The Veracity of Scripture

praise_yeshua

Active member
Over the years I've found that the many "proofs" found in the Scriptures are not found in similarities but rather in contrasts.

I'd like to share one from the Scriptures that will survive any sense of external scrutiny.

Love. Everyone desires to be loved. I do. You do. Most of the time, I believe the average individual will find "someone" to love them and to love in this life. The picture or narrative painted with the extant texts of the NT present an undeniably truth that is wrapped in a seemingly contradictory/competing verses.

Example......
Mat 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Luk 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

A person that isn't seeking God, sees these competing narratives and "finds/concludes" that this is proof that the NT isn't from any "God" but rather mistake prone men.

They do this because such a view only comes from a superficial search and understanding of the issue.

There are also natural proofs involved in this. There is a natural complicated relation between love and hate. In our lives, man proves over and over again that he.... himself... naturally loves and hates. Often in the same person/peoples during his own life based upon their relationship.

These seemingly competing verses are actually complementary to one another. In fact, it is unmistakable that God is the only "person" who could have superintended their existence into humanity. His "Word" provides proof and understanding.

There is one verse that ties them together........ A person seeking God... finds this...... while the person looking to discredit the Scriptures...... overlooks it because they didn't believe it to start with. Knowledge is a journey. True knowledge is a journey of faith. A journey extending belief in what you're seeking without all the information needed to "prove" such is true. In "other words", faithful people receive the answers to their questions that the mocker never even considered.

Proof?

Luk 16:13 No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

See? Can you "see" this?

People like Bart Ehrman can't "see" such things. All he "wants to see" is the seemingly contradictory verses. It takes a little faith, a little searching, a little seeking to really get to the "bottom" of the situation.......

You know why God does things like this? It is because he wants man to seek him. Seeking God is a sign that you really care to know something..... to know Him.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Over the years I've found that the many "proofs" found in the Scriptures are not found in similarities but rather in contrasts.

I'd like to share one from the Scriptures that will survive any sense of external scrutiny.

Love. Everyone desires to be loved. I do. You do. Most of the time, I believe the average individual will find "someone" to love them and to love in this life. The picture or narrative painted with the extant texts of the NT present an undeniably truth that is wrapped in a seemingly contradictory/competing verses.

Example......
Mat 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Luk 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

A person that isn't seeking God, sees these competing narratives and "finds/concludes" that this is proof that the NT isn't from any "God" but rather mistake prone men.

They do this because such a view only comes from a superficial search and understanding of the issue.

There are also natural proofs involved in this. There is a natural complicated relation between love and hate. In our lives, man proves over and over again that he.... himself... naturally loves and hates. Often in the same person/peoples during his own life based upon their relationship.

These seemingly competing verses are actually complementary to one another. In fact, it is unmistakable that God is the only "person" who could have superintended their existence into humanity. His "Word" provides proof and understanding.

There is one verse that ties them together........ A person seeking God... finds this...... while the person looking to discredit the Scriptures...... overlooks it because they didn't believe it to start with. Knowledge is a journey. True knowledge is a journey of faith. A journey extending belief in what you're seeking without all the information needed to "prove" such is true. In "other words", faithful people receive the answers to their questions that the mocker never even considered.

Proof?

Luk 16:13 No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

See? Can you "see" this?

People like Bart Ehrman can't "see" such things. All he "wants to see" is the seemingly contradictory verses. It takes a little faith, a little searching, a little seeking to really get to the "bottom" of the situation.......

You know why God does things like this? It is because he wants man to seek him. Seeking God is a sign that you really care to know something..... to know Him.
I'll get back to the LXX thread this weekend. In the meantime, what exactly do you mean by 'veracity' in relation to the biblical texts? Are you suggesting something like inerrancy? Something else?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

praise_yeshua

Active member
I'll get back to the LXX thread this weekend. In the meantime, what exactly do you mean by 'veracity' in relation to the biblical texts? Are you suggesting something like inerrancy? Something else?

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Veracity.....The "truthfulness/trustworthiness" of Scripture.

"Inerrancy" is nothing more than a philosophical argument that arises from the debates that exists between good and evil. Evil men desire to cast doubt upon the simplest of deviations that are found in the extant witnesses to the truthfulness of Scripture. I will state unequivocally that there many errors found in the totalitility of ANY canonical text. In such an discussion, inerrancy is often used by evil men to cast doubt that the very "Words of God" can be found to be truthful and trustworthy within the Scriptures. Yes. They are MIXED with error. Some simple. Some complex. Those errors are introduced by men. Sometimes, well meaning men. Sometimes by the enemies of God. They DO reflex upon the Character/Persona of God. They are a reflection of sinful men.

This life is full of challenges in "weeding" the chaff from the wheat. Challenges God has introduce to SEPARATE those that seek to know Him from those who would seek to malign Him. Evil men see error. I see purpose.

I ask that you do not attempt to draw attention away from the example I gave. Textual critics, such as yourself, have often used Luke Matthew 10:37 and Luke 14:26 as examples of the untrustworthy nature of the NT. I gave an explanation as to why this is not true. A clear explanation. A explanation that thoroughly debunks that "notion".
 

praise_yeshua

Active member
Veracity.....The "truthfulness/trustworthiness" of Scripture.

"Inerrancy" is nothing more than a philosophical argument that arises from the debates that exists between good and evil. Evil men desire to cast doubt upon the simplest of deviations that are found in the extant witnesses to the truthfulness of Scripture. I will state unequivocally that there many errors found in the totalitility of ANY canonical text. In such an discussion, inerrancy is often used by evil men to cast doubt that the very "Words of God" can be found to be truthful and trustworthy within the Scriptures. Yes. They are MIXED with error. Some simple. Some complex. Those errors are introduced by men. Sometimes, well meaning men. Sometimes by the enemies of God. They DO reflex upon the Character/Persona of God. They are a reflection of sinful men.

This life is full of challenges in "weeding" the chaff from the wheat. Challenges God has introduce to SEPARATE those that seek to know Him from those who would seek to malign Him. Evil men see error. I see purpose.

I ask that you do not attempt to draw attention away from the example I gave. Textual critics, such as yourself, have often used Luke Matthew 10:37 and Luke 14:26 as examples of the untrustworthy nature of the NT. I gave an explanation as to why this is not true. A clear explanation. A explanation that thoroughly debunks that "notion".

I'd like to rephrase above. I can't edit it now.

I meant to say

They DO NOT reflex upon the Character/Persona of God. They are a reflection of sinful men.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Veracity.....The "truthfulness/trustworthiness" of Scripture.

"Inerrancy" is nothing more than a philosophical argument that arises from the debates that exists between good and evil. Evil men desire to cast doubt upon the simplest of deviations that are found in the extant witnesses to the truthfulness of Scripture. I will state unequivocally that there many errors found in the totalitility of ANY canonical text. In such an discussion, inerrancy is often used by evil men to cast doubt that the very "Words of God" can be found to be truthful and trustworthy within the Scriptures. Yes. They are MIXED with error. Some simple. Some complex. Those errors are introduced by men. Sometimes, well meaning men. Sometimes by the enemies of God. They DO reflex upon the Character/Persona of God. They are a reflection of sinful men.

This life is full of challenges in "weeding" the chaff from the wheat. Challenges God has introduce to SEPARATE those that seek to know Him from those who would seek to malign Him. Evil men see error. I see purpose.

I ask that you do not attempt to draw attention away from the example I gave. Textual critics, such as yourself, have often used Luke Matthew 10:37 and Luke 14:26 as examples of the untrustworthy nature of the NT. I gave an explanation as to why this is not true. A clear explanation. A explanation that thoroughly debunks that "notion".
Your response reflects the same all or nothing, black or white thinking that permeates your responses over in the LXX thread... here people are either good or evil, either seeking to know the divine or out to malign. The reality is that most exegetes fall somewhere between these two poles... some read devotionally for selfish reasons while others approach the text without a lens of faith interested only in correctly interpreting them --- the latter could very well come away from the texts with a better understanding than the former.

Comparing and contrasting texts from two different gospels is not a matter of textual criticism... that task has already been finished by that point.

I have little interest in your example. My interjection was to clarify what you meant by veracity and whether or not that was connected to some doctrine of inerrancy. You offer no firm criteria whereby the exegete can confidently discern errors from truth and your claim that errors have been introduced by humans is vague... was this during the transmission of the text or at the point they were written by humans ostensibly under divine inspiration?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

praise_yeshua

Active member
Your response reflects the same all or nothing, black or white thinking that permeates your responses over in the LXX thread... here people are either good or evil, either seeking to know the divine or out to malign. The reality is that most exegetes fall somewhere between these two poles... some read devotionally for selfish reasons while others approach the text without a lens of faith interested only in correctly interpreting them --- the latter could very well come away from the texts with a better understanding than the former.

When someone responds to me in a theological discussion, my mind begins to search the Scriptures. What you wrote above reminded me of

Mat 12:33 “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit.
Mat 12:34 You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
Mat 12:35 The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.
Mat 12:36 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,
Mat 12:37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

You're appeal to "somewhere in the middle" isn't based in reality. Motives and intentions fall into two categories as witnessed by the Words of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Evil men can't speak "good things". While they may reference good things, they're never is the intent or motive for them to use such "for good". While you're living in a fantasy world where there are few lines between good and evil, that isn't the case in realty that God has built.

Comparing and contrasting texts from two different gospels is not a matter of textual criticism... that task has already been finished by that point.

Then why have men like Bart Ehrman and yourself always appealed to the contrasts that exist between the "Synoptic Gospels" to prove the NT isn't from God? Your claims are bogus based upon your own actions.

I have little interest in your example. My interjection was to clarify what you meant by veracity and whether or not that was connected to some doctrine of inerrancy. You offer no firm criteria whereby the exegete can confidently discern errors from truth and your claim that errors have been introduced by humans is vague... was this during the transmission of the text or at the point they were written by humans ostensibly under divine inspiration?

Kind regards,
Jonathan

I was clear. There are errors in all extant manuscripts. As such, I deal with what is. I take the same approach you must take.

I explicitly stated that men introduced errors in the extant witnesses. Not God. There is nothing vague about my response. You have no argument against such because there is no argument against such. It is the Truth and Truth always wins over evil.

Your position is very similar to the KJVOist. When they find errors, they ignore them because they can not grasp the idea that God can use man's own failures to accomplish His own purpose. Many of them do this for what they see as a "good purpose". On the contrary, you see error and blame God or at the very least.......discount God.

I often wondered that if God "knelt" in the ashes of the destruction of this world..... a time called "the/our beginning".... and from the ashes of destruction began to mold Adam. From dirt/dust/ash God took what remained of judgement and began a propose to forever defeat evil.

What a Glorious work God has wrought that evil just can't comprehend.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
While you're living in a fantasy world...
I'm not the one living in a fantasy world where everything is so black and white as you make it out to be.

Then why have men like Bart Ehrman and yourself always appealed to the contrasts that exist between the "Synoptic Gospels" to prove the NT isn't from God? Your claims are bogus based upon your own actions.
You missed the point I was making. You referred to "textual criticism" in a context that has nothing to do with this method... in other words, you misused the term, which reflects a general confusion in your position. Textual criticism establishes what the individual texts say, only after which comparative work can take place. Perhaps you could point to what "bogus claims" you think I've made in the context of comparing/contrasting biblical texts... do you have any evidence to support this wild allegation?

I explicitly stated that men introduced errors in the extant witnesses. Not God. There is nothing vague about my response.
Your references to extant witnesses and introduction of error were separated by several sentences. You've clarified your position... unfortunately this all rests on the assumption that the so-called original texts were free from error, which isn't something you can prove given the fact they have been lost to history. At the same time, this idea of corrupt extant witnesses is something that aligns your position with that of inerrantists even though you attempted to distance yourself from their "philosophy".

You have no argument against such because there is no argument against such.
Of course I'm not going to argue against the fact there are errors in our extant manuscripts... what I will argue against is the idea that these owe entirely to the work of scribes during the transmission of these texts. Once we've established the earliest-recoverable texts and begin comparative work, it would be special pleading on your part to appeal to scribal interference for every remaining error of assertion or contradiction --- and there are plenty of them.

Your position is very similar to the KJVOist.
You are the only poster who would ever confuse my approach with that of KJV Onlyists... yours on the other hand, at least as it relates to your position on LXX, is quite similar, which was pointed out to you not only by me but by another poster, as well. Your position on errors permeating the extant manuscript evidence is obviously very unlike their position, which assumes the preservation of a pristine version of holy writ somewhere in that tradition stream.

you see error and blame God or at the very least.......discount God.
Insofar as my image of what the divine should be precludes him making errors, the existence of errors and irresolvable conflicts in the earliest-recoverable forms of the biblical texts suggests to me that this literature was the work of flawed humans. This is a sound conclusion based on the available evidence... how one then factors this into their theological framework is up to them --- your particular model offers the exegete no firm criteria to confidently discern error from truth and you have thus far not addressed this criticism of your position.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

praise_yeshua

Active member
I'm not the one living in a fantasy world where everything is so black and white as you make it out to be.

I never said anything about "black and white". I said evil and good. It is interesting how you associate evil and good with a particular color.

You missed the point I was making. You referred to "textual criticism" in a context that has nothing to do with this method... in other words, you misused the term, which reflects a general confusion in your position. Textual criticism establishes what the individual texts say, only after which comparative work can take place. Perhaps you could point to what "bogus claims" you think I've made in the context of comparing/contrasting biblical texts... do you have any evidence to support this wild allegation?

Textual criticism uses many varying criteria to establish the validity of any extant text. You know it does. Men you extol have written many books drawing contrasts between texts to discredit the Scriptures. I haven't made a mistake. However, if you insist, I will rephrase to include "higher criticism". There often isn't really any difference between the two. Nothing more than an academic objection made when you have nothing else to say.

Your references to extant witnesses and introduction of error were separated by several sentences. You've clarified your position... unfortunately this all rests on the assumption that the so-called original texts were free from error, which isn't something you can prove given the fact they have been lost to history. At the same time, this idea of corrupt extant witnesses is something that aligns your position with that of inerrantists even though you attempted to distance yourself from their "philosophy".

Your response proves my point. This isn't my "first rodeo". When people like yourself find themselves facing a real challenge, you always resort to drawing inconsequential and meaningless lines to discredit your opponent. Your characterization of my position is bogus. I have clearly stated my position. I do not "fit in" your square little pegs. I'm not going to fall into your ungodly hypothesis. I do not believe that God superintended a text free from error throughout their existence upon this earth. However, God's Word are alive. They speak to me personally. When I read them, they put a "fire" in my soul. When you read them, they are nothing more than the words of careless men. You will never understand this position if you're a mocker of God's Word. I seek to separate God's Word from the hands of sinful men.

Of course I'm not going to argue against the fact there are errors in our extant manuscripts... what I will argue against is the idea that these owe entirely to the work of scribes during the transmission of these texts. Once we've established the earliest-recoverable texts and begin comparative work, it would be special pleading on your part to appeal to scribal interference for every remaining error of assertion or contradiction --- and there are plenty of them.

Geesh. Did a "fairy" write these words? Whomever added or subtracted from "God's Word" is to blame. God isn't to blame. You simply reject God for the actions of "fairies".

You are the only poster who would ever confuse my approach with that of KJV Onlyists... yours on the other hand, at least as it relates to your position on LXX, is quite similar, which was pointed out to you not only by me but by another poster, as well. Your position on errors permeating the extant manuscript evidence is obviously very unlike their position, which assumes the preservation of a pristine version of holy writ somewhere in that tradition stream.

The similarity is there. You've used the same argument against me. KJVOists don't like me at all.

Insofar as my image of what the divine should be precludes him making errors, the existence of errors and irresolvable conflicts in the earliest-recoverable forms of the biblical texts suggests to me that this literature was the work of flawed humans. This is a sound conclusion based on the available evidence... how one then factors this into their theological framework is up to them --- your particular model offers the exegete no firm criteria to confidently discern error from truth and you have thus far not addressed this criticism of your position.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

I use the same approach you use. However, I also add multiple layers of inspection to what remains. I don't believe there is anyone that has ever "waded" into canonicity and textual/higher criticism that didn't become disillusioned with what they found. I did myself. I faced a challenge to my faith. A challenge I pray you're still battling yourself......

The "hand of God" brought me through that period in my life. As I've said, The "Word of God" is alive. It "speaks" to me.

I took what remained and began to seek God for answers. Answers given to faithful men. I've shared some of them with you. You're obviously rejecting them. I know I know.... You're next argument is one of "personal revelation"..... and I'm not claiming such at all. What I've found is available to anyone. I've spent years and years refining my theology. Finding where things "connect" to create the beautiful "painting" that God has wrought in this life. There are just SO MANY logical and philosophical "proofs" that exist in this life that give overwhelming weight to "God's Word" found recorded in the Scriptures. You will never search for them because you DON'T BELIEVE. I expressed faith in what remained and God has feed me over and over again with them. I could go on and on and on about them but if you can't see what I wrote in the OP, then I'm not sure if it will matter to you or not.

God hasn't left Himself without witness. That "witness" is more than just these extant Scriptures your mock. It includes nature, logic, philosophy and faithful people that witness to His majestic work.

When you read the references I gave in the OP they mean nothing to you. That scares me. I don't want to see you make that mistake. If you've ever known God, its impossible for you to get away from Him. He will possess you. You will find your discontentment in this life is centered around avoiding Him. There is a "hole" in every man that only God can fill.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
I never said anything about "black and white". I said evil and good. It is interesting how you associate evil and good with a particular color.
No color and all colors... all or nothing as I also phrased it previously --- and the criticism of your worldview stands.

Textual criticism uses many varying criteria to establish the validity of any extant text. You know it does. Men you extol have written many books drawing contrasts between texts to discredit the Scriptures. I haven't made a mistake. However, if you insist, I will rephrase to include "higher criticism". There often isn't really any difference between the two. Nothing more than an academic objection made when you have nothing else to say.
You throw terms around, but unfortunately you don't really know what they mean... blurring the distinction between textual criticism and higher criticism, for example. Textual criticism is sometimes called lower criticism precisely to differentiate it from higher criticism:

Lower Criticism is an unhappy term, now of infrequent parlance, characterizing TEXTUAL CRITICISM in contrast to so-called HIGHER CRITICISM, i.e., all other forms of biblical criticism. The term has fallen into disuse because of its pejorative sound coupled with the increasing acknowledgement that textual criticism is both important and complex.
Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism (Fourth Edition; WJK Press, 2011), p. 121

The terms 'higher' and 'lower criticism' are now archaic in the world of biblical scholarship. These are not just 'academic' issues... your misuse and confusion of such terms exposes fundamental flaws in your approach to the biblical texts --- at least as it concerns critical methods --- and in your misguided criticisms of my position and of contemporary biblical scholars generally.

Your response proves my point. This isn't my "first rodeo". When people like yourself find themselves facing a real challenge, you always resort to drawing inconsequential and meaningless lines to discredit your opponent. Your characterization of my position is bogus. I have clearly stated my position. I do not "fit in" your square little pegs. I'm not going to fall into your ungodly hypothesis. I do not believe that God superintended a text free from error throughout their existence upon this earth. However, God's Word are alive. They speak to me personally. When I read them, they put a "fire" in my soul.
This latter claim is as meaningless to me as a Latter-day Saint's stirring testimony that the Book of Mormon is true. And where exactly have I mischaracterized your position? I've primarily asked clarifying questions and my present understanding of your position is that the biblical texts, as originally written, were pure divine words, but they are now a mixture of that and human words because of corruptions made during the process of transmission --- this has been providentially allowed so that those people who diligently study them will find the truth therein. Is that not a fair summary of your position?

I seek to separate God's Word from the hands of sinful men.
You've yet to offer any solid criteria for doing so...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

praise_yeshua

Active member
You throw terms around, but unfortunately you don't really know what they mean... blurring the distinction between textual criticism and higher criticism, for example. Textual criticism is sometimes called lower criticism precisely to differentiate it from higher criticism:

and.... you're a willing participant in the ruse inherent with such nonsense. When you have conversation along these lines, it always devolves into meaningless nonsense such as you read above. Arguments over "lower criticism".... textual criticism.... and blah blah blah.

They are all connected. When you question the Veracity of Scripture, you're participating in every means used to establish an educated opinion. I haven't questioned your understand of the means whereby you've established your opinion.

Lower Criticism is an unhappy term, now of infrequent parlance, characterizing TEXTUAL CRITICISM in contrast to so-called HIGHER CRITICISM, i.e., all other forms of biblical criticism. The term has fallen into disuse because of its pejorative sound coupled with the increasing acknowledgement that textual criticism is both important and complex.
Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism (Fourth Edition; WJK Press, 2011), p. 121

Obviously written by someone who loves to "hear themselves speak"..... Full of "fluff" and "self serving rhetoric".

The terms 'higher' and 'lower criticism' are now archaic in the world of biblical scholarship. These are not just 'academic' issues... your misuse and confusion of such terms exposes fundamental flaws in your approach to the biblical texts --- at least as it concerns critical methods --- and in your misguided criticisms of my position and of contemporary biblical scholars generally.

Ah. The old "redrawing the lines"...... nonsense. You can't work within the well established framework that have existed for hundreds, if not thousands of years, so you "draw new lines" and claim superiority. I get it. It makes you "feel better" when you can't compete. "By all means".... certainly feel better about yourself at the expense of any others.

This latter claim is as meaningless to me as a Latter-day Saint's stirring testimony that the Book of Mormon is true. And where exactly have I mischaracterized your position? I've primarily asked clarifying questions and my present understanding of your position is that the biblical texts, as originally written, were pure divine words, but they are now a mixture of that and human words because of corruptions made during the process of transmission --- this has been providentially allowed so that those people who diligently study them will find the truth therein. Is that not a fair summary of your position?

You said I held a position that is relative to inerrancy. I don't. The argument isn't worth considering. I deal with what is. Not some ideal that has no basis in fact. I can't argue from a inerrant view because there is literally no evidence for it. Are you really so lost in this that you can't see your mistake?

The Book of Mormon wasn't nothing more the fabricate of a man to justify his own desire to "have" as many women as he possibly could. At least Solomon didn't fabricate a book to accomplish it his goal. I'm nothing like them.

Is there anything that "speaks to you"... in of itself?????

Do you LOVE anyone? Explain that to me within the context of reason, philosophy and scientific evidence......

When I say the Scriptures "speak to me". I mean just that. When you get it "right"..... there is a calming, peaceful comfort that overwhelms my senses. Have you never experienced such in your life?
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Obviously written by someone who loves to "hear themselves speak"..... Full of "fluff" and "self serving rhetoric".
Per usual, you attack the scholars rather than deal with their assertions... which, incidentally, are nothing more than a correct summary of the difference between so-called 'lower' (ie. textual) and 'higher criticism' and the disuse of these terms within contemporary biblical scholarship.

Ah. The old "redrawing the lines"...... nonsense. You can't work within the well established framework that have existed for hundreds, if not thousands of years, so you "draw new lines" and claim superiority.
Firstly, critical biblical scholarship has only been around for a couple hundred years. Secondly, I'm not redrawing any lines, I'm straightening them out because you made a mess of them by invoking a dated term (higher criticism) and misusing it by blurring the distinction between it and textual criticism. Like I said before, you don't really know what you're talking about in this area, which reflects problems in your overall approach.

You said I held a position that is relative to inerrancy. I don't. The argument isn't worth considering. I deal with what is. Not some ideal that has no basis in fact. I can't argue from a inerrant view because there is literally no evidence for it. Are you really so lost in this that you can't see your mistake?
I made no mistake and you seem to have no better understanding of inerrancy as it is typically articulated within the evangelical community than you have an understanding of methods within critical biblical scholarship. You think the putative original texts of the Bible were the pure words of God... that's what inerrantists believe. You think these texts have been corrupted through the process of their transmission... that's what inerrantists believe. You can sit there and distance yourself from inerrancy all you want, but your position fits well under its umbrella...

The Book of Mormon wasn't nothing more the fabricate of a man to justify his own desire to "have" as many women as he possibly could. At least Solomon didn't fabricate a book to accomplish it his goal. I'm nothing like them.
You are exactly like Latter-day Saints in their reliance on feelings to ascertain the veracity of your collection of sacred texts. Your claims are no more convincing than theirs are. I have asked repeatedly for you to lay out your criteria for sifting the truth from error in the extant biblical texts and you repeatedly avoid doing so. There is an obvious reason for that... you have little to nothing besides your feelings on the matter, which are of no value to anyone but yourself and this cannot even begin to approach an objective standard for others to use for the purposes of evaluation.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

praise_yeshua

Active member
Per usual, you attack the scholars rather than deal with their assertions... which, incidentally, are nothing more than a correct summary of the difference between so-called 'lower' (ie. textual) and 'higher criticism' and the disuse of these terms within contemporary biblical scholarship.

I attacked their narrative along with the obvious fact they prefer "eloquent" words. I know you don't like Paul's writings but his apologetic approach destroys such rhetoric. You would be wise to consider his words.

Firstly, critical biblical scholarship has only been around for a couple hundred years. Secondly, I'm not redrawing any lines, I'm straightening them out because you made a mess of them by invoking a dated term (higher criticism) and misusing it by blurring the distinction between it and textual criticism. Like I said before, you don't really know what you're talking about in this area, which reflects problems in your overall approach.

First, ridiculous assertion. Paul dealt with biblical scholarship in the first century. Not that you would know this. You have to actually consider the words he wrote to be true to understand him. You don't believe him at all.

Second, I didn't make a mess of anything. You're trying to blur and redraw lines in this discussion because you're losing. I don't care what you call them but don't pretend your denial of the canonical inclusion of the NT doesn't cross multiple disciplines. It does. You're appeal to a singular discipline to discussion the Veracity of the Scriptures is ridiculous.

I made no mistake and you seem to have no better understanding of inerrancy as it is typically articulated within the evangelical community than you have an understanding of methods within critical biblical scholarship. You think the putative original texts of the Bible were the pure words of God... that's what inerrantists believe. You think these texts have been corrupted through the process of their transmission... that's what inerrantists believe. You can sit there and distance yourself from inerrancy all you want, but your position fits well under its umbrella...

I'm not a evangelical. Will you at least admit your mistake here? I mean seriously.... I have appealed to personal revelation in our discussion! Did you not notice that? You even compared me to a Mormon.

What will you claim next? It appears that you're not paying attention very well. You'll say just about anything to try and recover from your current position!!!

You are exactly like Latter-day Saints in their reliance on feelings to ascertain the veracity of your collection of sacred texts. Your claims are no more convincing than theirs are. I have asked repeatedly for you to lay out your criteria for sifting the truth from error in the extant biblical texts and you repeatedly avoid doing so. There is an obvious reason for that... you have little to nothing besides your feelings on the matter, which are of no value to anyone but yourself and this cannot even begin to approach an objective standard for others to use for the purposes of evaluation.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

There you go again. You can't connect the dots?

You appeal to my supposed "evangelically" rigid inerrancy position and then claim "I'm all about feelings".........

Geesh. No. I'm complicated. I told you not to assume anything about me previously. I've spent a long time establishing my own positions. You don't have the ability to discuss this rationally with me because you've never learned how to deal with the Truth at rudimentary level. I've spent years build things from their foundation.... piecing complex pieces together to form a whole. You can't seem to do anything but "start at the end" and work your way backwards......
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
First, ridiculous assertion. Paul dealt with biblical scholarship in the first century.
My assertion was with respect to critical biblical scholarship... you didn't even need to infer that, I said as much. Now, if you're suggesting that people in the first century of the common era were critical biblical scholars, that is a ridiculous assertion.

Second, I didn't make a mess of anything. You're trying to blur and redraw lines in this discussion because you're losing.
Me? Losing? Surely you jest... the record of what transpired is here for everyone to see and it's obvious you blurred the distinctions between textual and so-called higher criticism. Caught in that error -- textual criticism was actually previously referred to as lower criticism in distinction from higher criticism -- you attacked the scholars I quoted in support of this and continue to try to distract from things instead of owning the mistake and moving on...

You're appeal to a singular discipline to discussion the Veracity of the Scriptures is ridiculous.
Firstly, we're discussing methods not disciplines... again, you throw terminology about not understanding it. Secondly, my criticism was levelled at such terminological errors and what they reflect about your general position... I have nowhere suggested that this discussion ought to be limited to a single method (or even discipline for that matter).

I'm not a evangelical. Will you at least admit your mistake here?
What mistake would that be? I've never called you an evangelical... in my last post I said you don't seem to understand inerrancy as it is typically articulated within the evangelical community. Does that sound like I'm calling you an evangelical? In any case, my point stands that your belief in pure originals followed by scribal intervention resulting in extant corrupted manuscripts is perfectly consistent with the doctrine of inerrancy... whether or not you ever acknowledge this overlap in positions will not change the fact of it.

It appears that you're not paying attention very well.
A clear case of projection... see above examples.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

praise_yeshua

Active member
My assertion was with respect to critical biblical scholarship... you didn't even need to infer that, I said as much. Now, if you're suggesting that people in the first century of the common era were critical biblical scholars, that is a ridiculous assertion.

Paul created the very distinction between "gramma" and "graphe". Yet, somehow you claim such?

Me? Losing? Surely you jest... the record of what transpired is here for everyone to see and it's obvious you blurred the distinctions between textual and so-called higher criticism. Caught in that error -- textual criticism was actually previously referred to as lower criticism in distinction from higher criticism -- you attacked the scholars I quoted in support of this and continue to try to distract from things instead of owning the mistake and moving on...

I find solace in the fact you're young. The arrogance of such things elude you. I know I know. "Archaic" silliness on my part...

I've been clear and you want to argue the thin lines between disciplines.

Firstly, we're discussing methods not disciplines... again, you throw terminology about not understanding it. Secondly, my criticism was levelled at such terminological errors and what they reflect about your general position... I have nowhere suggested that this discussion ought to be limited to a single method (or even discipline for that matter).

Textual criticism is a discipline. You reject the Veracity of the NT Scriptures because of your view that the writings did not come from those who claim to have written them or the those who tradition/history claim wrote them. You make the choice without any meaningful understand of the texts themselves. Your position is obvious and self descriptive. It is a rudimentary rejection of Divine instruction. When I propose a solution for a scenario you use to discredit the Scriptures, you don't really care to deal with it. You never will. You've already made up your mind in your rudimentary assessment.

You can keep "complaining" all you want. Your work isn't done but you certainly pretend it is. Like I said. You're young. I pray there is time to realize just how lacking you are. This life is designed to teach/show us our frailty. Instead of making "mountains out of mole hills" in your criticism of the LXX..... You should start really expressing just a little faith in what you read. It doesn't take much. Just a little faith. If you will do this, your life will change.

Do you mind telling just how happy you are with where you're at? You talk as if you're so grounded and centered in your beliefs that nothing will every change your mind... I don't believe it.

What mistake would that be? I've never called you an evangelical... in my last post I said you don't seem to understand inerrancy as it is typically articulated within the evangelical community. Does that sound like I'm calling you an evangelical? In any case, my point stands that your belief in pure originals followed by scribal intervention resulting in extant corrupted manuscripts is perfectly consistent with the doctrine of inerrancy... whether or not you ever acknowledge this overlap in positions will not change the fact of it.

A clear case of projection... see above examples.

I haven't made a single argument claiming inerrancy, yet you're insisting I believe such? Like I've repeatedly said, my position is complex. I've completed the work of working with the building blocks that establish my beliefs. I can argue in great detail yet, you've chosen to ignore where I deviate from inerrancy. I know why. You don't want to get into the details. You're afraid to.

My position doesn't require inerrancy. As I've said before. Such things are nothing more than silliness from evil men to "muddy the water".

The Scriptures contain overwhelming Truth. Truth you're avoiding. Truth in nature. Truth in reality. Truth in science. Truth beyond dispute. I gave you a little in the OP. You're still avoiding it.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Paul created the very distinction between "gramma" and "graphe".
And the ridiculous assertions continue... particularly in response to what we were discussing, namely your humorous allegation that the first century of the common era was populated by critical biblical scholars --- that is, of course, impossible since the critical period of biblical interpretation accompanied the Enlightenment and transition to modernity.

Textual criticism is a discipline.
Within the discipline of biblical studies textual criticism is a method that falls under the larger rubric of historical criticism (also known as the historical critical method).

You reject the Veracity of the NT Scriptures because of your view that the writings did not come from those who claim to have written them or the those who tradition/history claim wrote them. You make the choice without any meaningful understand of the texts themselves.
My position on the biblical texts (not just those of the New Testament) is a well-informed one... dubious claims of authorship, whether internal or owing to later tradition, is only one among many factors that influence my position on these writings, which is far more complex than your summary here --- due to errors that can be traced back to the earliest-recoverable forms I reject the idea that they are divinely inspired, not their veracity outright. Being of human origin, they are like any other writing whose veracity is mixed... there is some truth and some error --- again, you founder in your all or nothing thinking and thus mischaracterize my position.

Do you mind telling just how happy you are with where you're at? You talk as if you're so grounded and centered in your beliefs that nothing will every change your mind... I don't believe it.
My happiness or the alleged lack thereof you imply has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. As for changing my mind, I'm always open to learning more and revising my position in light of facts and good arguments... the problem is that you're unlikely to school me on anything in the area of biblical studies and you've offered no compelling arguments to abandon my current position as it regards the texts at the center of that discipline.

I haven't made a single argument claiming inerrancy, yet you're insisting I believe such?
I've simply observed that your position and that of inerrantists line up on a number of points... make of that fact what you will.

I can argue in great detail yet, you've chosen to ignore where I deviate from inerrancy. I know why. You don't want to get into the details. You're afraid to.
Oh please... afraid? Feel free to go into whatever detail you wish on the topic of where your position deviates from inerrancy and I'll engage with it. That said, you've still failed to provide the criteria whereby one can distinguish truth from error in the extant manuscripts... aside from your feelings, of course, which are irrelevant to anyone but yourself.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

praise_yeshua

Active member
And the ridiculous assertions continue... particularly in response to what we were discussing, namely your humorous allegation that the first century of the common era was populated by critical biblical scholars --- that is, of course, impossible since the critical period of biblical interpretation accompanied the Enlightenment and transition to modernity.

Ridiculous. Paul dealt with scrolls/documents/writings that were not considered worthy of inclusion within "graphe". Whether they be from corruption, perversion or whatever, He crafted the very foundation of "Holy Writings".

The arrogance on display this self proclaimed "enlightened" generation is nauseating.

Ecc 1:9 What is that which has been? the very thing which shall be: and what is that which has been done? the very thing which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Ecc 1:10 Who is he that shall speak and say, Behold, this is new? it has already been in the ages that have passed before us.

The Mishna iterations and emendments have been debated for centuries. You have no idea what you're talking about. All you're seeing is a "rebranding" of disciplines/method by arrogant men to "prop up" their senseless and never ending desire to feel superior.

I'm going to stop here and leave you to God and His infinite power. I'm tired of watch you descend deeper into your folly. I pray God's "pig pen"
leave you desperate for the truth.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Ridiculous. Paul dealt with scrolls/documents/writings that were not considered worthy of inclusion within "graphe". Whether they be from corruption, perversion or whatever, He crafted the very foundation of "Holy Writings".
While "ridiculous" presumably wasn't offered as a characterization of what followed, it certainly fits. You made this claim before, offered no evidence in support of it -- for example quoting something from the Pauline corpus -- and here you just make the same assertion. Of course, there is counter-evidence to the claim... for example, use of the word γραφη in reference to holy writ in the so-called Letter of Aristeas, which may be dated to the second century BCE. Then there is the prologue to the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, which may be dated to the same century, that carves out a threefold sacred canon of the law, prophets and others. Clearly the idea of holy writ within the Judeo-Christian tradition predates the first century CE and the activities of Paul...

The arrogance on display this self proclaimed "enlightened" generation is nauseating.

Ecc 1:9 What is that which has been? the very thing which shall be: and what is that which has been done? the very thing which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Ecc 1:10 Who is he that shall speak and say, Behold, this is new? it has already been in the ages that have passed before us.

The Mishna iterations and emendments have been debated for centuries. You have no idea what you're talking about. All you're seeing is a "rebranding" of disciplines/method by arrogant men to "prop up" their senseless and never ending desire to feel superior.

I'm going to stop here...
That's a good idea given your performance in this thread... errors like the above, terminological confusion and failure to provide solid criteria for distinguishing truth from error in the manuscript tradition.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

praise_yeshua

Active member
While "ridiculous" presumably wasn't offered as a characterization of what followed, it certainly fits. You made this claim before, offered no evidence in support of it -- for example quoting something from the Pauline corpus -- and here you just make the same assertion. Of course, there is counter-evidence to the claim... for example, use of the word γραφη in reference to holy writ in the so-called Letter of Aristeas, which may be dated to the second century BCE. Then there is the prologue to the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, which may be dated to the same century, that carves out a threefold sacred canon of the law, prophets and others. Clearly the idea of holy writ within the Judeo-Christian tradition predates the first century CE and the activities of Paul...

To be clear, I was referencing the contrast Paul drew between gramma and graphe. I wasn't saying that Paul "coined" the use of the word "Graphe". This contrast is unique to Paul's first century writing.

It is clear that you do not believe Letter of Aristeas is real. Your attempt to use it as evidence against me betrays your position of being a mocker of "God's Word". Your inconsistency is evident.


That's a good idea given your performance in this thread... errors like the above, terminological confusion and failure to provide solid criteria for distinguishing truth from error in the manuscript tradition.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

I haven't confused anything. Satan operates much the same way as you have in this thread. You haven't tried to deal with my first example in the OP. All you've done is argue "terms" and employ egotistic rhetoric. By all means. Feel good about yourself.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
To be clear, I was referencing the contrast Paul drew between gramma and graphe. I wasn't saying that Paul "coined" the use of the word "Graphe". This contrast is unique to Paul's first century writing.
You later clarified that claim with the following: "He crafted the very foundation of "Holy Writings"" --- or did you forget you wrote that? In any case, another missed opportunity for you to show me and others here what, exactly, you are/were referring to. I don't happen to think Paul wrote 2 Timothy, but presumably you do:

and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings (ιερα γραμματα) that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture (γραφη) is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness... (2 Tim 3:15-16)

It is clear that you do not believe Letter of Aristeas is real. Your attempt to use it as evidence against me betrays your position of being a mocker of "God's Word". Your inconsistency is evident.
I think you mean authentic in terms of date and authorship... obviously the letter was a real document in antiquity and can be dated on internal and external criteria to the second century BCE, which predates Paul. There is nothing inconsistent in how I appealed to this evidence to challenge your claim...

I haven't confused anything.
Of course you have, all on record in this thread for anyone to read. I thought you were leaving the discussion... :unsure:

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Top