Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And is there any disagreement between these scholars?
If you can start that metaphor, it would be a good plan to clear your yard.If I get in and it starts it right up, I can drive it away.
You do know that citing a work you've pasted in is more than giving the title, right? The author of the adapted work needs to be mentioned, and frankly the phrasing of this makes it seem like what you copied in was someone else's adaptation that you also did [not] cite.
[Plus, this is just theology/apologetics and is WAY off topic. I know things veered a bit astray, but, seriously big block quotes of entirely off topic material.]
[Edit to add "not". Why do I keep reversing part of a sentence by leaving out or adding a negative.]
Do you see that same level of disagreement among other scholars?Oh sure. I've found a lot of disagreement among them. I mean, it's not like all bible scholars are fundamentalists or even necessarily Christian.
But I tend to read or listen to them regardless of their views on Christianity.
And so you'd think that the sensible thing to do would be to find sources from outside the text in question and see if they can corroborate the claims made in the text, right?Of course, just as there would be in a scholarly evaluation of any ancient text.
Of course, That is a routine part of such scholarshipAnd so you'd think that the sensible thing to do would be to find sources from outside the text in question and see if they can corroborate the claims made in the text, right?
Absolutely. The problem is that you are interacting with two different viewpoints in this discussion. On the one hand you have Traditional and Mainline Christians who are willing to at least listen to scholars who approach the texts with little or no theological bias. On the other hand you have Christians for whom such an approach to the Bible is forbidden. In fact a dispassionate approach to the Bible as a collection of ancient texts began in the 19th century as so-called "higher criticism" and the doctrine of literal inerrancy as we are exposed to it in this forum was developed to counter it, and only secondarily turned against science.If the text claims so-and-so was the king, then see if you can find other sources, court records, decrees he wrote, coins minted with his face on them.
And so you'd think that the sensible thing to do would be to find sources from outside the text in question and see if they can corroborate the claims made in the text, right?
On the one hand you have Traditional and Mainline Christians who are willing to at least listen to scholars who approach the texts with little or no theological bias. On the other hand you have Christians for whom such an approach to the Bible is forbidden.
It would matter to anyone who is interested in the provenence of the texts.And do what with them?
For example, do the following extra-Biblical sources convince you that King David lived?
According to AI Overview:
- the Tel Dan stele
- the Mesha stele
So I ask you again, what would it matter?
- The Tel Dan stele is considered the first historical evidence of King David
- However, some say that the archaeological evidence for King David's existence is limited and controversial
- Some scholars have dismissed the historic reliability of the Biblical text surrounding King David
It's not a matter of corroboration of any particular position with regard to the texts. Indeed, if the Bible is truly the word of God it deserves the best scholarship we can bring to bear on it, from all fields--history, archaeology, natural science, literary analysis and so on.For every "corroboration," academia can find a disputation.
Big ... academic ... deal.
So much for your "sensible thing to do."
Indeed, if the Bible is truly the word of God it deserves the best scholarship we can bring to bear on it, from all fields--history, archaeology, natural science, literary analysis and so on.
Of course it does. It's a difficult business as it is with the analysis of any ancient texts.Let's not just blame Christians for disagreeing.
Academia does its share in making positive statements, followed by negative ones.
(see my post above)
What author is that? They are unidentified in your post.I guess even the author has to add his name as well, even though didn't want to be too wordy after copy, paste and modify as few words in a passage.
Of course it does. It's a difficult business as it is with the analysis of any ancient texts.
Plato? I don't know about that. I'm a Nominalist, myself. From my point of view one of the worst mistakes early Christian theologians made was to get mixed up with Greek philosophy. But if I wanted to blame a particular Christian for literal inerrancy, it would be John Darby.Then why did you blame that on Christians?
I do realize all Christians don't share a literal interpretation of the Bible.
But I blame academia for that (mainly, Plato).
Plato sowed the seeds, Satan watered them, and science gives the increase.
Plato? I don't know about that. I'm a Nominalist, myself. From my point of view one of the worst mistakes early Christian theologians made was to get mixed up with Greek philosophy. But if I wanted to blame a particular Christian for literal inerrancy, it would be John Darby.
And do we have such sources when it comes to the Gospels?Of course, That is a routine part of such scholarship
And do we have such sources when it comes to the Gospels?Absolutely.
Then I'd be happy to accept that King David was a real person.And do what with them?
For example, do the following extra-Biblical sources convince you that King David lived?
According to AI Overview:
- the Tel Dan stele
- the Mesha stele
So I ask you again, what would it matter?
- The Tel Dan stele is considered the first historical evidence of King David
- However, some say that the archaeological evidence for King David's existence is limited and controversial
- Some scholars have dismissed the historic reliability of the Biblical text surrounding King David
For every "corroboration," academia can find a disputation.
Big ... academic ... deal.
So much for your "sensible thing to do."
So in other words, it's just us motivating ourselves by thinking positive.
Don't need a God for that.
But I am an atheist. I have zero faith in God.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?