Steven Avery

No rush. The two priesthood options (scholarly textual priesthood and religious tradition priesthood) were thought of after I began and could well have had their own section. Not all my IIDB essays are structured and designed with multiple editions. Nonetheless I believe that dividing up the two possibilities of God's giving a word to be sound. Corrupt, or Perfect. The priesthood options are essentially weak bridge attempts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith ..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.

Yes there was a revelatory component, in terms of receiving the transformative experiences described in the scriptures.

In a real sense the desire for transgression, sin .. against repentance .. has its own anti-revelatory preventative component. Neutrality in that battle is a chimera.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith 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).

Do you find it at all surprising that even many who verbally disclaim the Bible find themselves consumed with attempting to develop and hone and propagate their alternative theories of its nature and origin ?

And often they don't really have much difficulty identifying the Bible that they disclaim the most .. the King James Bible, based on the Received Texts.

The "Final Authority" (book title..William Grady).

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Ben C Smith

Not at all. I think the reason for this is the enormous sway the Bible has had over western culture for many centuries. Whoever is on top of the pile is going to be a target.

One big reason the KJV makes a good skeptical target is because we have it before us. When debating inerrancy, for example, any apologist who accepts an eclectic text can always fall back on transmission error as an explanation for the alleged error. But if we have the ipsissima verba in our hands, as alleged by some inerrantists for the KJV, that option is minimized.

If you follow debates between skeptics and apologists who do not place the KJV on a pedestal, I think you will find that the KJV does not come up as much. If nobody defended the KJV, I suspect few would attack it above and beyond any other version.

Ben.

Gamera

Whether God placed his word in writing (something I beleive as a Christian) doesn't resolve the issue of whether these particular texts are factually inerrant. You only reach that conclusion if you think God was worried about factual accuracy. I conclude he was not. He was interested in the meaning of the text. Thus the gospel clearly paraphrase Jesus at points (hence the discrepancies in the Sermon on the Mount). Who cares? A paraphrase has the same meaning, which is what counts.

And ultimately, the gospels are a narrative. Jesus teachings are less important than what the story says happens, and whether a date or two is accurate or inaccurate has no effect on the meaning of the story.

Gamera

I would agree. The meaning of the gospel is what it means to you as the reader. I don't quite get praxeus' position. He beleives that God miraculously inspired these texts, but he doesn't trust God to make sure that individuals understand their meaning according to their individual needs, through the prism of their own lifes and experiences.

This is a basic premise of exegesis, which is as traditional as apple pie from the perspective of historical Christianity. To claim that these texts mean one thing and one thing only is not what Christians have historically believed (thank God)

Cege

I was thinking of Paul's declaration in Galations that what he preached/taught was direct revelation from Jesus, not what he heard from any man (presumably including the apostles):

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. - Galatians 1:11-12 (New International Version)

If that's not "personal revelation", I don't know what would be!

spamandham

When you have endless contradictions, how can you possibly hope to determine what a god's meaning was?

Jesus contradicts himself on numerous occasions according to these accounts. He professes that we should not believe anyone who appeals to his own authority, and later appeals to his own authority. He says anyone who calls someone a fool is in risk of hell, and proceeds to call people fools. He has not come to bring peace, but the sword, yet turn the other cheek. Kill anyone who doesn't believe in me (via parable), yet wipe the sandals from your feet.

There is no central message. It's a hodegpodeg of crap.

Steven Avery

Agreed.

Yet note how hard the skeptics fight for the eclectic text as the "true" text
(even if they think the Bible is theatre or myth or late fabrication).
That is one of the funny ironies.

.. they fight for the right to attack the eclectic text
.. precisely because the eclectic is a duckshoot text, full of errors.

Only the Received Texts, including the King James Bible, have the consistency and purity and accuracy that allows for tangible apologetics. And the very nature of supposed "inerrancy" was changed in Chicago in a way designed to accommodate the errors in the modern version texts .. and eliminating the historical view (among Chicago proponents) of tangible apologetics.

Modern textual theories try to disingenuously downplay the very accuracy of the Received Texts as being the result of studious harmonizing efforts of informed late scribes. Even against early evidences (and historical evidences that such was not common practice). Our recent discussion of the Pool of Bethesba being a clear and powerful example of the truth of the Received Texts and the confusion of modern textual theories. Yet as often occurs, once a false theory gains a certain mass of acceptance, those who have a vested interest in the theory ignore refutations or counter indications (e.g. Lucian recension theory is not supported, Bethesda shows accuracy of Received Texts). A type of sterile anti-intellectual inertia takes over trying to maintain the fossilized establishment position against the true and lively and powerful scriptures.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful,
and sharper than any twoedged sword,
piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,
and of the joints and marrow,
and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Doug Shaver

Quite so. Repetition does not confer truth on any statement.

Inerrancy either is or is not tantamount to bibliolatry. If it is not, then my saying umpteen times that it is won't make it so. But if it is, then your denying it umpteen times won't make it not so, either.

Chris Weimer

Yes, and it's more original than your English translation.

Except they're not original. And many here have "shot holes" in both the TR and the KJV.

Circular argument.

The earliest evidence point away from the TR.

spamandham

So King James is god? In that case, I hate to be the one to inform you, but he's dead.