FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-21-2007, 06:37 AM   #31
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxeus View Post
[COLOR="Navy"]The purity and integrity and perfection and consistency of God is the issue.
Yep. Bible = God.

Like I've often said, inerrantists don't worship any god. They worship a book.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 06:56 AM   #32
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver
Yep. Bible = God. Like I've often said, inerrantists don't worship any god. They worship a book.
Hi Doug,

Same fundamental error as Chris yesterday,
although his error had a more limited attempted appilcation.

You can speak a falsehood every day,
and it will be a falsehood each and every day.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Steven Avery is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 07:18 AM   #33
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxeus View Post
Once you have a viewpoint that He did not either inspire and preserve (and those two only have meaning symbiotically) His word you could just as well change to a philosophy of personal revelation, sans the plumbline of scripture.
I guess I am wondering how you keep away from a philosophy of personal revelation. On whose authority do you accept the Bible? If it is the authority of God, on whose authority do you accept the fact that God has authorized the Bible? If it is on the authority of man, on whose authority do you accept their authorization?

Where does the trail of authority stop if not within your own judgment at some point?

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 08:23 AM   #34
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxeus View Post
Same fundamental error as Chris yesterday,
although his error had a more limited attempted appilcation.
Referring to a book as the work of a god, and honoring it as such, is not worship? Why not?
spamandham is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 08:34 AM   #35
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith
I guess I am wondering how you keep away from a philosophy of personal revelation. On whose authority do you accept the Bible? If it is the authority of God, on whose authority do you accept the fact that God has authorized the Bible? If it is on the authority of man, on whose authority do you accept their authorization? Where does the trail of authority stop if not within your own judgment at some point?
Oh, one might say there is a smidgen of circularity in any faith revelation. Or that nothing can be proven 'objectively' to those who embrace paradigms of skepticism.

The basic issue is whether God has placed His word in writing, scripture.

We agree (I think) that, if not .. all is personal revelation.

Now if He has so placed His word .. there are two possibilities.

1) It is errant, corrupted, confused or whatever. In which case you are essentially back to personal revelation, partying, debauchery, weeping, whatever. Or going as supplicants to a priesthood who will try to either patchquilt the word by their great knowledge .. or subordinate it to tradition.

2) Or God's word is pure and perfect. And the issue is simply "The Search for the Word of God" (the name of a book by Daniel Segraves that was one of the first I read on the issue).

(2) is the one that rings with consistency and truth and clarity and perfection.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Steven Avery is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 08:49 AM   #36
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gone
Posts: 4,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxeus View Post

You can speak a falsehood every day,
and it will be a falsehood each and every day.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Do you not see the tremendous irony in you making such a statement?

Wow.
Yellum Notnef is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 09:15 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 897
Default

John wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Quote:
It's generally taken for granted in this forum that when someone makes reference to what "Paul said," that they're only talking about the 7 letters of what is accepted as the authentic Pauline corpus.

Really? I always thought that forums like this are where one discusses matters of authenticity, not where it's "taken for granted" that only certain words attributed to NT characters are genuine. Is it "taken for granted" by all "in this forum" that Colossians and Ephesians, for example, weren't written by Paul? Do other moderators concur with the assertion that only "authentic" Pauline material should be cited when a member requests a Pauline teaching?
Though I agree with Diogenes (that when in conversation we should only assume that which is uncontroversial - such as the idea that Paul wrote the 7 Pauline epistles, and be explicit on other claims) - That really wasn't my point.

My point was that even if one ascribes the deuteropaulines to Paul, one shouldn't use acts as a source of Pauline quotes without at least mentioning the very large assumption being made. After all, Acts doesn't claim to be by Paul, and contradicts Paul's own descriptions of Paul's actions in a number of places. As such - in addition to the fact that Acts/luke has other instances of incorrect history, one looks simply uninformed to be using something in Acts as evidence about the historical Paul.

On the other topic of the thread, I still find it amazing that anyone would blame God for the Bible we have today. In addition to mountains of contradictions, absurdities, and evil morality, one even has to specify which Bible is the sole one God is preserving - is that the Catholic Bible, with 73 books, or the KJV (which is well known to be poorly preserved), or the NIV, which KJV onlyists say is completely corrupted, or the Coptic Bible, or what?

Sounds like a whole new thread to me, it's off-topic.

Have a fun day all-

-Equinox
Equinox is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 09:23 AM   #38
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,293
Default

So many errors, so little time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Equinox
or the NIV, which KJV onlyists say is completely corrupted
Very corrupt.
Not "completely corrupted" whatever that would mean.

Others here with no KJB orientation have commented on the NIV problems and corruptions.

In fact the NIV was the main Bible version I knew for many years, and was ok for a season, till I learned a bit more and put down mistaken versions.

Shalom,
Steven
Steven Avery is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 09:23 AM   #39
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxeus View Post
Now if He has so placed His word .. there are two possibilities.

1) It is errant, corrupted, confused or whatever. In which case you are essentially back to personal revelation, partying, debauchery, weeping, whatever. Or going as supplicants to a priesthood who will try to either patchquilt the word by their great knowledge .. or subordinate it to tradition.
Placing these several and sometimes competing options (personal revelation, an oracle or priest who acts as a divine channel, and the transmission of a divine tradition through approved tradents) under one umbrella seems like a headlong rush to get to your preferred option.

Quote:
2) Or God's word is pure and perfect. And the issue is simply "The Search for the Word of God" (the name of a book by Daniel Segraves that was one of the first I read on the issue).

(2) is the one that rings with consistency and truth and clarity and perfection.
Well, not for me, I must confess. And it still took something either very personal or very traditional to get you to option 2, since either you had to decide for yourself or somebody else had to decide for you which set of books the word of God was and, in this case, which books were to be included in the approved set.

Let me just cut through the thicket here. I think that all authoritative claims based on the Bible conceal behind them an appeal to tradition (the Bible did not fall from the sky; it was transmitted), and all authoritative claims to tradition conceal behind them an appeal to personal judgment (each person has to decide which tradition to follow, if any).

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 03-21-2007, 09:37 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 36078
Posts: 849
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxeus View Post
...you could just as well change to a philosophy of personal revelation, sans the plumbline of scripture.
From reading the NT and studying about Paul, it seems to me that a philosophy of personal revelation about the meaning of the life and death of Jesus is exactly what Paul taught and preached.
Cege is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:26 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.