Originally posted by rwingettThe disputed portion goes all the way to verse 11.
I'm at work right now. I won't have time to pursue this until later. Maybe I'll do a little research and get back to you. But I bid you adieu for now.
Tell me latter why you think the elimination of these passages will bring the gospel of Christ down to its knees.
I'll be waiting.
Originally posted by jaywillGenesis 1
In this thread I would discuss with other readers of the Bible why some of us believe in an earth which is older than 6,000 years.
I don't know about the posts of others but my reasons will be primarily theological. I have nothing to mention about dating methods. My approach here is why some of us Bible students have theological reasons for believing t (older than 6,000 years). I have nothing to say about science dating methods in this thread.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
How much time took place between verse 1 and 2?
edit:
Just found this already brought up, I know a lot of people who believe
there were millions/billions of years between the 2 verses. I'm not one
of them, but there you go.
Kelly
Originally posted by NemesioWhat....Whats that? My ears are burning again.....oh, hello once again Nemesio. Well whodey brought up Daniel 9:24-27. Here is the fantastical "stuff".
Originally posted by jaywill
[b]But Daniel could not have known the things about the future to his age without the revelation of God.
I looked at Daniel's famous prophecies when whodey brought them up and they are vague beyond measure!
They don't 'predict' anything, just fantastical stuff about fire and towers and iron. One has to 'interpret'
them excessively broadly in order to give them even the slightest hint of predictive truth.
http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_924-27.htm
In this verse we see the prediction for the coming of the Messiah. That is a prediction for his first coming. Crazy huh? Granted, the way in which the prediction is worded is confusing to simpletons like us. However, look at the web site provided and you will see that Daniel's words add up to predicting when Christ came. You are wrong if this is what impresses me. Hardly. In fact, you could argue the scripture any number of ways depending on how you wish to translate it. However, I prefer to translate it the way rabbis did in the Tulmud in its original Hebrew shortly after the time of Christ. They calculated Daniels prediction of the coming of the Messiah pinpoint on the time when Christ walked the Earth. What was there explanaiton? After all, they did not believe that Christ was the Messiah. Their explanation was that the sinfulness of Israel caused the Messiah to delay his coming. What was their motive for coming to such conclusions? You tell me, after all, they rejected Christ as their Messiah so they had no motive for manufacturing the timeline to match the time Christ walked the Earth. What is even more troubling for the nay sayers it that no where in the Talmud is the time line even disputed. For me, this speaks volumes in regards to the accuracy of the prophesy. If any one should know, the rabbis who wrote in the Tulmud regarding the prophesy should have so either the Messiah "tarries" or he came. You be the judge.
Originally posted by jaywillHmmm. I think you may be on to something here. In fact, in the book of Enoch Satan is said to have fallen on day 2 of creation. If this is true, this means that he was present on earth well before Adam walked the earth.
[b]Deuteronomy 32:7 "Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations..." Here we see a reference to the days of creation and then human time beginning. From the time of Adam on, the Biblical calendar is accurate.
Human time ?
What about time which is pre-human? Do you think that is possible?
Do you think that within ...[text shortened]... 28 we are given only a glimpse into the prophetic past to see the ancient history of Satan.[/b]
It is important to note that Adam seems to haVe been given dominion over the earth when he was created. Was his job to then help restore order I wonder? However, when Adam fell, he simply became a follower of the one who led the rebellion against God in the first place thus effectively handing over his authority to Satan. I think this may be partly why Romans says that through Adam sin entered the world or perhaps, entered the world once again.
Originally posted by jaywillHere's a little something more to get you started:
Okay. So you think verses 1 through 9 of John 8 was a latter fabricated fictional account?
Which major tenet of the Christian faith is effected if we conclude that
Jesus DID NOT SAY the verses attributed to Him in John 8:1-9.
Is the incarnation effected?
Is the redemptive death of Christ effected?
Is the Resurrection effected?
Is t ...[text shortened]... om the New Testament the words attributed to Jesus in verses 1 through 9 of John chapter 8? [/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism
This is a description of the process of textual criticism and the various methods that are used in their research. But especially relevant is the list of some of the findings that have resulted from this research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism#Findings
Findings
In attempting to determine the original text of the New Testament books, modern textual critics have identified several significant sections as probably not original. These possible later additions include the following[9]
* the ending of Mark, see Mark 16.
* Jesus sweating blood in Luke, verses 43-44 in (Luke 22:40-46).
* the story in John of the woman taken in adultery, the Pericope Adulterae.
* Jesus referred to as "unique God," rather than "unique Son," in John 1:18.
* the ending of John, see John 21.
* an explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John, the Comma Johanneum.
Of course, it would do you well to read a little on the Q gospel as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_gospel
Here's a little something more to get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism
This is a description of the process of textual criticism and the various methods that are used in their research. But especially relevant is the list of some of the findings that have resulted from this research:
Thanks. But you should understand that orthodox Christians have their scholarship too.
Do you know who Dr. F.F. Bruce is?
Do you know who Dr. Bruce Metzger is and what he does?
Do you know who Benjamin Warfield was?
Have you ever seen the Greek New Testament published by Metzger's committee? In the margins that keep copius notes on the various alternate translations of different MSS. So when you read a single verse you can look down the bottom of the page and see all of the major alternate translations of that Greek Text down through the centuries.
You see, the people who REALLY care about these things study them quite much. You should not think that only doubters care to study these things. You should not assume that only skeptics have scholarly opinions on these textural matters.
You recommend to me. Fine. I also will recommend to you a book which I found tremendous help from:
A General Introduction to the Bible by Giesler and Nix.
We can sling scholars back and forth all day.
I'd like to see you go over to CARM - Christian Apolgetics Research Ministry website and try some of your ideas about textural criticism there.
My purpose on this thread was really to give my theological reasons for believing in an ancient earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism#Findings
Findings
In attempting to determine the original text of the New Testament books, modern textual critics have identified several significant sections as probably not original. These possible later additions include the following[9]
*
I am aware of these contraversial portions of the NT. Now let's consider briefly:
the ending of Mark, see Mark 16.
The major themes of the gospel are not effected much by the inclusion or exclusion of this passage.
There is simply too many other portions of the NT which are clear and not disputed which tell us the essentials to make the NT stand or fall on this one disputed passage.
* Jesus sweating blood in Luke, verses 43-44 in (Luke 22:40-46).
Whether Jesus sweat drops of blood or simply drops of sweat here is simply NOT a major disupute to effect the core teachings of the New Testament.
He was in an agony of prayer for the sake of doing His Father's will. Are you going to come to the Judgement Day arguing that you did not believe in Christ because you didn't know if it was sweat or blood which He perspired?
This passage has no major effect on the core message of the Gospel of Christ.
* the story in John of the woman taken in adultery, the Pericope Adulterae.
The inclusion or exclusion of this account has not major impact on the core teachings of the New Testament.
I think it is entirely authentic. Removing it from the New Testament would not remove anything from the character of Jesus. It seems very much His style. And if it was not there you could EASILY find the same character traits exemplified in OTHER portions of the New Testament.
Do you think removing verses 1 through 11 of John 8 would reduce Christ's compassion, His sense of justice, His merciful treatment of sinners, His wisdom? I don't .
Verse 12, following the disputed portion (1-11), would be just as true:
"Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying, I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall by no means walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life" (John 8:12)
What would "therefore" refer to if not the previous event of Jesus and the adulterous woman?
Is He less "the light of the world" because we exclude verses 1 through 12? I think not. The very next chapter which is not in dispute testifies that He is Son of God and a great spiritual light.
Verse 12 about Jesus being the light of the world follows the previous event perfectly. When Jesus came the light of subjective conviction shined on the consciences of those who would stone the woman. One by one they departed starting from the oldest who had more of a history of sin. And it continues down to the young and tempestuous. The younger people are more naive. The older ones knew very well that they were old sinners.
Was not Jesus "the light of the world" causing that mob to be self convicted that they had no right to judge the adulterous woman.
Removing these 11 verses which some dispute has NO IMPACT on the pristine character of the Savior Jesus. What a flimsy excuse you will have when you argue with God Almighty that you did not let yourself be saved by His Son because you doubted that He really said anything in those 11 verses in John.
* Jesus referred to as "unique God," rather than "unique Son," in John 1:18.
If John 1:18 is not clear and is disputed, how MANY other undisputed passages tell us He is Son of God.
Does the dispute of John 1:18 make Isaiah 9:6 go away? The Son given shall be called the Father of Eternity. The child born shall be called the Mighty God.
And since He is "the Firstborn among many brothers" (Romans 8:28,29) it should be clear that God intends to have many sons of God.
If John 1:18 is not certain to you, there are plenty of other passages which clearly speak of the uniqueness of the Son of God - Jesus.
* the ending of John, see John 21.
Where would you LIKE John to end? And I'll show you that your elimination of chapter 21 will not make that much difference.
These are the flimsy excuses of people who "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel"
Do you think these criticisms launched at Jesus are new? Do you think that the Scribes and Pharisees didn't dispute things like this as a rational to crucify the Lord Jesus?
* an explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John, the Comma Johanneum.
Take some scissors and cut those passages out of your New Testament. The Triune God - Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is still on many many pages of the New Testament.
Even all of your examples combined do not make a major difference to the core message of the New Testament.
You have been alarmed and aroused falsely as far as the major core teaching of Jesus and His apostles is concerned.
None of these arguments give me reason to underestimate His great love for us.
Originally posted by jaywillThose six examples are just the tip of the iceberg, I'm sure. They're the ones that scholars, with their limited means, have been able to identify so far. And those are just some examples within the written history of the bible. As I'm sure you're aware, the earliest books of the bible weren't even written down until decades after Jesus' death. Before then they existed solely as oral tradition, passed on by word of mouth. The possibility of distortion, error, and rank fabrication during those early years was exponentially greater, as the bewildering number of early christian sects can attest.
[b]
Here's a little something more to get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism
This is a description of the process of textual criticism and the various methods that are used in their research. But especially relevant is the list of some of the findings that have resulted from this research:
Thanks. But you should ...[text shortened]... these arguments give me reason to underestimate His great love for us.[/b]
As for my own opinion, I don't think Jesus was a "christian" at all. I think he was a reformist Jewish preacher. I don't think Jesus claimed to be divine, or to be the son of god. That was attributed to him by his followers. And that when Jesus talked about the "Kingdom of God", he was referring to the restoration of the Jewish monarchy, which he believed was imminent. As such, I think that of the early christian sects we know about, it was probably the Ebionites who were the closest to Jesus' actual teachings, and that what went on to become orthodox christianity has almost no resemblance to those teachings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Originally posted by jaywillAs an interesting sidenote, rwingett's favorite agnostic religious scholar (Bart Ehrman) was actually Bruce Metzger's protege.
Do you know who [b] Dr. Bruce Metzger is and what he does?... Have you ever seen the Greek New Testament published by Metzger's committee?...You see, the people who REALLY care about these things study them quite much. You should not think that only doubters care to study these things. You should not assume that only skeptics have scholarly opinions on these textural matters.[/b]
They continued a professional relationship and Ehrman teamed up with his former teacher to co-author the 4th edition of a standard seminary textbook: The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration.
See? Vader and Kenobi can get along.
whodey,
It is important to note that Adam seems to haVe been given dominion over the earth when he was created. Was his job to then help restore order I wonder? However, when Adam fell, he simply became a follower of the one who led the rebellion against God in the first place thus effectively handing over his authority to Satan. I think this may be partly why Romans says that through Adam sin entered the world or perhaps, entered the world once again.
I agree.
God turned over the dominion to the new creature Man. After the Daystar's rebellion was judged and the kingdom assigned to him, God created Man and said "Let THEM have dominion ..." (My emphasis).
God desired that man should rule over His creation in place of the revolting Lucifer [Latin].
Watchman Nee wrote - "In God's plan to create man, He did not predestine man to sin: neither did He foreordain redemption."
This means that the redemption accomplished by Christ was a remedial procedure to bring man back to the original purpose for His creation. We are not minimizing the importance of redemption. But redemption was not foreordained but man reigning over God's creation was.
Once again, when we see the created man in Eden Satan already had a long history of revolt against God. Satan's deception aimed at man was a preemptive attact to stave off Satan's own execution. He knew that the dominion being turned over to Adam would eventually mean the execution of Satan.
You see God is the Creator. The Daystar was the creature who rebelled. God would not execute the creature unilaterally. God would first secure the cooperation of another creature to agree with Him to jointly execute Satan.
Satan knew this and preemptively moved against humanity to bring man along with him in his Satanic rebellion against God.
Genesis 1:2 shows the world as without form and ruin. But Isaiah 48 specifically tells us that God did not create the world waste and ruin.
We see the earth as waste in Genesis 1:2. But latter we are told that God DID NOT create the earth waste.
"For this says Jehovah, Who created the heavens - He is the God Who formed the earth and made it; He established it;
He did not create it waste, But He formed it to be inhabited." (Isaiah 45:18)
This waste is one of the indications that the previous world was judged by God. Perhaps all the water on earth was frozen and the planet was left in darkness for a long time. The sun must have been either extenguished or blacked out from view from the surface of the earth. I imagine that the planet may have looked like the surface of Uranus or Neptune or maybe Venus. It was without form and void. Satan's rebellion caused that former order of things to be turned upside down and inside out in divine judgment.
And after some period of time God created man His new deputy authority to rule instead of the ancient Daystar being.
whodey,
We see the earth as waste in Genesis 1:2. But latter we are told that God DID NOT create the earth waste.
"For thus says Jehovah, Who created the heavens - He is the God Who formed the earth and made it; He established it;
He did not create it WASTE, But He formed it to be inhabited." (Isaiah 45:18)
Originally posted by jaywill
The major themes of the gospel are not effected much by the inclusion or exclusion of this passage.
...
This passage has no major effect on the core message of the Gospel of Christ.
...
The inclusion or exclusion of this account has not major impact on the core teachings of the New Testament.
...
Where would you [b]LIKE John to end? And I'll show you that your elimination of chapter 21 will not make that much difference.
...
Even all of your examples combined do not make a major difference to the core message of the New Testament.[/b]
The issue that rwingett is rightly raising is not whether these disputed
passages compromise the Gospel message, but whether it undermines
any claim to Biblical inerrancy that many Christians feel is necessary for
the communication of Divine Truth.
So, if you agree with rwingett that there are indeed errors in the New
Testament, then you should begin a discussion based on that point of
agreement rather than dismissing him altogether. If you disagree with
his assertion, then I suggest that you offer counterarguments to the
various passages he listed in an effort to bolster your claim.
None of these arguments give me reason to underestimate His great love for us.
Would the fact that Saint John's Gospel was a non-historical meditation
on the life of Jesus and the significance of His ministry cause your faith
to diminish? That is, if you found out definitively that the discussion
with Nicodemus, the woman at the well, the 'Last Supper Discourses' were
all fictional (but inspired) presentations made by the author of Saint
John's Gospel, would you find that your faith was compromised?
Nemesio
So, if you agree with rwingett that there are indeed errors in the New Testament, then you should begin a discussion based on that point of agreement rather than dismissing him altogether. If you disagree with his assertion, then I suggest that you offer counterarguments to the various passages he listed in an effort to bolster your claim.
I didn't say I agreed that they represent fabrications. The passages are disputed.
In most cases the character traits of Christ represented by some of the passages could be found elsewhere in other passages.
Most of the textural scholars I have read acknowledge that copyist's errors have occured in the transmition the NT. And all of these questionable passages, if combined together, do not impact the core message of the Gospel more than about 1% or 2%.
I think what we have today as the NT is very adaquate to give us a good picture of what Christ and the Apostles taught. It is trustworthy. It is wholly adaquate.
Would the fact that Saint John's Gospel was a non-historical meditation on the life of Jesus and the significance of His ministry cause your faith to diminish? That is, if you found out definitively that the discussion with Nicodemus, the woman at the well, the 'Last Supper Discourses' were all fictional (but inspired) presentations made by the author of Saint John's Gospel, would you find that your faith was compromised?
John selected some cases to present truths about Jesus Christ which he wanted to emphasize. If they were not in proper historical sequence, I am willing to excuse that. Maybe the order of some things happened in another sequence.
I give John the freedom to present his version of the teachings and deeds of Jesus as he wants to. I do not believe that John made up lies to testify of Jesus Christ.
I am willing to recognize that there were stylistic characteristics which reflected the personalities of each of the four Gospel writers.
I think it is a skeptic's daydream that he will find rational to reject the Person of Christ and His messages because it was compromised.
The poster said that these were only the tip of the iceberg, but doesn't have any more heavies to drop on us. In other words, underneath that little snow hill, he hopes there is a mountain of ice down there somewhere. He just doesn't know where it is.