Again, these are my words in context.All the experts agree that the canon was formed as a result of removing books from the bible, etc. Most tend to agree that the text doesn’t offer a lot of definitive answers either...
There’s actually no blind faith here. Everything he says actually corresponds with my Christian textbook.
My Christian textbook even stated amongst conservative Christian scholars there's no clear consensus amongst who wrote the Pentateuch
All we can do is offer our best guess or our own hypothesis for the most part. That's basically what all of our best scholars are doing.
People have a right to pick and choose what they want to believe in for the most part bc there aren’t that many well-established absolutes in Christianity, so I can see why someone would choose one route over another. For instance, at least with Islam it is well documented that their Prophet PBUH is real. He was a real live human being and that’s never been called into question. Christianity is a different story though. The debates over Jesus Christ whether he was a living person or did he live but if all of those miracles were just attributed it to him after death, etc will continue to rage on til the end of time. Based on the non-scriptural evidence I can now see why other people are on the fence about that. That’s the point I am making. The protestant church just decided to pick and choose what verses and books they wanted to keep in their Bibles and which ones they wanted to toss out so everybody has that freedom from my perspective.
If that doesn’t make logical sense then it seems to me you are choosing to consciously ignore the varying and conflicting perceptions on everything Bible – from experts, scholars, textbooks, preachers, pastors, etc.
If archeologists, experts and biblical scholars agree that the Bible is nothing more than a book of fragmented parts in which a lot of it can’t be validated beyond a few strong hypotheses...
There aren’t that many absolutes here. True and historical research proves this. ...The history of the origin of this translation was embellished with various fables at so early a period, that it has been a work of patient critical research in later times to bring into plain light the facts which may be regarded as well authenticated." Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851
... Some in rejecting the fabulous embellishments have also discarded all connected with them: they have then sought to devise new hypotheses as to the origin of the version.
An Historical Account of the Septuagint Version
Because Christian scholars have varying perceptions that often times conflict with each other. So I was asking to see what was the point you were making. I mean, there’s no one universal answer to a lot of these questions within our religion. It all depends on how you look at it.
I think I am trying to get across to you the exact same concept but you aren’t listening to a word I am saying or your eyes are just bad (very bad). By no means does this one scholar’s book or opinion diminish the truthfulness and expertise of the next biblical scholar who might disagree with some of his findings. I said it from the very beginning, ....Christian scholars have varying perceptions that often times conflict with each other.... I never said nothing was trustworthy. I just said based upon my research it all depends on the source/information you choose to trust on an individual basis. You are free to pick and choose whose opinion you value over another.By no means does the mere presence of contradictory books diminish the scholarship, or truthfulness of Habermas' book. And Dr. Habermas does not simply project an opinion but looks very closely at the historical record, both biblical and secular, to establish his view. [Like no other scholar does that! Give me a break.]
You must be a very short man bc everything I am saying continues to fly straight over your head. I am saying we all – whether scholars or laymen, whether Christian or secular, whether black or white, etc – are just offering an opinion on this philosophical issue (even Dr. Habermas) bc based on my personal research so many (too many, in fact) experts agree that a lot of the physical evidence is inconclusive. Again, you are free to do with my opinion what you wish. How can I stop you? Why would I care? At the moment, your rationality and your arguments have shaped up to be one of the weakest I’ve ever come across in a long time.What's the point in offering it? If its just your opinion, and just "one in a sea of many," why shouldn't we all do with your opinion what you seem to suggest ought to be done with Dr. Habermas' book and simply dismiss it? If you believe you have nothing more than an utterly subjective perspective to offer, why is it worth offering at all? We've all got our own opinions, so why ought we to consider yours? Do you begin to see the problem with consigning everything people say to the realm of simple opinion?
Absolute about what? Being ignorant? They are more absolute in their lack of understanding for sure. Such as: if we have constant dependence on Him and His leadings and not the scholastic arguments of our own brains (check quote in sig), He will continue to guide us. And you are doing nothing but preaching heresy bc my protestant KJV/NIV Bible says so. And none of the books of the Bible were edited whatsoever...even though the Catholic bible proves the exact opposite. Biblical scholars, on the other hand, are far more absolute in their understanding overall – period. Therefore, I would rather glean wisdom from them over anything or anyone else.No, you did far more than express your preference! You were criticizing those who were more absolute in their approach to things. The phrase, "sticking their heads in the sand" that you used implies willful ignorance and is plainly derogatory. You also declared that they were "out of touch with reality" and were "ignoring reality." This doesn't sound the least like you have an open-minded attitude toward such people. Not at all!
I am in seminary. I am learning all of these things from a conservative Christian college and a conservative Christian textbook which I posted images of in a previous thread. Biblical scholars don’t react irrationally or fly off at the handle anytime you go to speak. Wonder why? Maybe it is bc they actually put the time in to do the research first before they speak. And the bible says, "12Words from the mouth of a wise man are gracious, while the lips of a fool consume him; 13the beginning of his talking is folly and the end of it is wicked madness. (Ecclesiastes 10:12) I think scholars are the ones to be commended (after all, they are considered the authority figure in this field) and not the other way around. In the words of Shakespeare, “thou protest too much” and it reveals nothing more than inferior intellect, whereas there is an air of civility and mutual respect amongst biblical scholars. There's no accusatory inquisition or empty threats of expulsion simply bc one expresses a difference in opinion.
In fact, the canon of Scripture was not so much decided upon as it was simply formally acknowledged;
Which one is it? Was there a set of standards to determine which books belonged in the canon or was it purely discovered? These statements make no sense. They are contradictory. Regardless, all of google would disagree with the former. How was the canon formed (aka determined)?the biblical canon wasn't so much determined as it was discovered. There were also a set of standards to which each book was held in proving it to be worthy of being part of the canon.
Textual criticism (or "lower criticism" as it is sometimes called) examines the twenty-thousand plus extant ancient manuscripts of Scripture and from them pieces together with an extremely high degree of accuracy what the original text of the Scripture actually was. Higher criticism looks at the origins of the Bible, not necessarily the accuracy of the text of the Bible itself. Check out the following link for more info on biblical textual criticism:
I knew this is what you were saying but I may have worded it wrong and I didn’t feel like causing further confusion by going back and forth so I asked you to elaborate on it. This is stuff I will eventually get to in seminary but so many questions come to mind after reading that article. First, this entire discussion has been on the entire bible, not just the New Testament. Secondly, don’t you think there’s one huge misstep in the Aunt Sally example that this author didn’t take into account? Here is the critical question: Do you think Aunt Sally can accurately reconstruct her original recipe? Of course she could. The person who originally wrote the recipe is alive and cogent and can probably recall most of it from memory without needing to look at another copy. We don’t have that luxury when it comes to century-old manuscripts. Thirdly, I personally have never questioned the deity or existence of Jesus Christ during this discussion or in RL. Fourth, from what I googled, there are just as many skeptics of text reliability as with everything else I’ve mentioned earlier.
Lastly, how does this preclude personal interpretation on an individual/philosophical level? Short answer: it doesn’t. People will continue to pick and choose exactly what they want to believe. Again, that’s another point I’ve been making this entire time. Here’s Islam’s stance on NT Textual Criticism and you agreed that everyone has a right to their own opinion. That link states: Throughout the book Parker argues that texts changed (and perhaps were even penned originally by the evangelists in such a way as to deviate from the oral tradition) in order to accommodate new situations by church communities. Even the link you provided constantly reiterated the fact that there were well over hundreds of thousands of fragmented bits of text which were discovered over centuries of time which scholars used to piece the bible together, again, over centuries of time.
This article goes onto state : Textual reliability and number of manuscripts does not mean that the Bible is reliable historically. No one is arguing that textual reliability = historical reliability. But as noted at the beginning, one cannot suggest that the history recorded by a text is accurate unless the text itself is accurately recorded.
Food for thought, if this method is so reliable how come within the Christian community alone, we can’t even pin down Christ’s birthday? But many scholars believe that the reference to 25 December is a late correction of the date actually stated by the author (31). The author's date may be preserved in a single manuscript which curiously contradicts itself by giving two dates: both 25 December and 2 April (32). For two reasons, it is likely that 2 April is the original reading.
Long story short, since we are all thousands of years removed from the actual events themselves, no one can say for sure what actually did or did not take place. I’ve been saying that from the very beginning. All and all this was a good talk. However, after this post, I will be out of pocket for the next few days bc I have tests to study for and papers to write for school. Hope everyone enjoys their holiday. God bless.
Last edited:
Upvote
0