God's word is too liberal?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
How does one discern objectively the word of god?

I cannot give you a comprehensive method. But there are some obvious ways. If you find that a verse is found in one manuscript, but not in any others (which are older), then it is very likely that this verse is inauthentic. Or if you find that a passage is stylistically different, that the words they use (and the way they spell them) are different, then very likely you have different authorship.

Originally posted by FMF
Why must you limit It in this way? How earthbound of you.

I'm not limiting anything God Is.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
As far as I can see that's essentially what they are doing. You're right they don't come out and specifically say that, but I think you'd have to be naive to not be able to see that implied in most of it.

They specifically say they want to identify "pro-liberal" terms. They consistently label any of the supposed inaccuracies as being liberal.

Why n for political implication?

Possible government is exactly the proper translation?

As far as I can see that's essentially what they are doing. You're right they don't come out and specifically say that, but I think you'd have to be naive to not be able to see that implied in most of it.

I see that they have an agenda. But I do not see that they are intentionally changing the Bible itself. Their criticism is always about the translation.

Why don't they just say "we want to find inaccuracies" period - without concern for political implication?

Because they are a conservative organisation. Again, I do not see any problem. Obviously Jewish people will want to correct any misunderstandings, and inaccuracies, about Judaism in the New Testament. John for example oftens interprets Hebrew Scripture prophetically about the Messiah, in a way which many Jewish scholars think laughable. That does not mean they should then be obliged to correct all other misunderstandings. Feminists too will obviously want to correct St. Paul's teaching about wives submitting to husbands. That does not mean they should then be required to address all other inaccuracies. Everyone has an agenda, and that's ok!

For the record, I don't actually agree with their arguments. I think they are acting out of an ideological agenda. My point is that it is not simply a case about 'too liberal, throw it out'. They have at least gone to the effort to argue for the exclusion of certain passages and correction of certain translations.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]This doesn't seem to make much sense. If the authors believe that there are inauthentic passages, then they believe the Bible is wrong. If the Bible contains passages that are not inerrant, then the Bible cannot be inerrant.

No; it means that the authors disagree about what the Bible is. There is nothing wrong with that. Orthodox Christians have a ...[text shortened]... ern what verses are authentic and restore the Bible. For the most part, this has been done.[/b]

Until such a time that a version of the Bible is produced that contains no inerrant passages, then no individual can validly claim to have a Bible that is inerrant. From your description, it seems highly unlikely that any such version can ever be produced, unless an infallible authority becomes available to guide them. Thus claims of an inerrant Bible are meaningless from a practical standpoint.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Until such a time that a version of the Bible is produced that contains no inerrant passages, then no individual can validly claim to have a Bible that is inerrant. From your description, it seems highly unlikely that any such version can ever be produced, unless an infallible authority becomes available to guide them. Thus claims of an inerrant Bible are meaningless from a practical standpoint.

Douay Rheims

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]As far as I can see that's essentially what they are doing. You're right they don't come out and specifically say that, but I think you'd have to be naive to not be able to see that implied in most of it.

I see that they have an agenda. But I do not see that they are intentionally changing the Bible itself. Their criticism is always about the tra ...[text shortened]... argue for the exclusion of certain passages and correction of certain translations.[/b]

I see that they have an agenda. But I do not see that they are intentionally changing the Bible itself. Their criticism is always about the translation.

So you think they won't let their agenda get in the way of finding a more accurate translation? People with agendas are always the most objective 😛

Everyone has an agenda, and that's ok!

You are arguing against something that I'm not actually arguing. I think it's what they call a strawman argument.

I'm not saying that it's a horrible thing or that they are doing something that they don't have a right to do. Like I have said before - they can write their own bible if they want.

I think they are acting out of an ideological agenda.

BINGO! there's the actual point. I think it IS about "it's too liberal, throw it out" though - that's their ideological agenda! They simply find an argument (no matter how logically vapid) and boom - they have legitimized their removal of the bible's liberal bias.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I cannot give you a comprehensive method. But there are some obvious ways. If you find that a verse is found in one manuscript, but not in any others (which are older), then it is very likely that this verse is inauthentic. Or if you find that a passage is stylistically different, that the words they use (and the way they spell them) are different, then very likely you have different authorship.

So it's a democracy of manuscripts?

Different authorship? I thought it was all authored by god?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Until such a time that a version of the Bible is produced that contains no inerrant passages, then no individual can validly claim to have a Bible that is inerrant. From your description, it seems highly unlikely that any such version can ever be produced, unless an infallible authority becomes available to guide them. Thus claims of an inerrant Bible are meaningless from a practical standpoint.

Until such a time that a version of the Bible is produced that contains no inerrant passages, then no individual can validly claim to have a Bible that is inerrant.

Not quite. A very large majority of the Bible can be accepted as authentic. These are parts which appear in all the manuscripts and are attested in the early Patristic writings. I don't know of any whole passages which have been questioned and certainly the rejection of the story of the adulterer is extreme.

Thus claims of an inerrant Bible are meaningless from a practical standpoint.

Quite the reverse. It means that Christians are not bound to defend the mistakes of copyists or the deliberate alterations by ideologues who want to avoid dogmatic controversies.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I see that they have an agenda. But I do not see that they are intentionally changing the Bible itself. Their criticism is always about the translation.

So you think they won't let their agenda get in the way of finding a more accurate translation? People with agendas are always the most objective 😛

Everyone has an agenda, and that's ok! vapid) and boom - they have legitimized their removal of the bible's liberal bias.

BINGO! there's the actual point. I think it IS about "it's too liberal, throw it out" though - that's their ideological agenda! They simply find an argument (no matter how logically vapid) and boom - they have legitimized their removal of the bible's liberal bias.

That is certainly how you can interpret it, maybe you can mindread. As I see it, however, they have constructed an argument, which though seemingly motivated by a conservative agenda, is nonetheless based on linguistic and literary ideas. I do not think that 'goverment' would really have any counterpart in Hellenic culture. Perhaps they really do have a point, at least in this particular case. So it is not just a matter of 'Too liberal, chuck it out'. There is a line of reasoning and, certainly, they are right to defend the Bible from liberal interpretations (which as I said earlier do exist.)

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]BINGO! there's the actual point. I think it IS about "it's too liberal, throw it out" though - that's their ideological agenda! They simply find an argument (no matter how logically vapid) and boom - they have legitimized their removal of the bible's liberal bias.

That is certainly how you can interpret it, maybe you can mindread. As I see it, how ...[text shortened]... t to defend the Bible from liberal interpretations (which as I said earlier do exist.)[/b]

which though seemingly motivated by a conservative agenda, is nonetheless based on linguistic and literary ideas.

Not just seemingly. It's pretty obvious to anyone with more than a grade school education that they do have a conservative agenda.

Again my point completely goes over your head and you don't actually address it.

The point is that the interpretations are subjective and the agenda drives that interpretation.

Do you think there is a justified defense of the bible from conservative interpretations?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I cannot give you a comprehensive method. But there are some obvious ways. If you find that a verse is found in one manuscript, but not in any others (which are older), then it is very likely that this verse is inauthentic. Or if you find that a passage is stylistically different, that the words they use (and the way they spell them) are different, then very likely you have different authorship.

I am curious. Are you arguing that what was originally written down by the original author of any given work is the authentic word of God, or is it simply an 'authentic original'?
What about books that obviously have more than one author? If an author added some passages, are his additions inauthentic or is it only inauthentic if the additions were unintentional (copyist or translation errors).

What about the processes used over the year for choosing which books / manuscripts to include and which not to include (these processes are often unrecorded and unknown, or recorded and highly political).

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
which though seemingly motivated by a conservative agenda, is nonetheless based on linguistic and literary ideas.

Not just seemingly. It's pretty obvious to anyone with more than a grade school education that they do have a conservative agenda.

Again my point completely goes over your head and you don't actually address it.

The point ...[text shortened]...

Do you think there is a justified defense of the bible from conservative interpretations?

The point is that the interpretations are subjective and the agenda drives that interpretation.

As I have replied on multiple times, their arguments are slightly more sophisticated than 'too liberal, chuck it out'. They have criticised some passages as stylistically incompatible with the rest of the book and claimed that some words do not actually correspond to English. It is not enough just to say that they are conservatives, they can be ignored. This is first and foremost a linguistic argument and it deserves to be treated as such.

Do you think there is a justified defense of the bible from conservative interpretations?

I don't know. I haven't actually read any conservative interpretations yet.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am curious. Are you arguing that what was originally written down by the original author of any given work is the authentic word of God, or is it simply an 'authentic original'?
What about books that obviously have more than one author? If an author added some passages, are his additions inauthentic or is it only inauthentic if the additions were unint ...[text shortened]... include (these processes are often unrecorded and unknown, or recorded and highly political).

I am curious. Are you arguing that what was originally written down by the original author of any given work is the authentic word of God, or is it simply an 'authentic original'?

I am not arguing that what was originally written down was the word of God. I am only trying to give a faithful representation of what Christians generally believe -- which is that the original writers were inspired, but their copyists down through the ages were not.

What about books that obviously have more than one author? If an author added some passages, are his additions inauthentic or is it only inauthentic if the additions were unintentional (copyist or translation errors).

The additions of authors are, I guess, not inauthentic because these obviously are by the author. I do not know how an author can inauthentically author his own work. As for copyists and translators, this is easily proven. Ask a Christian to copy out the Bible in full. If he makes an error (and he certainly will), then we know that God does not make every bible devoid of error.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]The point is that the interpretations are subjective and the agenda drives that interpretation.

As I have replied on multiple times, their arguments are slightly more sophisticated than 'too liberal, chuck it out'. They have criticised some passages as stylistically incompatible with the rest of the book and claimed that some words do not actuall ...[text shortened]... etations?[/b]

I don't know. I haven't actually read any conservative interpretations yet.[/b]

their arguments are slightly more sophisticated than 'too liberal, chuck it out'.

I agree and have agreed with that. My point is that the motivation for them making those arguments is obviously based in their ideology, not a noble search for the truth.

It is not enough just to say that they are conservatives, they can be ignored.

Good thing I didn't say that!

I don't know. I haven't actually read any conservative interpretations yet

It's irrelevant whether you have read any conservative interpretations or not.

You said it's legitimate to protect the bible from liberal interpretations, why not protect it from conservative ones too?

Why not protect the word of god without political bias?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
their arguments are slightly more sophisticated than 'too liberal, chuck it out'.

I agree and have agreed with that. My point is that the motivation for them making those arguments is obviously based in their ideology, not a noble search for the truth.

It is not enough just to say that they are conservatives, they can be ignored.
t from conservative ones too?

Why not protect the word of god without political bias?

I agree and have agreed with that. My point is that the motivation for them making those arguments is obviously based in their ideology, not a noble search for the truth.

Obviously. And they are quite candid about the fact that they are conservatives and are acting out of a conservative agenda. If that was really the point of your original post, to say that these guys are conservatives, then obviously you brook no disagreement there. However, you said in your first post that the authors are editing God's word. As I have said, time and time again, just because they have a conservative agenda does not mean that they are editing God's word. They might have a point. They certainly have raised arguments to support themselves.

You said it's legitimate to protect the bible from liberal interpretations, why not protect it from conservative ones too?

I have already answered this question. As I said before, Jewish people will be particularly concerned to rectify inaccuracies about Judaism presented in the NT. For example, Jews would want to argue against the supercessionalist interpretation of St. Paul which says that the Jewish covenant has been abrogated and take collective guilt in the death of Christ (arguably the basis for anti-Seminitism and pogroms.) Feminists too would correct chauvanistic readings of the Bible because this could obviously affect women's lives elsewhere in the world. But this does not mean that Jews have to correct every erroneous reading of the NT or that feminist scholars have to address other inaccuracies. That would be quite silly.