06 Jul 07
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwSo this is your solution? Stick your head in the sand? Use an outdated
If I want to believe that there are no errors in the bible, then I will.
Saying there are errors in the bible, to me, is the same as saying that God isn't perfect.
translation and ignore the sources 1000 years earlier in the original
language?
You think that this makes you a better Christian?
Nemesio
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by josephwWould you say the verse where Jesus says "Be perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect" is evidence that God is "perfect?"
I already answered that. I think you would rather strain at a knat and swallow a camel.
If I want to believe that there are no errors in the bible, then I will.
Saying there are errors in the bible, to me, is the same as saying that God isn't perfect.
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by josephwThe more I think of this, the more tragic it is.
If I want to believe that there are no errors in the bible, then I will.
Saying there are errors in the bible, to me, is the same as saying that God isn't perfect.
Earlier you said that no one had ever been able to convince you that there
was a contradiction in the Bible. The fact is that you have come to idolize
the Bible so much that there can be no convincing you that there is a
contradiction; if 'heard a voice' and 'did not hear a voice' (same words,
not even synonyms!) doesn't strike you are a contradiction, then you
are already so far down the path to idolatry that any future discussion
with you is an utter waste of time. You described yourself as open-minded,
but you've rejected simple words repeatedly.
You see, you fail to separate God from Scripture. You made an equivalency
statement yourself: to say that the Bible is wrong is to say that God isn't
perfect. They are one in the same rather than one as the outpouring
of the other. The vessel into which Scripture was poured was humankind,
notorious for interpretation, evaluation and, indeed, error, and even sometimes
willful disobediance.
Sure, you'll cite the opening of St John's Gospel -- In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God, and so
forth -- and I'll be inclined to point out that the translation of 'Word' comes
from the Greek philosophical concept of 'Logos,' which means more than
just a word or collection of words. But I'd be wasting my breath. You're
coming to the table with your definition and a dozen citations from
Scripture scholars will never change your mind.
Your faith hinges on 'heard' and 'not heard.' What kind of faith is that?
Does this not strike you as analogous to the Pharisees' slavish adherance
to Jewish Law?
It would have been truly trivial for God to authorize a text: Make Jesus
a scribe who wrote out His Gospel before embarking on His ministry. But
it clearly wasn't God's priority to have literal perfection preserve. It is
in the diversity of interpretation (yes, even contradictory interpretation!)
to help the diverisity of readers come to believe in a diversity of divine
truths:
Love one another, give to those in need, turn the other cheek. Without
these things, Christianity has no worth. How Sts Matthew, Mark, Luke,
John, Paul, and all the other authors came to understand these truths
through the lens of Jesus is a personal matter; St Luke understood Jesus
differently than St Matthew, and so on. The variety is for your spiritual
benefit, not to lock you down into 'one true and right' translation.
I realize that it's scary, especially as an older gentleman, to reevaluate
your faith. The afterlife is a little closer and more real to you than it is
for most of the people here, and the idea that a long-held tenet of yours
might actually be wrong has to be terrifying, because maybe God
won't like you as much afterwards.
So be it: believe whatever you want. I took at face value your apparent
interest in dialogue. But that's not what you want. You want to ignore
anything that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.
And you're from a long line of so-called Christians who have come and
gone from these forums when their views are set to the coals. That's the
beauty of the internet: things don't go your way, you just disappear.
Have a happy life, Joseph, living in whatever blissful fantasy you want.
If you decide you do want a dialogue about Scripture, then you let me
know. I'm just sorry I wasted the time trying to open your mind, that I
took you at your word that you were sincerely interested in learning
something about the evolution of Scripture and, in turn, helping your
faith evolve. You're not interested in developing your faith; you're perfectly
happy with it in its current, static state.
And this is the real tragedy.
Nemesio
07 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioHere is what wiki says on the matter.
No offense, but do you even own a critical version of the Bible?
St Mark ends at 16:8. The verses the follow are significantly later additions by another author some
seventy or eighty years after, and are missing in both the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
There is no reason to defend this ending as authentic.
Nemesio
"Starting in the 19th century, textual critics have commonly asserted that Mark 16:9=20, describing some disciples' encounters with the ressurected Jesus, was added after the original autograph. Mark 16:8 stops at the empty tomb without further explanation. The last 12 verses are MISSING from the oldest manuscripts of Marks gospel. The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a "short ending" is included after 16:7, but before the "long ending", and exists by iteself in one of the earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least four different endings have been attested. Irenaeus, quoted from the long ending, specifically as part of Mark's gospel. The 3rd-century theologian Origen quoted the resurrection stories in Matthew, Luke, and John but failed to quote anything after Mark 16:8, suggesting that his copy of Mark stopped there, but this is an arguement from silence. Eusebius and Jerome both mentioned the majority of texts available to them omitted the longer ending. Critics are divided over whether the original ending at 16:8 was intentional, whether it resulted from accidental loss, or even the authors death. Those who believe that 16:8 was not the intended ending argue that it would be very unusual syntax for the text to end with the conjunction "gar", as does Mark 16:8, and that thematically it would be strange for a book of good news to end with a note of fear "for they were afraid". Some of those who believe that the 16:8 ending was intentional suggest a connection to the them of the "Messianic Secret"."
What if any of this do you disagree with? It seems to me that what I have just read assumes that the ending of 16:8 was not intentional, rather, it was taken out. What say you?
07 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioGood point, however, James does mention Christ in 1:1 and 2:1 by referring to him as the Lord Jesus Christ and in 5:7,8 he anticipates "the coming of the Lord". So if Christ was not resurrected, what of the second coming?
Ahem. All? Not quite. Without spending a lot of time trying, can you find a discussion whatsoever
of the Resurrection in the Letter of Saint James?
It is somewhat mysterious as to why not much is said about Christ in James but it is evident from what little is said that Christ is very much the focal point of his teachings. IN fact, you could say that his speech is saturated with allusions to the teachings of Christ. Also, in all fairness this work is very short and sweet and to the point. If it had been longer, the chances of it mentioning the resurrection would have increased.
07 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioGood googly moogly you're a long winded chuckle head.
The more I think of this, the more tragic it is.
Earlier you said that no one had ever been able to convince you that there
was a contradiction in the Bible. The fact is that you have come to idolize
the Bible so much that there can be no convincing you that there is a
contradiction; if 'heard a voice' and 'did not hear a voice' (same words, ...[text shortened]... nt, static state.
And this is the real tragedy.
Nemesio
07 Jul 07
Originally posted by Nemesio"sources 1000 years earlier in the original
So this is your solution? Stick your head in the sand? Use an outdated
translation and ignore the sources 1000 years earlier in the original
language?
You think that this makes you a better Christian?
Nemesio
language?"
What sources are those?
I don't believe that one christian is better than another. Why would you accuse me of that?
07 Jul 07
Originally posted by kirksey957Maybe. Maybe this one. "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."
Would you say the verse where Jesus says "Be perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect" is evidence that God is "perfect?"
Or maybe, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come."
Then there's this one, "for the Lord our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth"
Or, "O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me."
And dozens of others.
07 Jul 07
Originally posted by josephw
What sources are those?
First of all, I've already told you them. But either you've forgotten already or weren't paying attention
or something.
But, what difference does it make? Your mind is made up: The KJV is the perfect translation and no
one and nothing will convince you otherwise. Why should I continue to waste time providing evidence
you will ignore because you have 'the Truth?'
I don't believe that one christian is better than another. Why would you accuse me of that?
This is an even worse point of view. A Christian who is apathetic about feeding the poor and one
who is dedicated to working with them are equally following Jesus' injunction? I just assumed you
were trying to be the best Christian possible; in order to do this, you have to be better than someone
not working as hard as you.
Nemesio
07 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioWow! If you would be patient with me for just a while longer, I would ask you to take a closer look at the words "hearing," and "heard," in chapters 9 verse 7, and 22:9 respectively. A careful study of the Greek word and its use in its respective contexts should be revealing.
The more I think of this, the more tragic it is.
Earlier you said that no one had ever been able to convince you that there
was a contradiction in the Bible. The fact is that you have come to idolize
the Bible so much that there can be no convincing you that there is a
contradiction; if 'heard a voice' and 'did not hear a voice' (same words, ...[text shortened]... nt, static state.
And this is the real tragedy.
Nemesio
At least it was for me.
And I'm sorry that I frustrated you. 😞
07 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyYou know, I take for granted that people will 1) Read precisely what I say; and 2) Write precisely
Good point, however, James does mention Christ in 1:1 and 2:1 by referring to him as the Lord Jesus Christ and in 5:7,8 he anticipates "the coming of the Lord". So if Christ was not resurrected, what of the second coming?
It is somewhat mysterious as to why not much is said about Christ in James but it is evident from what little is said that Christ is ...[text shortened]... t. If it had been longer, the chances of it mentioning the resurrection would have increased.
what they mean. These are stupid assumptions on my part.
This is what you said:
Originally posted by whodey
As for the resurrection of Christ, I think this a vital teaching that ALL of the canonized books in the NT teach, thus, perhaps it is important in terms of us being considered "Christian". I view it as such.
It is not a vital teaching in the Letter of St James. Naturally, I believe that St James believed in
the Resurrection (although I'm not sure he believed it meant the same thing that 2nd-century
Christians believed) and, consequently, in the parousia that you quoted in the fifth chapter.
It is not his focal point, and it's not even an auxiliary point. It's not even a peripheral point.
So, once again, you wrote something and meant something else and I responded to what you wrote
and now you're rewriting it. Now being 'saturated with allusions to the teachings of Christ' is equivalent
to 'the Resurrection's being a vital teaching.'
Can you imagine how frustrating this is for me?
The focal point of the Epistle is Jesus' focal point (which is why this letter is one of my favorite selections
of all NT literature): Serve one another, serve the poor, be a servant, be honest, be 'Christlike.'
I was going to go through several Pauline Epistles to show how the parousia and not the
Resurrection was by far a greater focus, but I bet I'm wasting my time. You'll insist that one is basically
the same as the other or whatever chameleon-like approach suits you at the time. I'm tired of
putting scholarly efforts into posts to have you just flop around.
The topic of this thread was inerrancy. No one wants to tackle the Greek and the best I've gotten
is 5x5=25 is more than 90% true.
Nemesio
07 Jul 07
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioAs far as the Pauline letters go, I think Paul has made himself clear in terms of how important the resurrection is.
I was going to go through several Pauline Epistles to show how the parousia and not the
Resurrection was by far a greater focus, but I bet I'm wasting my time.
Galations 2:21 "I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
1 Corinthians 15:12 "Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen. And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching in vain, and your faith is in vain. Yes, and we are found to be false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raise up Christ; whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised. And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; you are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."
So what do you think? Do you think Paul to be above all men the most miserable? Was his faith in vain or his assumption that if Chirst was not raised his faith was in vain?
Speaking of wasting ones time, was Paul wasting his time on you?
I don't say these things to be flippant, rather, I say these things because I am concerned about what I think I am hearing you say. I am not attacking you as much as I am challenging you. I hope you will recieve what I have to say and have been trying to say in such a spirit.