Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[Guest kcdad]

I am dense sometimes, but I do understand that the KJV had not been published at the time II Tim was being penned. What was the relevance of that statement?

 

 

I Cor.2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

 

That is clearly more than a case of men speaking about God out of reverence - it states that the very words came from God. The SPOKEN words came not from humans, but from Spirit (God). Those not present to hear the spoken word have to rely on a written record of what was said. Why the nit-pick about quoting the Spirit-inspired words in writing? It seems reasonable if an omnipotent god has men speak for him he could keep the written record of those words accurate. Otherwise, the religion should have died out with the death or oral tradition.

 

It wasn't until hundreds of years after 2 Timothy was written that there was any Canon of scripture to make up a Bible. 2 Timothy, when written, stood alone. Paul could not have possibly been referring to anything specific other than maybe the few Old Testament scroll she was familiar with. MOST importantly he was referring to the written word in general. At that time, the written word had no standing. A person's credibility was based upon his SPOKEN word. Hence the common expression... "I give you my word".

[Neon Genesis]

It seems reasonable if an omnipotent god has men speak for him he could keep the written record of those words accurate. Otherwise, the religion should have died out with the death or oral tradition.

But I disagree with this. The gospel of John describes the Word as becoming flesh. If the Word is flesh, it implicates the Word is something alive, not something stagnant or "dead", so to speak. Thus, if the Word is "alive", then it makes more sense to me that people's understanding of the Word would evolve as with any other living thing. I don't think people are "cherry picking" scripture just because their understanding of what scripture means to them is evolving with the times. I think that's simply the natural progression of way things work. Even in the bible, there are instances where people's understanding of God's word changes, such as whether or not circumcision should be a requirement. I think a religion that remains stagnant and actively tries to halt any sort of progression in the understanding of the world around us is one that is dead spiritually. As it says in 1 Corinthians 13:11-12

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

[florduh]

It seems reasonable if an omnipotent god has men speak for him he could keep the written record of those words accurate. Otherwise, the religion should have died out with the death or oral tradition.

But I disagree with this. The gospel of John describes the Word as becoming flesh. If the Word is flesh, it implicates the Word is something alive, not something stagnant or "dead", so to speak. Thus, if the Word is "alive", then it makes more sense to me that people's understanding of the Word would evolve as with any other living thing. I don't think people are "cherry picking" scripture just because their understanding of what scripture means to them is evolving with the times. I think that's simply the natural progression of way things work. Even in the bible, there are instances where people's understanding of God's word changes, such as whether or not circumcision should be a requirement. I think a religion that remains stagnant and actively tries to halt any sort of progression in the understanding of the world around us is one that is dead spiritually. As it says in 1 Corinthians 13:11-12

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

 

 

I merely speak to the validity of original transcription and subsequent translations. IF God wrote the Bible through the words of inspired men, THEN the written records of what was spoken should be reliable for relating the correct message.

 

I didn't address seat-of-the-pants religion that relies on pure speculation rather than Biblical veracity. The Bible is THE authority for Christianity, and it says what it says. What it says is wrong for a variety of reasons, in my opinion.

[Neon Genesis]

I merely speak to the validity of original transcription and subsequent translations. IF God wrote the Bible through the words of inspired men, THEN the written records of what was spoken should be reliable for relating the correct message.

 

I didn't address seat-of-the-pants religion that relies on pure speculation rather than Biblical veracity. The Bible is THE authority for Christianity, and it says what it says. What it says is wrong for a variety of reasons, in my opinion.

But as kcdad already pointed out, there was no canonized bible when 1 Timothy was written, so what was the authority for early Christianity?

[Japedo]

I merely speak to the validity of original transcription and subsequent translations. IF God wrote the Bible through the words of inspired men, THEN the written records of what was spoken should be reliable for relating the correct message.

 

I didn't address seat-of-the-pants religion that relies on pure speculation rather than Biblical veracity. The Bible is THE authority for Christianity, and it says what it says. What it says is wrong for a variety of reasons, in my opinion.

But as kcdad already pointed out, there was no canonized bible when 1 Timothy was written, so what was the authority for early Christianity?

 

 

The Torah and the writings were around.

 

The Buybull was written for political reasons, and very little else. The NT of the buybull is basically a hodgepodge of pagan beliefs and rituals rubbed very badly together with the Original Jewish lifestyle and laws.

 

For example,

In the Torah (First 5 books of the Buybull in Christian terms) Blood is known as a life force, There is a Mitzvah (Law/Commandment) of not to eat or drink blood EVER for any reason. The NT totally attempts to over throw this sacred thought and bring in their Pagan beliefs of Eating or drinking of Godmans to become more god like. (Aka Communion) It's symbolic of a pagan cannibalistic ritual, that people still proudly participate in without a second thought . With the same ludicrous attempt to become more "god like". Just about every aspect of the NT is to unto the Jewish teachings and writings.

 

There are so many logical holes in the NT. For example. Christ's father is either "GOD" or it's Joseph, The Messiah was suppose to derive from the house of David. His link via the Buybull is through Joseph. Which would mean his father is not god but he's more fully human and there was no virgin birth. If his father is God, then there is no link to the house of David. Either way, the story is BS. If the very foundation of the story can't even withstand basic 1st grader questions, it's the same as anything else in life, It's false.

[Guest kcdad]

I merely speak to the validity of original transcription and subsequent translations. IF God wrote the Bible through the words of inspired men, THEN the written records of what was spoken should be reliable for relating the correct message.

 

I didn't address seat-of-the-pants religion that relies on pure speculation rather than Biblical veracity. The Bible is THE authority for Christianity, and it says what it says. What it says is wrong for a variety of reasons, in my opinion.

But as kcdad already pointed out, there was no canonized bible when 1 Timothy was written, so what was the authority for early Christianity?

 

 

The Torah and the writings were around.

 

The Buybull was written for political reasons, and very little else. The NT of the buybull is basically a hodgepodge of pagan beliefs and rituals rubbed very badly together with the Original Jewish lifestyle and laws.

 

For example,

In the Torah (First 5 books of the Buybull in Christian terms) Blood is known as a life force, There is a Mitzvah (Law/Commandment) of not to eat or drink blood EVER for any reason. The NT totally attempts to over throw this sacred thought and bring in their Pagan beliefs of Eating or drinking of Godmans to become more god like. (Aka Communion) It's symbolic of a pagan cannibalistic ritual, that people still proudly participate in without a second thought . With the same ludicrous attempt to become more "god like". Just about every aspect of the NT is to unto the Jewish teachings and writings.

 

There are so many logical holes in the NT. For example. Christ's father is either "GOD" or it's Joseph, The Messiah was suppose to derive from the house of David. His link via the Buybull is through Joseph. Which would mean his father is not god but he's more fully human and there was no virgin birth. If his father is God, then there is no link to the house of David. Either way, the story is BS. If the very foundation of the story can't even withstand basic 1st grader questions, it's the same as anything else in life, It's false.

 

It is the Ruach in Hebrew, or breath that gives life. It is the pneuma in Greek. So there you have another example of cultural interpretations of reality within the same group of writings... I don't think you will many scholarly Jews that would argue one over the other.

 

God breathes in to the dust. Elijah breathes into the child to revive it. Jesus breathes on his disciples to "inspire" them. Jesus also brings a child back to life by breathing on them. It is the breath, not the blood.

[Japedo]

It is the Ruach in Hebrew, or breath that gives life. It is the pneuma in Greek. So there you have another example of cultural interpretations of reality within the same group of writings... I don't think you will many scholarly Jews that would argue one over the other.

 

uh no, I'm talking about the BLOOD not the breath. Jews would agree, the Torah is nonnegotiable, like all laws. I have no idea how you reached I was talking about Breath...? I was talking about Communion and blood. Please provide me evidence that Jews agree to eat any type of blood.

 

The law is abundantly clear, there are no *Except for's.

 

 

192 Not to eat blood Lev. 3:17 Link

[florduh]

I merely speak to the validity of original transcription and subsequent translations. IF God wrote the Bible through the words of inspired men, THEN the written records of what was spoken should be reliable for relating the correct message.

 

I didn't address seat-of-the-pants religion that relies on pure speculation rather than Biblical veracity. The Bible is THE authority for Christianity, and it says what it says. What it says is wrong for a variety of reasons, in my opinion.

 

But as kcdad already pointed out, there was no canonized bible when 1 Timothy was written, so what was the authority for early Christianity?

 

 

 

OF COURSE THERE WAS NO CANONIZED BIBLE! Jebus! How fucking stupid do you people think I am?

 

Oral tradition and the writings which we find today in the Old Testament were the authority THEN. Today, we have those "spoken words of God" in writing. If you could go hear Jesus speak, or if you were receiving letters from Paul, there would be no need for a Bible, but the Bible is all we have for insight and information on the Christian religion. To understand Christianity TODAY you have to rely on what's in the Bible because there is no other source or authority for the beliefs that make up the religion. All the comments, speculations and interpretations are just the human mind seeking desperately to make sense of the nonsensical.

 

Many Western non-believers often have some feeling that there still MUST be something to the Bible because it is so culturally ingrained in us. Christians pick apart doctrine, and atheistic intellectuals pick at everything else, trying to find value in "what it REALLY means." I see little difference between the two. I don't assume the Bible or Christianity has an intrinsic value that I must keep on searching for. The religion and book were promoted by force of law and military might for a good reason - it doesn't stand up on its own merit.

[white_raven23]

OF COURSE THERE WAS NO CANONIZED BIBLE! Jebus! How fucking stupid do you people think I am?

 

<snip>

 

Many Western non-believers often have some feeling that there still MUST be something to the Bible because it is so culturally ingrained in us. Christians pick apart doctrine, and atheistic intellectuals pick at everything else, trying to find value in "what it REALLY means." I see little difference between the two. I don't assume the Bible or Christianity has an intrinsic value that I must keep on searching for. The religion and book were promoted by force of law and military might for a good reason - it doesn't stand up on its own merit.

 

 

Florduh... you ROCK!!!

 

And it's not like the bible has nothing of value. There are little tidbits here and there that are worth a damn. But those bits do NOT make the bible "inerrant" which is what this thread is about! Nor do those tidbits make up for the majority of the bible putting value on sexism, slavery, cruelty, and intolerance.

[white_raven23]

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=28661

 

Nightflight nails it too.

[Guest kcdad]

It is the Ruach in Hebrew, or breath that gives life. It is the pneuma in Greek. So there you have another example of cultural interpretations of reality within the same group of writings... I don't think you will many scholarly Jews that would argue one over the other.

 

uh no, I'm talking about the BLOOD not the breath. Jews would agree, the Torah is nonnegotiable, like all laws. I have no idea how you reached I was talking about Breath...? I was talking about Communion and blood. Please provide me evidence that Jews agree to eat any type of blood.

 

The law is abundantly clear, there are no *Except for's.

 

 

192 Not to eat blood Lev. 3:17 Link

 

I presented an alternative view of what the Hebrews thought was important... not blood... breath. The law is not clear at all and there are abundant ifs, ands and buts. You are talking about the non-mosaic levitical laws. I am talking about the philosophy behind the entirety of the Hebrew writings.

[Guest kcdad]

I merely speak to the validity of original transcription and subsequent translations. IF God wrote the Bible through the words of inspired men, THEN the written records of what was spoken should be reliable for relating the correct message.

 

I didn't address seat-of-the-pants religion that relies on pure speculation rather than Biblical veracity. The Bible is THE authority for Christianity, and it says what it says. What it says is wrong for a variety of reasons, in my opinion.

 

But as kcdad already pointed out, there was no canonized bible when 1 Timothy was written, so what was the authority for early Christianity?

 

 

 

OF COURSE THERE WAS NO CANONIZED BIBLE! Jebus! How fucking stupid do you people think I am?

 

Oral tradition and the writings which we find today in the Old Testament were the authority THEN. Today, we have those "spoken words of God" in writing. If you could go hear Jesus speak, or if you were receiving letters from Paul, there would be no need for a Bible, but the Bible is all we have for insight and information on the Christian religion. To understand Christianity TODAY you have to rely on what's in the Bible because there is no other source or authority for the beliefs that make up the religion. All the comments, speculations and interpretations are just the human mind seeking desperately to make sense of the nonsensical.

 

Many Western non-believers often have some feeling that there still MUST be something to the Bible because it is so culturally ingrained in us. Christians pick apart doctrine, and atheistic intellectuals pick at everything else, trying to find value in "what it REALLY means." I see little difference between the two. I don't assume the Bible or Christianity has an intrinsic value that I must keep on searching for. The religion and book were promoted by force of law and military might for a good reason - it doesn't stand up on its own merit.

 

There is much written material NOT in The Bible. What universe do you live in? What is in The Bible is only there because the Roman Councils of the early church decided to include some and exclude others... did you even look at the various attempts and opinions of what should or should not be included?????

 

Modern scholarship has concluded... CONCLUDED that only 7 of the letters attributed by Paul were written by him and couple others "might" have been and the others are what we call today... forgeries. There is no serious debate about that. There is no serious debate about the authorship of the Gospels of Matthew and John being by the traditionally recognized authors.

 

 

EVERY written work of man has some intrinsic value... with the possible exception of the writing of Susan Sontag. THAT is the point of 2 Timothy 3:16. It is ALL useful for teaching, correction etc etc bullshit, blah blah blah

 

Jesus Buddha!

[Guest kcdad]

OF COURSE THERE WAS NO CANONIZED BIBLE! Jebus! How fucking stupid do you people think I am?

 

<snip>

 

Many Western non-believers often have some feeling that there still MUST be something to the Bible because it is so culturally ingrained in us. Christians pick apart doctrine,

and atheistic intellectuals pick at everything else, trying to find value in "what it REALLY means."

I see little difference between the two. I don't assume the Bible or Christianity has an intrinsic value that I must keep on searching for.

The religion and book were promoted by force of law and military might for a good reason - it doesn't stand up on its own merit.

 

 

Florduh... you ROCK!!!

 

And it's not like the bible has nothing of value. There are little tidbits here and there that are worth a damn.

But those bits do NOT make the bible "inerrant" which is what this thread is about!

Nor do those tidbits make up for the majority of the bible putting value on sexism, slavery, cruelty, and intolerance.

 

And that was my original point.. The Bible never claims to be inerrant, written by God, perfect, flawless or anything... it makes no claims about itself at all.

The closest it comes to anything is when the prophets shout "Hear ye the word of the Lord"! and they go on to tell everyone what selfish bastards they are.

 

Well, it may not have been a direct quote from God, but by God they were selfish bastards! You ask a typical American Christian what a prophet is and he will tell you

it is someone who predicts what will happen in the future... well sort of. He predicts what will happenin the future IF things do change... just like prognasticators do today.

Just like Investment counselors, just like weather men, just like political pundits, just like Ralph Nader...

Just because Christians don't understand their own religion reflects less on them than the idiotic church structure that wants them to remain stupid sheep.

 

Marx was right... ORGANIZED religion is the opiate of the masses... keeping them quiet, stupid and controllable.

[florduh]

There is much written material NOT in The Bible.

 

No shit. I never heard that before.

 

What I'm saying, and what's relevant to the topic, is that the Bible is what we have to work with when it comes to the practice of Christianity. Of course there are other books that didn't make canon, thousands of ways to interpret all of it (as you are making evident) and endless bickering about mistranslations.

 

The fact remains, it is the collection of canonized scripture that determines what churches do and the followers think and believe. The fact that you and I are aware of the excluded books and that there are esoteric interpretations we can employ to make it all somehow more palatable and useful, ain't worth a pinch of owl shit to the typical Christian, be he fundamental cherry picker or liberal cherry picker.

[Ouroboros]

Marx was right... ORGANIZED religion is the opiate of the masses... keeping them quiet, stupid and controllable.

That's true, but I think also that many ideologies can be added to the list. Some political ideas sometimes also become the opiate. It seems like the large masses of people need myths, or at least have a hard time escaping them.

[Japedo]

I presented an alternative view of what the Hebrews thought was important... not blood... breath. The law is not clear at all and there are abundant ifs, ands and buts. You are talking about the non-mosaic levitical laws. I am talking about the philosophy behind the entirety of the Hebrew writings.

 

 

There is no ALTERNATE view. The Jewish Law is abundantly clear there are also no if's and's or But's about the Law. It's a Mitzvah, a Law a COMMANDMENT that doesn't ever change according to the Original texts, or according to Jewish Law. The only thing you did was try to change the issue I was talking about, which had nothing to do with breath and everything to do with blood. How do you make the leap of associating communion with breathing? The Jewish Text (Old Testament) are CLEAR about blood, in every language.

 

The Torah prohibits consumption of blood. Lev. 7:26-27; Lev. 17:10-14. This is the only dietary law that has a reason specified in Torah: we do not eat blood because the life of the animal (literally, the soul of the animal) is contained in the blood. This applies only to the blood of birds and mammals, not to fish blood. Thus, it is necessary to remove all blood from the flesh of kosher animals.

 

Judaism 101

 

No JEW (Especially a Rabbi or teacher aka Jesus) would ever advocate drinking of blood or eating of flesh, symbolic or otherwise, it's breaking Torah laws for reasons cited. For Christ to sit down and mimic a cannibalistic ritual is all proof Jews need to be sure it wasn't any leader of their God, more so a breaker of Torah laws, which would have been death if it were done by a Jew.

 

From the link in my previous post. 613 COMMANDMENTS

 

2 Not to entertain thoughts of other gods besides Him

Ex. 20:3

3 To know that He is one Deut. 6:4

--

43 Not to listen to a false prophet Deut. 13:4

44 Not to prophesize falsely in the name of God Deut. 18:20

45 Not to be afraid of killing the false prophet Deut. 18:22

[Deva]

The fact remains, it is the collection of canonized scripture that determines what churches do and the followers think and believe. The fact that you and I are aware of the excluded books and that there are esoteric interpretations we can employ to make it all somehow more palatable and useful, ain't worth a pinch of owl shit to the typical Christian, be he fundamental cherry picker or liberal cherry picker.

 

Right on the mark Florduh. ya. And Japedo and WhiteRaven. Bravo!

[Justin]

I find it very ironic and telling that the christians that come on these boards can't even agree amongst themselves. The differences between their beliefs of the same book are as varied as each snow flake. Yet, they want us to join them for their way is the only right way.

[GraphicsGuy]

How convenient for you to come that conclusion.

 

I didn't say it wasn't special. I said it wasn't written by God.

 

Well, my other conclusion is that you are arguing some really bizarre semantics for some unfathomable reason.

[MathGeek]

Should we just go ahead and give kcdad a squid marker?

[Justin]

Should we just go ahead and give kcdad a squid marker?

 

Kcdad is to squid marker as George W. Bush is to dumbass.

[Neon Genesis]

Many Western non-believers often have some feeling that there still MUST be something to the Bible because it is so culturally ingrained in us. Christians pick apart doctrine, and atheistic intellectuals pick at everything else, trying to find value in "what it REALLY means." I see little difference between the two. I don't assume the Bible or Christianity has an intrinsic value that I must keep on searching for.

I agree with you on this that people keep searching for value in the bible because it's been culturally ingrained in us but I don't see this as a negative thing in itself. What I mean is that I was recently watching the video The Four Horsemen and in one segment of it, Dawkins said one of his fears was that people would become ignorant of the bible. Though he despised religion, he thought the bible still had a historical and aesthetic sense of value to it. Like one example he used was art and literature. There are many religious themes that appear in art and literature that you can't fully grasp unless you understand the religious inspiration they're drawing from. They used an example of a poem that I forgot the name of and who the author was, but it was a poem that had religious themes in and they thought it wouldn't have been as inspiring without them in it or if you couldn't understand the themes without it. He also mentions that he was once asked a question in an interview that if he was marooned on an island and could only take ten records with him, which one he would take, and one of the ones he picked was a piece of classical religious music. The interviewer was confused and couldn't understand why he as an atheist would choose religious music.

 

Dawkins compares it to being like losing yourself in a work of fiction. You can lose yourself in fiction and become emotionally attached to the characters and their message without actually believing the fiction is true. In his book The God Delusion, Dawkins devotes an entire chapter to the importance of teaching comparative religion as opposed to the evils of indoctrination if only because of the historical value of religious myth. To quote the chapter,

The King James Bible of 1611-the Authorized Version-includes passes of outstanding literary merit in its own right, for example the Song of Song, and the sublime Ecclesiastes (which I am told is pretty good in the original Hebrew too). But the main reason the English Bible needs to be part of our education is that is a major source book for literary culture. The same applies to the legends of the Greek and Roman gods, and we learn about them without being asked to believe in them.

This is partially why I still find value in the bible, that because it's a part of our cultural heritage so to speak, that I think it's important to seek out the truth behind the stories, though I don't claim to know the "truth." And I also think you can find inspiration in the teachings of Jesus without believing in all the supernatural mumbo jumbo being mixed in. In fact, I think to believe the stories are literally true takes away the beauty of myth in the same sense that reading Greek mythology from a literalistic perspective takes away their beauty and just makes it absurd. It's like that Douglas Adams quote that "isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it, too?" Likewise I think the same can also apply to religious myth that you can find beauty in myth without having to believe the faeries in the myth are literally true. At the same time I can understand why not everybody finds value in the bible and I respect other people's opinion if they don't find value in scripture and the variety of opinions is part of what I love about ex-c. But this for me is at least part of the reason why I still find value in the teachings of Jesus and I think the real danger comes in the belief in fundamentalism and when people start using their beliefs to hurt others and force their beliefs on people.

[florduh]

The Bible obviously has had tremendous influence. It addresses the human condition.

 

Dawkins compares it to being like losing yourself in a work of fiction.

 

The difference is that when you read Moby Dick, you are not threatened with eternal punishment if you don't believe the story is true.

 

I think the important themes we all are interested in are found in other literature and art as well. I don't think the Bible does a better job in teaching useful lessons about life, but it can't be ignored.

[rayskidude]

A-man, I do not disagree that Ehrman and others of his ilk actually do deny what other scholars affirm re: Biblical authors.

Thanks for the response. I have to confess when I see someone pull out ad hominem criticisms of scholars right out of the gate, it pretty much tips their hand to me that they don’t have much to back up their disagreements with them. Calling Ehrman and critical scholars as part of an “ilk”, and further attacking his character as “arrogant”, betrays a weak hand on your part. Nevertheless, I will be happy to respond.

 

I’ll take the easy, shortcut road here and just quote a Wiki article on 2 Peter, since you feel Ehrman shouldn’t be paid attention to because of some assumed character flaws:

 

Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle,

most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author, and instead consider the epistle pseudepigraphical

. Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to second-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[2] In addition, specific passages offer further clues in support of pseudepigraphy, namely the author's assumption that his audience is familiar with multiple Pauline epistles (2Peter 3:15-16), his implication that the Apostlic generation has passed (2Peter 3:4), and his differentiation between himself and "the apostles of the Lord and Savior" (2Peter 3:2).

 

A minority of scholars have disagreed with this position

and forwarded reasons in support of genuine Petrine authorship. They argue that the letter did not fit a specific pattern of what they consider pseudepigraphy. The author did not use first person narrative, which Donald Guthrie argues was typical in pseudepigraphy.[3] Certain details in the Transfiguration account differ from the synoptic gospels and that passage lacks embellishment which E. M. B. Green argues was common in apocryphal books.[4] An uncommon title, “our beloved brother,” is given to Paul, where later literature used other titles.[5] The author states that Paul's letters are difficult to understand (2Peter 3:15-16) which Donald Gurthie argues runs counter to the tendency in pseudoepigraphy to enhance the heroic alleged author.[6]

 

Scholars who accept Petrine authorship have a number of explanations concerning the relation between 2 Peter and Jude. It could be that, conversely, Jude used 2 Peter.[7] Other scholars argue that even if 2 Peter used Jude, that does not exclude Petrine authorship.[8] On remaining points, Ben Witherington III argued that the text we have today is a composite, including points taken from the Epistle of Jude, but that it containing a genuine “Petrine fragment”, which he identified as 2Peter 1:12-21.[9] Finally, some scholars[specify] have advanced the hypothesis that differences in style could be explained by Peter having employed different amanuenses (secretaries) for each epistle, or if Peter wrote the second letter himself, while using Silvanus (Silas) as an amanuensis for the first.

 

However, the great majority of scholarship agrees that Peter could not have written this letter

.[10] For example, textual critic Daniel Wallace (though he did not align with the majority) writes that, for most experts, "the issue of authorship is already settled, at least negatively: the apostle Peter did not write this letter" and that "

the

vast bulk

of NT scholars adopts this...perspective

."[11] Werner Kümmel exemplifies this position, stating, "It is certain, therefore, that II Pet does not originate with Peter, and this is today widely acknowledged."[12], as does Stephen L Harris, who states that "[v]irtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter."[13] Evangelical historians

D.A. Carson

and Douglas J. Moo wrote that "most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed,

for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author

."[14]

So essentially your saying the "vast bulk of NT scholars", where there is "no greater consensus" against the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter (the words of D.A. Carson, whom you cited as supporting your views), are essentially arrogant "ilk"? So do you think the vast majority of new testament scholarship is unworthy to be listened to, because they don't agree with your inclinations? Why do you refer to them as those of Ehrman's ilk?

 

I'm sorry, but this sounds a whole heck of a lot like the folks at AiG who dismiss the vast bulk of the world's scientists in denying the age of the earth, for no reason other than it seems to cause them great disconsternation to reconcile their beliefs with discovery. And you used the word arrogant for Ehrman. Wouldn't you say those who dismiss the "vast bulk of NT scholars" as "ilk" and "arrogant" are themselves maybe risking just that, sounding arrogant?

 

1. , and other conservative seminaries would disagree with Ehrman's assessment.

 

In addition, many of the faculty at Talbot and Gordon-Conwell (in Boston) seminaries would also disagree with Erhman.

That’s fine. There’s room for differences of opinion in critical scholarship, however they are in the vast minority, I have to point out. One wonders if those in the minority who stoop to ad hominem attack on liberal scholar’s personal character maybe don’t have all that much to bring to the table for discussion. Honestly, how open are you to anything the “vast bulk of NT scholars” have to say? Or have you made up your mind through faith, and this is basically a case of starting with the answers and looking for support and calling that scholarship?

 

Who canonized the NT? Were they directly guided by the Holy Spirit? Please answer that for me if you will.

 

I wonder what Erhman says about the plethora of ancient Greek NT manuscripts dating back to the John Ryland fragment (dated 150AD) containing a portion of John's Gospel, believed by many to be composed no later than 90AD - especially in comparison to the paucity of ancient documents of the Greek philosophers, or documents concerning Ceasar, or those written by Tacitus, etc, etc, etc. A little research will show that the NT is the single most attested ancient document - by far.

This is misleading. Josh McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict, uses this to suggest things that are simply not supported by it. What does Ehrman say about P52 and the other MSS? Well, since I have his Lost Christianities book still sitting out on my desk in my office from my previous post here let’s have a look. From pages 218, 219:

We do not have the original of 1 Thessalonians (i.e., the text that Paul actually wrote) or of any other New Testament book. Nor do we have copies made directly from the originals, nor copies made from the copies of the originals, nor copies made from the copies of the copies. Our earliest “manuscripts” (hand-written copies) of Paul’s letters date from around 200 CD, that is, nearly 150 years after he wrote them. The earliest full manuscripts of the Gospels come from about the same time, although we have some fragments of manuscripts that date earlier, including P52 [

your John Ryland fragment you mention above

], a credit card-sized fragment, usually dated to the first part of the second century, of verses from John 18, discovered in a trash heap in Egypt. But our relatively fully manuscripts from around the year 200 are not preserved intact. Pages and entire books were lost. Indeed, it is not until the fourth century, nearly three hundred years after the New Testament was written, that we begin to get complete manuscripts of all its books.

 

After the fourth of firth century, copies of the New Testament become far more common, Indeed, if we count up all of the New Testament manuscripts that have been discovered, it is an impressive number overall.

We currently know of nearly 5,400 Greek copies of all or part of the New Testament, ranging from tiny scraps of a verse or two that could sit in the palm of your hand to massive tomes containing all twenty-seven books bound together

. These copies range in date from the second century down to, and beyond, the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century.

As a result, the New Testament is preserved in far more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity. There are, for example, few than 700 copies of Homer’s Iliad, few that 350 copies of the plays of Euripides, and only one copy of the first sex book of the Annals of Tacitus.

 

What is unsettling for those who want to know what the original text said is not the number of New Testament manuscripts, but the dates of these manuscripts and the difference among them. Of course, we would expect the New Testament to be copied in the Middle Ages more frequently than Homer of Euripides or Tacitus; the trained copyists throughout the western world at the time were Christian scribes, frequently monks, who for the most part were preparing copies of texts for religious purposes.

But the fact that we have thousands of New Testament manuscripts does not in itself mean that we can rest assured that we know what the original text said

. If we have very few early copies – in fact, scarcely any – how can we know that the text was not changed significantly

before

the New Testament began to be reproduced in such large quantities?

Most surviving copies were made during the Middle Ages, many of them a thousand years after Paul and his companions had died.

 

I should emphasize that it is not simply a matter of scholarly speculation to say that the words of the New Testament were changed in the process of copying.

We know that they were changed, because we can compare these 5,400 copies with on another. What is striking is that when we do so, we find that no two copies (except the smallest fragments) agree in all of their wording.

There can be only one reason for this. The scribes who copied the texts changed them. Nobody knows for certain how often they changed them, because no one has been able yet to count all of the differences among the manuscripts. Some estimates put the number at around 200,000, others at around 300,000 or more. Perhaps it is simplest to express the figure in comparative terms: There are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

So does this answer your question what he would have to say? What this says is that citing how many manuscripts there are in order to hold that up to suggest a validation of the text is extremely misleading. Again to quote his last line in this, “There are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”

 

None of this of course even takes into account all the different Christianities that had outright opposite views, whose texts were destroyed by those who collected the ones that supported their views into a pile and called that sanctioned texts.

 

And I would ask you to note the arrogance of Ehrman. He speaks as though 1st - 4th Century people were just bumpkins, with no powers of discernment, accepting nearly anything that comes down the pike with a special claim.

I don’t catch that from him, however that still wouldn’t change the fact that the “vast bulk of NT scholarship” agrees in these areas. Sometimes people with knowledge can become arrogant and sometimes not. That has nothing to do with the scholarship.

 

Christians were instructed to "test everything and accept what is good." - and they were very dsicerning in which books were accepted as canon - and which books were rejected, AND many books were, in fact, rejected. He speaks as though these people - who were obviously much closer to the issue of forming the NT canon than he is - just didn't have what it takes. How patriarchal!!

Oh, I hardly take that away from this. Let alone this is not just Ehrman saying these things. Many, many critical NT scholars understand the nature of myth-making. The canonization of the NT was itself a part of that social move, just as the early texts themselves were formed through this process. The canon is simply a piecemeal gathering of various texts that were seen as supporting one group’s views as opposed to another, then used to appear as a whole, cohesive message. It's hardly the case.

 

This is why you have so many differing theological views. Is man's nature basically evil, or basically good? There were and are differences of view on this. So is this a cohesive revelation to sort out in debates amongst theologians, or is it simpler to to just see them as different points of view in loose collection that's errantly thought intended to be a single message? What answers the mystery more cohesively? Divine inspiration, or a human effort?

 

I see it hard to deny this. You would have to claim that somehow this collection that was sanctioned was itself done through divine inspiration. Care to offer some Biblical or otherwise authoritative support for that?

 

Sorry it's been awhile - pastoral responsibilities have increased this week. BUt re: the authorship and canonicity of II Peter, I submit the following for your consideration.

 

Edwin Blum (D.Theol. Univ of Basel, Switzerland) now Prof of Historical Theology at Dallas Seminary spent 5 pages discussing the various issues in his contribution the The Expositor's Bible Commentary. He states that Origen (c. 240AD), Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Augustine, and Jerome all accepted II Peter as written by Peter - but did not accept two other letters purporting to have been written by Peter. Dr. Blum believes in Petrine authorship. Certainly these Early Churchmen were well aware of the issues surrounding this epistle - no one disagreses that II Peter is a 'disputed book', but ultimately it was accepted into the canon AFTER rigorous vetting.

 

Robert Gundry (PhD - Manchester) also addresses the various issues and noted that II Peter was quoted and/or alluded to in 2nd Cent Christian writings - demonstrating that was generally accepted as canon. And the Bodmer papyrus (P72) from the early 3rd cent also shows acceptance of II Peter. Gundry, Prof of NT and Greek @ Westmont College accepts II Peter. In his "Survey of the NT" he states; "Despite modern doubt, we may accept the verdict of the early church that... Peter... wrote the second epistle which bears his name.

 

In their "Intro to the NT"; DA Carson, Doug Moo, and Leon Morris state; "NONE OF THE OBJECTIONS (to Peter being author of II Peter) CAN BE SUSTAINED, and it seems better to accept it at face value, as a genuine writing of the Apostle Peter."

 

The reason none of the objections can be sustained is that they're based on a methodology which is highly subjective. The various historical, literary, form, etc types of NT criticism are not hard science. They are men's studied opinions, but not provable. Therfore, when Dr. Ehrman et. al. make statements that forgeries certainly made their way into the NT - because how could the people of that day possibly know they were forgeries - that shows an utter disrespect for the men who were in places of great responsibility, men who took their calling very seriously. To say these Early Churchmen were unaware of these issues being spoken of today and they simply could not adequately discern authentic from forgery - BUT the scholars of our 'school of thought' today are better equipped to make such judgments - and the modern critics come to a completely opposite conclusion - what kind of attitude is that? It is simply patronizing men of greater import, and men who were 1600 years closer to the issues. How do you categorize such disrespect for others, but confidence in yourselves? I call this arrogance - what do you call it?

 

But also re: modern critical methods, Dr. Eta Linnemann who studied under Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Fuchs, and then taught NT at Philipps Univ in Marburg, Germany wrote a book of her assessment of this field of study. Her book is entitled; "Historical Criticism of the Bible; Methodology or Ideology - Reflections of a Bultmannian turned Evangelical." Dr. Linnemann states, "Using grotesque literary methods which would lead immediately to absurd results if they were ever applied to the work of a poet or a theologian - say Goethe or Barth - claims of inauthenticity are established for the pastoral letters, Ephesians, and Colossians. These claims are then, without careful examination, passed on from one generation of theologians to the next."

 

So it's reported from the 'inside' that these NT critics would do well to plant their critical eye on their own methodology and ideology before claiming to possess greater powers of NT criticism than the Early Churchmen and Early Church. My use of the terms "ilk" and "arrogant" do not belie a weak position - but simply state what the situation actually is, and calling a spade a spade.

 

RE; the process of canonicity for the NT. (1) written by an Apostle or close accociate; (2) does not contradict doctrine & teachings in other Scripture; (3) accepted by the local churches; and (4) the internal witness of the book as to its inspiration. Two comments on this process. Note (3) - the letters in the NT had been widely accepted by local church bodies from Rome - Asia Minor - Damascus - Jerusalem - North Africa, etc. The various church councils confirmed as the NT canon what was widely practiced within the Christendom of that day. SO the councils did not invent or impose an NT canon - they officially confirmed the NT canon that had already been accepted in the churches as a whole. Note (4); there is obviously an ingredient of mysticism here. When a believer, indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, reads a book - there is an internal witness that attests to inspiration by God. The Christian can discern, spiritually, that this book is "theopneustos" breathed into by God. As believers we do not shy away from metaphysics and some degree of mysticism - we are, after all, talking about the God Who is Spirit revealing Himself to man, condescending to man in the language of men. Men, in turn, communicating to the God of the Universe in prayer. Jesus said, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them and they follow Me - John 10:27 and "If anyone is willing to do (God's) will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from myself." John 7:17.

 

And certainly, the Holy Spirit, who dwells within every Christian, is active in our lives for spiritual guidance and strength. Jesus promised that the Spirit sent from the Father, the Spirit of truth, He would guide His Apostles and followers into all truth and disclose to us the things of Jesus Christ, as the Helper, the Comforter - He will bring to the Apostles' remembrance all that Jesus said and teach them all things - John 14:15-6 & 16:7-15. The process of inspiration is stated in II Peter 1:20,21 - "men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Jesus gives examples when He says, "Then how does David, in the Spirit, call Him (Messiah) Lord..? Matt 22:43

 

There's also been some statements by some in this thread that II Tim 3:16, etc do not apply to the NT - as there was no NT at that time. Certainly, the primary application is to the OT Scripture. But from the 50's to about 90AD, the NT books were written and began to be transcribed and distributed. Thus even Paul about 65AD, in I Timothy 5:18, he quotes from the Book of Deuteronomy and the Gospel of Luke in that one verse re: the diligent work of a church elder is worthy of financial support. SO Chritians have always applied the teaching of inspiration to the NT writings. Thus the stringent process for acceptance into the canon.

[rayskidude]

Re: the various resurrection accounts - and other events with multiple accounts in the Gospels could be mentioned as well - no one disputes that not all the details are presented in all the accounts. He is wrong on some counts (the Bible doesn't say that the earthquake was witnessed by any of the women). But the lack of agreement is simply the focus or purpose of the writer. Each writer chose to emphasize different aspects. Was there 1 or 2 angels? Two, but only one angel spoke so some writers focussed on just the one.

 

*shakes head* This is like watching a psychological experiment on cognitive dissonance.

 

Perhaps you would like to deal with the conflicting stories of Judas' death next? I brought that up earlier but you avoided speaking about it.

 

I apologize for the delay - I'm enjoying the opportunity of having several conversations on this thread.

 

How do we harmonize the suicide accounts of Judas - Matthew 27:5 states that he threw the 30 pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and went away and hanged himself. Luke notes that Judas fell headlong and burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out - Acts 1:18. We believe that after having hung there dead (probably from a tree) for some extended time, that the rope simply gave way - and his now dead & bloated body (bloated from the decay) burst open when it hit the ground below.

 

Your thots?