Grudunza Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.htmlSeems to have quite the political agenda, but would be a good source to share some specifics from with anyone claiming Biblical inerrancy.
JLHPROF Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 Fascinating article. On the one hand is gives the Mormon position much support. On the other, I don't like the idea that such great lessons as the woman taken in a adultery might never have happened. Not entirely sure what to think of this article, and yes, it definitely has an agenda.
rodheadlee Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) oops Edited January 6, 2015 by rodheadlee
bluebell Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) That is a very fascinating article, especially once you get past most of the political agenda (though i do find it ironic that it doesn't seem like the author has read the bible either and is merely passing on information he was taught or learned from someone else-which is pretty much what he castigates some Christians for doing-i admit though that i'm not quite finished with it so maybe it becomes clear towards the end that he actually has read the bible himself as well). What is really interesting is that this article supports a lot of the lds position about certain 'biblical' doctrines that aren't anywhere in the bible, as well as the issue of believing in the bible as long as it is 'translated correctly'. I would love to read Jim Stiles or Daniel woods thoughts on this article, not because i think it would change their minds any but just to see how they feel about so many LDS positions now being supported by biblical research and scholarship. Edit to add-I'm not assuming however that this article get's everything right though. Much of this kind of work relies on interpretation of the historical record and everyone has a bias (including Ehrman) when doing such interpretation. It doesn't mean someone isn't trustworthy in their scholarship, it just means there is always room for debate. Edited January 5, 2015 by bluebell 2
Grudunza Posted January 5, 2015 Author Posted January 5, 2015 Yeah, there are some interesting things that would support our theological view of the Bible, no doubt, and also some support for the idea that Genesis is meant more as a figurative depiction and not science, which has been a subject of particular interest to me lately.I'm very amused, though, by the line near the end that says, "This examination is not an attack on the Bible or Christianity." Ha, okay. Sure.
Jim Stiles Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 That is a very fascinating article, especially once you get past most of the political agenda (though i do find it ironic that it doesn't seem like the author has read the bible either and is merely passing on information he was taught or learned from someone else-which is pretty much what he castigates some Christians for doing-i admit though that i'm not quite finished with it so maybe it becomes clear towards the end that he actually has read the bible himself as well). What is really interesting is that this article supports a lot of the lds position about certain 'biblical' doctrines that aren't anywhere in the bible, as well as the issue of believing in the bible as long as it is 'translated correctly'. I would love to read Jim Stiles or Daniel woods thoughts on this article, not because i think it would change their minds any but just to see how they feel about so many LDS positions now being supported by biblical research and scholarship. Edit to add-I'm not assuming however that this article get's everything right though. Much of this kind of work relies on interpretation of the historical record and everyone has a bias (including Ehrman) when doing such interpretation. It doesn't mean someone isn't trustworthy in their scholarship, it just means there is always room for debate. The following blog post destroys everything the author of the Newsweek article had to say about homosexuality: http://www.increasinglearning.com/blog/the-apostle-paul-and-homosexual-love I am not aware of any positions unique to the LDS that are supported by modern biblical scholarship. Sure, both the LDS and Bart Ehrman say that the Bible is not reliable, but that is not a unique position. It was a commonly held position in 1820. 1
Anakin7 Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 Which of the multiple Bibles is the most reliable ?. In His Debt/Grace Anakin7 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) The following blog post destroys everything the author of the Newsweek article had to say about homosexuality:http://www.increasinglearning.com/blog/the-apostle-paul-and-homosexual-loveI am not aware of any positions unique to the LDS that are supported by modern biblical scholarship. Sure, both the LDS and Bart Ehrman say that the Bible is not reliable, but that is not a unique position. It was a commonly held position in 1820. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. That was written by Joseph Smith, and Is emblematic of the LDS. The LDS have never believed the Bible to be unreliable. The Bible is part of our canon. The Bible is the reason Joseph Smith asked God which of all the church's he should join. We use the Bible more than any other Scripture. Edited January 5, 2015 by thesometimesaint 2
Anakin7 Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) I have multiple Bible Translations on my Bookshelf. I read/study/ponder The Holy Bible. In His Debt/Grace Anakin7 Edited January 5, 2015 by Anakin7
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) The following blog post destroys everything the author of the Newsweek article had to say about homosexuality:http://www.increasinglearning.com/blog/the-apostle-paul-and-homosexual-loveI am not aware of any positions unique to the LDS that are supported by modern biblical scholarship. Sure, both the LDS and Bart Ehrman say that the Bible is not reliable, but that is not a unique position. It was a commonly held position in 1820.Strawman alert. the LDS has never once claims the bible to not be reilable. Mis-translated it not the same as unreliable. It does have it's issues though and is neither perfect nor inerrant. Edited January 5, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram 1
bluebell Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) The following blog post destroys everything the author of the Newsweek article had to say about homosexuality:http://www.increasinglearning.com/blog/the-apostle-paul-and-homosexual-loveI am not aware of any positions unique to the LDS that are supported by modern biblical scholarship. Sure, both the LDS and Bart Ehrman say that the Bible is not reliable, but that is not a unique position. It was a commonly held position in 1820. JS did not believe the bible to be unreliable. They read it daily in their home and it was his own personal study of the bible that caused him to believe he could pray to God for wisdom. LDS don't believe the bible is unreliable. We don't believe it to be inerrant (when you believe that God continues to reveal His word and speak to prophets you don't NEED to believe it's inerrant to still consider it holy and of great value). Two of every four years of Sunday school is spent studying the bible. We only spend one of every four years on the BOM, for example. If you are going to debate our doctrine you have to at least understand it and speak of it accurately. Moving on from that point however, i find it interesting that you chose to talk about how wrong the article was concerning homosexuality but ignored the very obvious elephant in the room concerning what the article says about the doctrine of the Trinity and sola scriptura. I certainly don't agree with everything the article says-as has been mentioned the author clearly has a political agenda and probably hasn't ever read the bible-but on the issue of bible inerrancy it provides good food for thought. Edited January 5, 2015 by bluebell 2
Nevo Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 I don't like the idea that such great lessons as the woman taken in a adultery might never have happened. Mr. Eichenwald's reporting leaves a lot to be desired. Against Eichenwald's confident declaration that the story of the woman taken in adultery was fabricated "sometime in the Middle Ages" and "simply never happened," BYU professor and NT text critic Lincoln Blummel notes the following: While the story seems to have been unknown to patristic writers until the end of the fourth century, it is possible that a version was known much earlier. . . . [P]atristic evidence demonstrates that at least by the second century certain Christians were aware of a story about a condemned woman who appeared before Jesus and whose punishment was subsequently nullified or mitigated as a result of the encounter. . . . Different earlier versions of this story suggest that its current form in John is not the original version. Perhaps, then, the story evolved into its present form and was added to John in the fourth or fifth century because its core had an ancient pedigree and its appeal to mercy over punishment was attractive (Lincoln H. Blumell, "A Text-Critical Comparison of the King James New Testament with Certain Modern Translations," Studies in the Bible and Antiquity 3 [2011]: 110, 113). Commentator Andrew Lincoln (not the Walking Dead actor) describes the story in John 7:35–8:11 as "an isolated piece of valuable early non-canonical tradition whose immediate textual context is unknown." He notes that "stories about Jesus still in circulation were often read in the liturgy alongside canonical Gospels, were sometimes written down for lectionary purposes, and then on occasion found their way via copyists into the canonical texts." (Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel according to Saint John [bNTC 4; New York: Continuum, 2005], 527–28). So this wasn't a late forgery, as Eichenwald asserts, but rather an early (and widespread) non-canonical tradition—which may well have an authentic historical core—that later found its way into the main text of the Gospel of John. 1
california boy Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Mr. Eichenwald's reporting leaves a lot to be desired. Against Eichenwald's confident declaration that the story of the woman taken in adultery was fabricated "sometime in the Middle Ages" and "simply never happened," BYU professor and NT text critic Lincoln Blummel notes the following: While the story seems to have been unknown to patristic writers until the end of the fourth century, it is possible that a version was known much earlier. . . . [P]atristic evidence demonstrates that at least by the second century certain Christians were aware of a story about a condemned woman who appeared before Jesus and whose punishment was subsequently nullified or mitigated as a result of the encounter. . . . Different earlier versions of this story suggest that its current form in John is not the original version. Perhaps, then, the story evolved into its present form and was added to John in the fourth or fifth century because its core had an ancient pedigree and its appeal to mercy over punishment was attractive (Lincoln H. Blumell, "A Text-Critical Comparison of the King James New Testament with Certain Modern Translations," Studies in the Bible and Antiquity 3 [2011]: 110, 113). Commentator Andrew Lincoln (not the Walking Dead actor) describes the story in John 7:35–8:11 as "an isolated piece of valuable early non-canonical tradition whose immediate textual context is unknown." He notes that "stories about Jesus still in circulation were often read in the liturgy alongside canonical Gospels, were sometimes written down for lectionary purposes, and then on occasion found their way via copyists into the canonical texts." (Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel according to Saint John [bNTC 4; New York: Continuum, 2005], 527–28). So this wasn't a late forgery, as Eichenwald asserts, but rather an early (and widespread) non-canonical tradition—which may well have an authentic historical core—that later found its way into the main text of the Gospel of John. But what is clear to both scholars is that John did not record that story in his writings. I still find that pretty interesting since it is such a seminal scripture.
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 I've never made it all the way through the Old Testament.
rodheadlee Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Why not? I love the Old Testament. I have a hard time with Paul's writing.
Rob Osborn Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.htmlSeems to have quite the political agenda, but would be a good source to share some specifics from with anyone claiming Biblical inerrancy.Obviously written by ateists. You cannot debate with atheists.
Tacenda Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Not sure I trust the bible anymore....waiting for lightning to strike. I did get in a groove where I wanted to believe most of it could be true, only after taking out the stupid wars, killing women and children, or putting your child on an alter. The other day I heard that Jewish babies are getting herpes and dying from it. When the Priest sucks the blood after performing the surgery. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618 . Makes me think the Bible can do more harm sometimes, but admittedly I'm not much for scripture reading. And if Genesis is just allegory, then Eve shouldn't be blamed for anything or according to the scripture Gen. 3:16 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee". So this scripture might not be true, but a way for man to rule over women. And if one knows the abuse happening to woman all over the world coming from men, then this scripture could be to blame. Just tired of the harm that came from the Bible, as far as Christians killing non believers or believers that believe differently. I just think religion in general has shown it can be harmful. But I shudder to think that if we didn't have it, what we would have turned out. I would hope God put inner compasses in enough to not do harm. But too often scripture does do harm. And luckily it doesn't too. I guess the Bible is to be read with discernment all the way through.
The Nehor Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Why not? I love the Old Testament. I have a hard time with Paul's writing.Paul leaps from topic to topic without coherent transitions like a kid with severe ADD.
Hillel2 Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 I read the article very quickly and superficially but the author does raise some salient points. It does seem that he has his own specific point of view from which to argue. In some ways, it's too bad that he's that obvious because the point he makes about interpreting scripture is one which would do religious individuals and communities well to keep in mind. Some things that jumped to my mind as i was reading: As the writer points out, in the original Hebrew and Aramaic of the Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament) the texts would have been written with the vowels mostly absent and no word divisions. These came later on and are based largely on an oral tradition that came to us after Hebrew had ceased to be the vernacular in the Holy Land. So, a phrase like KTB can be read as KaTaV (he wrote) or KTaV (writing). Context usually dictates but sometimes both readings are possible which makes for different interpretations and lively debates. Many Rabbinical sermons are based on alternate readings of the same unvoweled word. They are all deemed worthy of consideration. Traditionally Ex.23.19 is read as «Do not boil a kid in its mother's milk.» This is the source text for the Rabbinical ban on mixing meat and dairy in the Orthodox Jewish Community. However, with a change of the vowels, another reading could be: «Do not allow a kid to grow to maturity on its mother's milk.» (I.E. the kid should be offered up to G-d before it is weaned.) Word ambiguity can also radically alter a meaning with very profound consequences. In Ex.21.22-25 one reads: “If two men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that there is a miscarriage, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is a death, then you shall pay life for life.» The word «miscar-riage» means that but can also mean live birth. So, one is left to ponder: is the «death» referred to that of the unborn (i.e. giving support to fetal rights) or does it refer to the woman who may have died as a result of complications ensuing from a miscarriage? A rather crucial point to consider. Recently I read a discussion on the use of the word «ZaKaR» in the Hebrew Bible. The word occurs in Lev. 18:22 where one reads «Do not lie with a ZaKaR as one would with a woman. This is rendered «Male» in English and some other languages with which i am familiar. Paleo-linguistic evi-dence would suggest that the original meaning conveyed some kind of a Male Temple functionary. In Canaan these functionaries often entered into a kind of «marriage rite» for a token pay. Of course, words change their meaning over centuries. By the time the Talmud was collated, the word was understood only as «male» and the ban on certain intimate forms of behavior between men was enacted. Christia-nity inherits the later interpretation (For the record, i am just pointing this out. I do not wish to start a thread on SSM or how accu-rate the paleo-linguists are. It's just food for thought :-) ) Shmuley Boteach is an orthodox Jew who has written extensively on Christianity. I'm sorry i can't recall the New Testament Passage in which Jesus declares «all foods clean.» but it is another example of problems arising from interpretation and understanding of words. R. Boteach's points out that English translations from Hebrew may obscure what Jesus was actually saying. He feels that Jesus was not declaring all foods kosher (i.e. now it is ok for his followers to eat pork and shellfish) but rather that he was declaring all kosher foods (Toraically permitted foods) to be «tahor» or suitable for eating whether or not one had washed one's hands. (The pharisees at Jerusalem insisted that one must wash one's hands or the food became «tameh», i.e. contaminated.). It does seem that the Jewish followers of Jesus in his time kept the laws of kashrut and many wanted to impose them on non-Jewish converts to the movement. Probably, everything boils down to interpretation undertaken in the best fashion of which we are capable. When seeking meaning, it helps to know multiple languages and the nuances of words within different cultures and time periods. I cannot imagine trying to interpret Torah without having the Hebrew right in front of me. The English lacks so many shades of meaning. Even so, one can make plenty of mistakes. I heard a story growing up. I regret i can't give You a CFR. A group of Rabbis are sitting around interpreting a text. They argue back and forth and at last take a vote. Side A prevails over Side B. G-d descends to the Rabbis and informs them that Side B is correct, not Side A. The Rabbis politely tell G-d that they have made their decision according to majority rule, a rule which G-d personally approved. In this story G-d is pleased by their behavior though they are wrong. Conversely, any time an argument is recorded in Talmud, all sides are given their opportunity. The majority position is accepted as authoritative but the «defeated» arguments are recorded as well. The idea is that, when Messiah comes, we'll straighten out what we got wrong. Bottom line, if someone can make an informed and well-reasoned argument for a particular intepretation of text, it is worthy of being recorded, respected and considered. Some day we'll get all the pieces straightened out and in the meantime we all need to be humble. J
cinepro Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Mr. Eichenwald's reporting leaves a lot to be desired. Against Eichenwald's confident declaration that the story of the woman taken in adultery was fabricated "sometime in the Middle Ages" and "simply never happened," BYU professor and NT text critic Lincoln Blummel notes the following: While the story seems to have been unknown to patristic writers until the end of the fourth century, it is possible that a version was known much earlier. . . . [P]atristic evidence demonstrates that at least by the second century certain Christians were aware of a story about a condemned woman who appeared before Jesus and whose punishment was subsequently nullified or mitigated as a result of the encounter. . . . Different earlier versions of this story suggest that its current form in John is not the original version. Perhaps, then, the story evolved into its present form and was added to John in the fourth or fifth century because its core had an ancient pedigree and its appeal to mercy over punishment was attractive (Lincoln H. Blumell, "A Text-Critical Comparison of the King James New Testament with Certain Modern Translations," Studies in the Bible and Antiquity 3 [2011]: 110, 113). Commentator Andrew Lincoln (not the Walking Dead actor) describes the story in John 7:35–8:11 as "an isolated piece of valuable early non-canonical tradition whose immediate textual context is unknown." He notes that "stories about Jesus still in circulation were often read in the liturgy alongside canonical Gospels, were sometimes written down for lectionary purposes, and then on occasion found their way via copyists into the canonical texts." (Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel according to Saint John [bNTC 4; New York: Continuum, 2005], 527–28). So this wasn't a late forgery, as Eichenwald asserts, but rather an early (and widespread) non-canonical tradition—which may well have an authentic historical core—that later found its way into the main text of the Gospel of John. So would it be more prudent to look at the story as parable? The question isn't whether or not the story teaches a good lesson or supports our view of Jesus; it certainly does. The question is whether or not we should judge it as historical mainly because we want to believe it? In other words, if there was a story about Jesus that didn't support our specific view of him or his teachings that had somehow found its way into the scriptures, would you still be making the same argument, or would we suddenly have a good reason to not believe an inconvenient story? 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 So would it be more prudent to look at the story as parable? The question isn't whether or not the story teaches a good lesson or supports our view of Jesus; it certainly does. The question is whether or not we should judge it as historical mainly because we want to believe it? In other words, if there was a story about Jesus that didn't support our specific view of him or his teachings that had somehow found its way into the scriptures, would you still be making the same argument, or would we suddenly have a good reason to not believe an inconvenient story?It reminds me of an analogy with the theory of electricity. I have some very old science books explaining just how electrons flowed. Only, the book and theory were incorrect at that time and showed the electrons flowing in the wrong direction. Turned out that it was opposite of what they believed. But this incorrect teaching doesnt make electricity false. Electricity is still there, we just have to figure out the best theory through study and evidences. So it is with the scriptures also. There are indeed errors in the scriptures but those errors do not make them false- Jesus Christ really did live and die and was resurrected. All the details may be fuzzy due to mans errors but the fact of Jesus Christ and the early church and the gospel did exist. And it should be that we base our truth from to study all the details out and weigh them.
Spammer Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) The Bible doesn't interpret itself. We all bring to it who and what we are when we read it. We also read it through the lens of whatever tradition we belong to and feel comfortable living within. There's no need to throw out the Bible if a literal interpretation portrays God in ways that we find unsavory. Some have no problem with this kind of portrayal. Others, such as myself, do have a problem. The solution for me was to find a reasonable way to interpret hard passages figuratively. Fortunately, the ancient Christian church that compiled and gave us the Bible provides the means for that kind of figurative interpretation. The Greek fathers of the church (those whose writings are preserved) mostly all tended to interpret the hard Old Testament passages figuratively. This was because the central fact of their faith was Jesus, who was the incarnation of the God who is Love. A saying attributed to Anthony the Great (of Egypt) in the 3rd Century - Anthony is the father of monasticism - succinctly captures what the ancient fathers of the Christian East believed about God: "God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, is it possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honour Him, and as turning away from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honour Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions. He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God’s goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind." It probably goes without saying that most American Christians don't believe in that kind of God, but that's what the ancients in the Christian East believed. For anyone (like me) who finds the idea of God commanding genocide to be reprehensible, it's possible to "save" the Old Testament by interpreting the OT through the lens St. Anthony provides. Thus, anything in the Old Testament that would contradict the central dogma that God is merciful, loving, never gets angry, and punishes no one, is interpreted figuratively as referring to the self-imposed spiritual effects of sin and separation from the divine. The entire OT is interpreted as preserving the story of God's gradual revelation to humankind, which became the story of God manifesting His saving presence to his people in the ancient temple and its liturgy. This includes calling prophets to foretell the future incarnation of the loving God of the Christian revelation. The entire OT "story" culminates in the final revelation of God in His fullness in the person of Jesus. This approach allows for accepting the presence of human interpolations into the OT texts for political and other secular purposes, including attributing violent actions perpetrated by ancient, tribal Hebrews for nation-building purposes to God, while still allowing for a reading of the texts that shows a growing realization over time that God is merciful and demands mercy. From this ground , the ancient Eastern churches selected certain Old Testament texts for inclusion in the Divine Liturgy based on how well they fit within this narrative. While the liturgy was developing, those became the texts that were read to the faithful during church for centuries (the only way the faithful could read the scriptures, as there were no Bibles available for ordinary Christians to own and read at home until well after the invention of the printing press in the 15th Century). It's still like this to this day in the Eastern churches. Except for the Psalms, the OT texts are used in church rarely and only on certain feast days, such as Nativity. The selected texts are those which commemorate God's creation and His loving and saving presence among His people, pointing the way to Christ (outside the liturgy, e.g., in patristic or other spiritual writings, anything in the OT that doesn't fit in with that narrative when interpreted literally, is interpreted figuratively). Apart from those comparatively rare instances of quoting the OT on feast days, and use of the Psalms - which is the church's daily prayer book, it's all New Testament all of the time in the Eastern churches. Atheists who (reasonably, IMO) point to and disdain the violent events attributed to God in the Old Testament, and modern Christians who believe in that God through their literal interpretation of the text, fail to understand any of this. Most of them don't know that such a literal interpretation is a relatively recent development and is dominant primarily within Evangelical Protestant Christianity, which, unfortunately, is the majority position among US Christians but is the minority position both globally and historically. Western Christians, especially Protestants, adopted Anselmian and Calvinist notions of a wrathful God who is offended by sin and must be appeased. Fortunately, these kinds of ideas about an angry God who demanded sacrifice and punishment was never central to Eastern Christian theology and was, in fact, actively opposed by the Greek church fathers who wrote contemporaneously with the formation of the Biblical canon in the early centuries of the ancient church. As many Christians outside of Protestantism know, there is another way - the ancient way. It's possible to be a Christian and still value the Old Testament. There's no need to throw out the Old Testament and the Bible along with it. Just adopt the approach of those who gave you the Bible and interpret it through the lens of a merciful God who only seeks our good, blesses us, never punishes us, and is the lover of mankind. The same approach also allows for the presence of possible interpolations in the New Testament. The oral tradition of the ancient Church, along with the Bible, tells the whole story. The ancients didn't approach historical writing like we do. The ancients didn't seek solely to write pristine histories containing only "what really happened". They had no problem inventing and inserting stories to illustrate spiritual truths if they were consistent with the overarching historical theme being presented - in the case of the gospel writers, this would be anything that may have been added later (such as the story of the woman taken in adultery) that illustrates and expands on the core story of the role of Jesus in saving mankind. Either way, the ancients had no problems like we do with trying to determine which stories are literally, historically factual. They had a different agenda when they wrote. For the ancient Christians, what mattered most was Christ and communicating the means to salvation through a relationship with Him. Modern atheists and skeptics, like the author of the Newsweek article, don't understand any of this - saturated as they are by a bias that accepts only scientific materialism and modern historical-critical methods. They commit anachronisms by projecting their worldview onto the ancient OT and gospel writers and judging the ancient texts accordingly. Edited January 6, 2015 by Spammer 1
Teancum Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.htmlSeems to have quite the political agenda, but would be a good source to share some specifics from with anyone claiming Biblical inerrancy.It was a great article.
Teancum Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Fascinating article. On the one hand is gives the Mormon position much support. On the other, I don't like the idea that such great lessons as the woman taken in a adultery might never have happened. Not entirely sure what to think of this article, and yes, it definitely has an agenda.Yea it is sad a great story was simply add much later. But that is what you have with the Bible. It can't be trusted.
Teancum Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) The following blog post destroys everything the author of the Newsweek article had to say about homosexuality:http://www.increasinglearning.com/blog/the-apostle-paul-and-homosexual-loveI am not aware of any positions unique to the LDS that are supported by modern biblical scholarship. Sure, both the LDS and Bart Ehrman say that the Bible is not reliable, but that is not a unique position. It was a commonly held position in 1820.Bart Ehrman and many other scholars have proven the bible is not reliable nor what inneranist protestants claim it to be. Edited January 6, 2015 by Teancum
Recommended Posts