| Author | Message | ||
     Dan Davidson (Jeepindan) |
OK, just a coupla comments: (Marsha, I'm not entirely sure I'm disagreeing with you - just expanding on a few items. Well, the first item probably is a point of disagreement) 1. It would appear to be oxymoronic to say that the Biblical translations are flawed but the Scriptures are inerrant. Since all we have are translations (or transcriptions) it is not clear how Scripture could be inerrant. Now if one were to say that Scripture was inerrant at the time it was first written, I'd admit the possible truth of the statement (but I suspect I'd have doubts). 2. How "we" view the Holy Bible is not and was not monolithic. This tends to make it difficult to make the broad generalizations. But it is interesting to note that the Septuagint was selected at the behest of a non-Christian. 3. I suspect the reason some believe that the present canon is definitive and worthy is because the RCC has said so. Yeah, there are justifications available for the choices made, but there is room for doubt if one rejects the authority of the RCC. D2 | ||
| Marsha A. Adams (Dragonlady) |
D2: Luther threw out the Books that proved doctrines he didn't like. He really wanted to pitch five of the NT books too, but his followers convinced him that the people would never stand for it. If one rejects the authority of the Church and as a result the current canon what would you like to add? EGWs etchings perhaps, or Joe Smith and Mary B. Eddy's jottings? What would you like to subtract? Marsha | ||
| Joe Allen (John8verse32) |
""The Church has alway taught the inerrancy of Scripture."" and I was taught that drinking tea was bad for me!!!!!!!! Let's put "innerrancy" to the textual test: 2 Chronicles 21:20 Jehoram was thirty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem 8 years..... 2 Chronicles 22 1 And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead; for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. 2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem... let's see: the father was king, and died at age forty, and when his youngest son assumned the throne, the son was 42 yrs old.....and there were older brothers too!!!! all older than the father!!! Is this another miracle? the sons are older than the father? or is this another "translation error"? correctible in newer translations (which has been done in many versions by having the son only 22 yrs old at being named king) here's another "anomoly": 2 Kings 16 2 Ahaz was twenty years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. Unlike David his father, he did not do what was right in the eyes of the Lord his God. 3 He walked in the ways of the kings of Israel and even sacrificed his son in the fire ....Ahaz rested with his fathers and was buried with them in the City of David. And Hezekiah his son succeeded him as king. 2 Kings 18 Hezekiah King of Judah 1 In the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, Hezekiah son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. 2 He was twenty-five years old when he became king so the father became king at 20, and lived l6 more years, for a total of 36 yrs. The son he didn't KILL by firey sacrifice, was 25 when his father died and left him king. So the father was only l0-11 yrs old when he fathered this son. Maybe to call this "errant" is stretching the point, but the issue stretches all credulity!!!!! | ||
| Joe Allen (John8verse32) |
translation is a whole new problem, which compounds the problem of the meaning of some of the ancient texts!!!! if the Bible actually IS inerrant, then this small passage shows how difficult it is to base one's "salvation" on a single idea, text, or interpretation, including, btw, the 1260 day thing which some appear ready to kill over. how would you translate this into modern English, and then tell this to your kids without horrifying them? Ezekiel 20:24 "".. they had not obeyed my laws but had rejected my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths, and their eyes lusted after their fathers' idols. 25: I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; 26: I let them become defiled through their gifts-the sacrifice of every firstborn -that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD ."" maybe like this? "the Jews didn't obey my laws!!!! they rejected my decrees and didn't keep my Sabbaths!!! all they wanted was their old family idols back!!!! (so to get even with them, because "I the Lord thy God, am a jealous God"...unforgiving unto the n th generation...) I gave them even more commandments, many of which were not good commandments!!! and even some laws they couldn't hope to live by!!!! I let them (....) (defile?) themselves too!! they thought they were giving me "gifts" when they killed their firstborn kids to appease me!!!! But I filled them with HORROR, just to show them who I am!!!" personally,,, I'd like to believe that these texts ARE in error, and the "loving god of my fathers" is not like what the Bible actually says!!!!! | ||
| Dan Davidson (Jeepindan) |
Marsha: I didn't say I either wanted to throw out portions of the canon or to add to it. But that doesn't mean that I accept it as authoritative. And it certainly doesn't mean that I accept it as authoritative because the RCC has adopted it. I think that the canon is "useful for instruction" as are texts outside the canon. I don't accept inerrancy for items within the canon or without. HTH, D2 | ||
| Arthur D. Klym (Artklym) |
The Bible is full of problems. But, it is the foundation of the myth by which Christians order their lives. Once you start chipping away at the book and begin to recognize its problems, the core story is at risk. Personally, I see no reason to favor the "holy" writings of Jews or Christians over any other "holy" writings. In fact, the little bit I have read of some other "holy" writings leads me to suspect that there is nothing superior at all about the Jewish and Christian scripture. | ||
| John G. Mauro (Jackson) |
Light and darkness, truth and error, are before us. We are free to choose. God will never remove all excuse for unbelief. Those who look for hooks to hang their doubts upon, will find them close at hand. It is far easier to suggest doubts than to inspire faith. Because the natural heart is at enmity with God, a greater effort is required to believe than to doubt the word of the Most High. And Satan himself opposes everything that would strengthen faith. There is one course which all must pursue who honestly desire to be freed from doubts. They are cherishing some indulgence forbidden by the word of God, or neglecting some duty enjoined therein. Let those who complain that they walk in darkness, give heed to the light which already shines upon them, and they will receive greater light. Let them do every duty which has been made plain to their understanding, and they will be enabled to understand and perform those of which they are now in doubt. "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine." ST 6/8/1882 Jackson | ||
| Arthur D. Klym (Artklym) |
Be thou brainwashed. | ||
| Dan Davidson (Jeepindan) |
Precisely. D2 | ||
| Joe Allen (John8verse32) |
"It is far easier to suggest doubts than to inspire faith" I've always wondered why that is. The more I study, the more I realize why. | ||
| Wayne E. Willey (Pwwilley) |
Marsha Adams wrote, "Luther threw out the Books that proved doctrines he didn't like. He really wanted to pitch five of the NT books too, but his followers convinced him that the people would never stand for it." Where do people come up with such unfounded charges? Is Marsha objecting that Luther did not accept the books of the Old Testament Apocrypha as Scripture? The Jews do not accept these books as Scripture because they contain so many contradictions - they contradict the writings of Moses, the prophets and the psalms which are recognized as Scripture by the Jews. What five books of the NT did Luther want to "pitch"? I have read the majority of Luther's works which are available in English. Luther never rejected any of the books which had been recognized as part of the NT canon for more than 1,200 years. Luther's German translation contained all the books of the New Testament. Luther did his translation during his isolation at the Wartburg. Luther's translation was not a committee project. These charges sound like the anti-Luther propaganda that the Roman Church spewed out for almost 1,500 years. The scholars of the Roman Church have developed a more favorable opinion of Luther in the past few years. Now Luther did not consider all the books of the NT as being of equal value. Luther called the book of James "an epistle of straw" because he saw so little gospel in that book. Luther did not consider the book of Revelation as useful as the writings of Paul. Luther had problems with the shadowy symbols of Revelation. Luther said he preferred those books which reveal Christ more clearly. There is a vast difference between saying a book is of lesser value and wanting to "pitch" that book from the NT. | ||
| Wayne E. Willey (Pwwilley) |
Oops! My previous post should have read "500 years" rather than "1,500 years". | ||
| Marsha A. Adams (Dragonlady) |
Wayne: I would seriously question whether recent scholars who "have developed a more favorable opinion of Luther in the past few years" are genuinely Catholic. Many claim to be Catholic and are actually far from it. Marsha |
