While the apocalyptic viewpoint is very different from the classical prophets, it still basically interprets current events as being part of God's plan.

11:40 starts a description of the end, which obviously hasn't happened yet. A common critical view seems to be that the writer predicted a future that didn't happen. Another possibility is that he had a genuine vision of the end, but didn't realize quite how far in the future it was. At times I get the impression in reading visions of the end from the classical prophets that they are seeing something real but don't quite understand it. What would an ancient Hebrew make of a vision of a nuclear war? Indeed 12:8 makes it clear that the writer of Dan realized he didn't understand everything, and God refused to clarify. Given the flexibility with which time is understood in Dan, the days in 12:11 could represent a much longer period. Since the author didn't understand his own visions, and Jesus specifically disclaimed knowledge of when the end will come, I think it's a mistake to try and get a specific chronology for the future out of Dan, although the vision of a coming judgement is certainly valid, and is shared by all the prophets.

 

[juvenissun]

Are the messages of Isaiah or Jeremiah intended for you? In some general terms yes. But the specific judgements were for the people at the time. They are part of a broader story in the OT of the history of Israel, with God guiding and discipling the people.

As I understand it, the visions up to 11:39 describe contemporary events. While the apocalyptic viewpoint is very different from the classical prophets, it still basically interprets current events as being part of God's plan.

11:40 starts a description of the end, which obviously hasn't happened yet. A common critical view seems to be that the writer predicted a future that didn't happen. Another possibility is that he had a genuine vision of the end, but didn't realize quite how far in the future it was. At times I get the impression in reading visions of the end from the classical prophets that they are seeing something real but don't quite understand it. What would an ancient Hebrew make of a vision of a nuclear war? Indeed 12:8 makes it clear that the writer of Dan realized he didn't understand everything, and God refused to clarify. Given the flexibility with which time is understood in Dan, the days in 12:11 could represent a much longer period. Since the author didn't understand his own visions, and Jesus specifically disclaimed knowledge of when the end will come, I think it's a mistake to try and get a specific chronology for the future out of Dan, although the vision of a coming judgement is certainly valid, and is shared by all the prophets.

You got to the right point. One of the key is about the prophecy. If the time in the prophecy reaches to my time, then it is written for me. If all prophecies described in the Daniel have been fulfilled, then I wouldn't really care so much about this Book. The critical idea is that they have not all been fulfilled. I assume the High Criticism strongly deny this critical point of view.

And I do not agree that Old Testament Books are all written for the contemporary people to read. Let's see it from the very beginning, to whom was the Genesis 1 written for? What's said in Genesis 1 (as well as many other verses in other Books, such as the Job, Isaiah, etc.) does not make any sense to people lived before 19th Century. It still dose not make sense to people now who does not understand enough about science. Was the Genesis 1 written for them? Of course not. Genesis 1 describes the ultimate truth about God's creation and the content simply can not be imagined by any human being even at the present time. I am very sure that people in Higher Criticism know absolutely nothing about this. For them, to say that plants created before the sun is ignorant and is simply an obvious error.

 

[juvenissun]

In the first instance the book was written for an immediate audience.
Hendrick is not saying that it's not of use to us, but that we can best make use of it if we understand how it would have worked for that original audience.

How do you (they) know that?

 

[ebia]

How do you (they) know that?

Much the same way I know it's not written firstly for little green Martians who will land on the earth next Thursday.

 

[juvenissun]

To engage in a conversation about any one conclusion with someone who thinks the question is unaskable would be daft.

This is simply an excuse. Try it and see how embarrass you would be by my solid-to-the-ground refute.

 

[juvenissun]

Much the same way I know it's not written firstly for little green Martians who will land on the earth next Thursday.

What kind of argument is this? You are talking to a scientist, not a kid.

 

[ebia]

This is simply an excuse. Try it and see how embarrass you would be by my solid-to-the-ground refute.

It wouldn't achieve anything. What's of interest here isn't any one suggestion that comes from higher critisism, but whether we should be thinking about this stuff.

Demonstrating which of us non-experts has access to more "facts" over one particular question doesn't even approach that question.

 

[juvenissun]

Saying, for instance, that Daniel was written around 267BC isn't equivalent to saying Daniel is not valid or that Daniel is not inspired.

It might well challenge what sort of book you think Daniel is and how you use it, but that's quite a different matter.

Of course not. But what is the point to revise the date? Just to explain the accuracy of the descriptions? How convenient.

If you want to argue on that, then I would ask for the support on that late date. Is it coming from a radiometric dating? Or is it a personal interpretation?