Theological Opinions , PART II

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I doubt it.

Sorry about the missing stuff. I hate that.

Isn't it just awful? I spent some fourty minutes copying and pasting and replying, and for what?

One thing I do remember I wanted to say, though, is this to Count Comfect re: the Missouri Synod's position on Catholicism. Saying that the Papacy is the Anti-Christ does not necessitate saying that the Catholic Church is not Christian; please note the following excerpt from their website:

Originally Posted by The Missouri Synod

Q. A non-Lutheran Christian friend of mine recently stated that he believes that Catholics are not saved and should not be considered Christians. What is the Synod's belief regarding the salvation of Catholics who adhere to Roman dogma?

A. The LCMS recognizes all Trinitarian church bodies as Christian churches (in contrast to "cults," which typically reject the doctrine of the Trinity and thus cannot be recognized as Christian). In fact, a primary "objective" listed in the Synod's Constitution (Article III) is to "work through its official structure toward fellowship with other Christian church bodies"—which explicitly assumes that these "other church bodies" are "Christian" in nature. That does not lessen the Synod's concern for the false doctrine taught and confessed by these churches, but it does highlight the Synod's recognition that wherever the "marks of the church" (the Gospel and Sacraments) are present—even where "mixed" with error—there the Christian church is present. Such a church is a heterodox church, that is, a church that teaches false doctrine.

Link

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sun-star

On a sort-of related note:

Churches back plan to unite under Pope

Any thoughts? I'd love to see it happen one day, though I very much doubt it will be soon.

This has been quite the topic of conversation around my college of late.

I'm really not clear on what they're saying. Are they saying Akinola and other conservative bishops might split, or are they talking about the whole communion? Are these "radical proposals" in the first paragraph the same as the urging of exploration of ways to promote unity with Rome in the third? As usual, the secular media bungles their portrayal of religious issues, and consequently I don't know what to think.

My roommate, who is an Anglican, and the son of an Anglican priest, says he thinks the Times doesn't know what they are talking about, and that this just came out of no where. It wouldn't surprise me a bit.

In my opinion, it would be absolutely fantastic if this were to actually happen; I'm just not going to get my hopes up, and until I see reliable evidence, will chalk it up to bad media.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Isn't it just awful? I spent some fourty minutes copying and pasting and replying, and for what?

One thing I do remember I wanted to say, though, is this to Count Comfect re: the Missouri Synod's position on Catholicism. Saying that the Papacy is the Anti-Christ does not necessitate saying that the Catholic Church is not Christian; please note the following excerpt from their website:



Link

I'll just say that's a moderating of their position over the last few hundred years then.

But thanks for the link.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sun-star

On a sort-of related note:

Churches back plan to unite under Pope

Any thoughts? I'd love to see it happen one day, though I very much doubt it will be soon.

Maybe the Anglican/Episcopal split helped move this forward....who knows.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

When you play with a group of people another factor enters that picture: your ability to interact and complement one another. I’ve played with some awesome musicians who are terrible in groups. They only play to themselves and expect the others to follow along. They can be entertaining, but they never really get that groove.

So yer saying Sonny Rollins was kind of like Melkor...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Careful thought, study, and prayer. Not so much with the studying as I might like, but definitely a lot of thought and prayer.

The alternative to making the literal vs. metaphorical determination would be to take it literally all the time (and we both know how scary that would be) or to take it as a metaphor all the time.

What do you do? (I'm always happy to learn a new way to understand something.)

I'm glad you put a lot of thought and prayer into making that determination, even if I disagree with your approach .

I interpret the Bible literally all the time, except sometimes when the Lord is speaking, and especially when he's speaking through visions or dreams. It's obvious from the text that visions and dreams aren't always meant to be interpreted literally. But the information that's presented as historical, I tend to accept on face value. And if it seems initially repugnant to me, I research it more carefully to learn more about what it means and whether or not it really is barbaric or bad at all. I also examine carefully my own natural values to find out if they are in line with what the Bible is saying. If they aren't, I'm more likely to be wrong in my natural values than the Bible is, for it is eternal and I am finite.

All humans make mistakes and often value errors, so I can't trust myself and expect the Bible to fit fully with my natural standards. That would be making myself God. Rather, my sole standard must be God's standard. If something in the Bible that God approves seems immoral or wrong, I pray, seek the counsel of wiser Christians than myself and more information, and most importantly, listen to the voice of God answering me. God validates his own word and proves it moral, in all the places where his Word might seem immoral to us.

I feel an approach where we choose to interpret some parts as literal and other parts as metaphorical winds up being us choosing for ourselves what we want to believe. Which I think is about the same as us making up our own religion . I know that that sounds harsh, and I guess it is. I just don't see a logical way of escaping that.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

How do these statements…



Jive with these statements…

Where is the logical inconsistency? If it is what you just said that follows, don't bother responding again (except to respond to the point I'm about to make, of course).

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It seems that by voiding free will, and also the ability for humans to be “good” of their own accord, the whole point of god’s creation is to create perfectly subservient beings. The actions of the humans themselves couldn’t be any more meaningless. It’s all about god. Why not just cut to the chase and create subservient beings in the first place?

You mean robots without the ability to think, feel, and experience life?

Free Will is basically random chance. For according to that belief, God didn't pick us up out of the rat cage, but rather he just opened his hand and said, "anyone who wants to come aboard can come aboard." Which means he was leaving it to random chance who would come to heaven and who would not. That, to me, is not the act of a very loving God. By the predestination standpoint, however, God reached down into the rat cage and picked up the one he wanted with him, so that it would be with him forever. Which is a kind and loving act that shows real caring about the creature's future.

You suggest that the predestination standpoint means we are under bondage. However, we have as much freedom as God does. We have the freedom to act according to the natures and personalities that God gave us. We cannot act in any way outside of our own personalities and natures. The same is true of God. He can act only according to his own nature, according to his own personality. Perhaps all of God's actions are eternally predestined, for he does only what is within his personality for him to do and can do no other. This is the same for us.

Here is a vitally important point to understand: God does not impose upon our personalities.

Have you ever read the Harry Potter books? In those books, there is a curse that the bad wizards use on some good wizards to get complete control over them, so that they behave in exactly the ways that the bad characters want them to behave. People can become puppets on strings when controlled by this curse. They have no personalities, no free will, nothing.

Compare them to the "free" characters of the Harry Potter books. Those characters are full of vibrancy, with their own personalities, their own wills. Yet J.K. Rowling controls them. Nonetheless, there is a significant difference between them and the cursed characters. The ones that J.K. Rowling controls act according to their own personalities and their own natures. They are themselves, and Rowling does not impose herself upon them (usually ), whereas the others are not themselves. The characters in J.K. Rowling's book have their own personalities and natures, just as J.K. Rowling does, and have the same freedom within the book as Rowling has outside the book. They have the freedom to be themselves, just as Rowling does, and no "freedom" to be other than themselves, to act according to someone else's personality, for instance. The main difference between Rowling and the people she has created in her book is that she has life, whereas they don't.

This is a point at which my analogy falls short, for book characters don't have life, but God can give life to people.

Authors and readers can love characters in books and gain strong emotional attachments to them. These characters are not real people, yet even without reality, they still can create that attachment in us and be considered precious.

How much more, then, would real, living creatures that God has created and predestined be precious and valuable?

Now, I cannot act like my brother for the rest of my life, no matter how much "free choice" one might suspect that I have. I'm bound to be myself. And even if I chose to attempt to be like my brother all my life, that choice would be coming from my personality, which means I'm still being myself. All the freedom that any of us have is the freedom to be ourselves, and predestination does not hinder that. The Imperius Curse in Harry Potter may be capable of taking away free will, and so can sin. But predestination does not.

Sin is what keeps us from acting according to our own personalities, for it imposes evil upon us. We therefore must act in evil ways, when under the power of sin, even though we may not want to. We find ourselves bound to it. Not one person alive can choose through force of will to do what is right all the time. That is because sin enslaves.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Human society is the same way. The “magic” comes from the interaction of human beings with one another. The best human term for this ability to interact may be empathy. It comes from thousands of years of human societal interaction and is passed down by our parents and our parent’s parents. It’s the sum of human experience on this planet that has brought us to where we are, and is what will bring us forward.

I agree with you that there can be a magical beauty in human interactions.

I have some issues though, with this. Some people in the course of human history have genuinely believed that blacks were subhuman, and thought it an act of kindness, of empathy, that they should experience Western control over their lives.

Anti-Semitism comes from the interaction of human beings with one another, and might be considered to be empathy with one's fellows, though not the Jews, who were not fellows but rather were evil. In fact, from the perspective of a number of Anti-Semites, killing Jews and mistreating them was doing good and being kind to one's fellow people against those who were just manifestations of evil.

Most people who have done what are now considered to be atrocious wrongs have believed that they are doing right, and even often done it out of empathy with their fellows from their nation/race/religion/economic position, etc. Many even out of empathy with humanity as a whole, as they don't consider those they are attacking to be "human." I believe the same thing is happening today through abortion in civilized West, except on a larger scale than ever before in history.

Many other crimes have been committed, but the important point is that many of them involve people doing what they believe is right. Empathy is not always involved, of course. But these interactions of humanity must be considered to be part of the total sum of human experience, and indeed one so endemic in our experience that the 20th century had in it the two World Wars, the bloodiest conflicts in history. The most recent of those took place only about sixty years ago, and it was immediately followed by the Cold War, the most terrifying event for humanity, with the greatest risks to survival, of all time. Yet the governments decided, because of mutually assured destruction, not to launch that war.

Mutually assured destruction is no longer a barrier to holocaust, however. For now it's terrorism, small groups of fanatics who want to use WMDs against vast numbers of people. These WMDs are becoming more and more easy to come by.

Humanity's total experience is partly magical and beautiful, I agree. But it also has a lot of great blackness and ugliness. That ugliness often causes people to doubt that there is meaning.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It also includes religion, but much like the musical term "groove", religion is a just a name for the very complex human interactions that we have a hard time seeing for what they are. Or, if we do see them, we discount them because we can't believe that humans could bring about such a thing. The thing is, any one human can not. Instead, morality stems from humanity as a whole.

It may be easy to say this about religion from an outsider's perspective. But then, you don't talk with God or hear his voice. The personal relationship with the outside force is not a human construction, I can tell you from my personal experience. And I can tell you you'd know it for yourself from your own personal experience, if you asked God to open your heart to him and further asked him to reveal himself to you in a way that could convince you.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Ultimately, it is utilitarian. You don’t kill people indiscriminately because you’d find yourself dead in short order. You raise your children in a responsible manner so they will become positive contributors to society. The society you are also a part of.

Who defines what's a "responsible manner" or a "positive contributor" to society? Who's to say what's responsible and what's positive? If humans define it, then so do the parents you'd say are being irresponsible or are bringing their children up to be negative influences on society. They'd probably say they're doing right. And who's to say they're wrong? The majority? The majority's view of practical experience? That view might be different fifty or a hundred years from now.

But about utilitarianism . . . are you saying that no one has ever gotten away with a crime? Or that no one has ever gotten away with any big crimes?

You told me in another thread that even if individuals might sometimes get away with it, the society they live in may crumble. But who cares? Since individuals can get away with it, even where their society pays the penalty, why shouldn't they get away with it?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It’s empathizing with your fellow human being and acting upon those feelings to better society and thus better yourself along the way. Becoming entwined with the world. Finding that social groove.

That’s a whole lot of meaning in my book, even if we end up as nothing more than a pile of dirt when we are done. Each and every one of us lives on in society for as long as humanity lives on.

And after it's all gone to dust and no one remembers it, and the vast forces of the universe continue with complete disregard for anything that happened, where then is the importance or meaning? It might have meaning to us humans, but after we're gone, no one would be there to view it as having meaning, and the cosmic forces would continue heedlessly.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

And the humility is not before god, but before our own earthly history.

It's ironic you'd say that, because what I've always been hearing from you is that humanity is constantly improving, which would make pride justified.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I'll just say that's a moderating of their position over the last few hundred years then.

But thanks for the link.

Umm...no. If you note, on that very page, you can link to "the Anti-Christ and the Papacy", where it does affirm that the Papacy is the anti-Christ. While saying that Catholics might be a moderation of previous teaching (I don't know in what ways Missouri Synod doctrine has developed), it is not a moderation of this teaching.

Maybe the Anglican/Episcopal split helped move this forward....who knows.

Last I heard, they hadn't split yet.

I feel an approach where we choose to interpret some parts as literal and other parts as metaphorical winds up being us choosing for ourselves what we want to believe.

I hate to sound harsh, but that is absurd. There is not one single person on this earth who interprets every part of the Bible literally. If you find a single person, I will eat my hat.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I interpret the Bible literally all the time, except sometimes when the Lord is speaking, and especially when he's speaking through visions or dreams.

Free Will is basically random chance. For according to that belief, God didn't pick us up out of the rat cage, but rather he just opened his hand and said, "anyone who wants to come aboard can come aboard." Which means he was leaving it to random chance who would come to heaven and who would not. That, to me, is not the act of a very loving God. By the predestination standpoint, however, God reached down into the rat cage and picked up the one he wanted with him, so that it would be with him forever. Which is a kind and loving act that shows real caring about the creature's future.

But God only selected a few rats. The others are SOL. And you feel that expresses more caring.

Originally Posted by Leif Erikson

However, we have as much freedom as God does. We have the freedom to act according to the natures and personalities that God gave us. We cannot act in any way outside of our own personalities and natures. The same is true of God. He can act only according to his own nature, according to his own personality. Perhaps all of God's actions are eternally predestined, for he does only what is within his personality for him to do and can do no other. This is the same for us.

So, then, God is free to sin? Or is your position that His Nature is Perfect, therefore he is not free to sin. Wouldn't that make our choices more numerous than God's? And how would you reconcile that POV with Jesus' hesitation in the Garden of Gethsemane? Was he free to refuse the cup, or not?

Originally Posted by Leif Erikson

The main difference between Rowling and the people she has created in her book is that she has life, whereas they don't.

Or that they are FICTION, and she's not. I won't start here debating the literary merit.

Originally Posted by Leif Erikson

Now, I cannot act like my brother for the rest of my life, no matter how much "free choice" one might suspect that I have. I'm bound to be myself. And even if I chose to attempt to be like my brother all my life, that choice would be coming from my personality, which means I'm still being myself. All the freedom that any of us have is the freedom to be ourselves, and predestination does not hinder that. The Imperius Curse in Harry Potter may be capable of taking away free will, and so can sin. But predestination does not.

Sin is what keeps us from acting according to our own personalities, for it imposes evil upon us. We therefore must act in evil ways, when under the power of sin, even though we may not want to. We find ourselves bound to it. Not one person alive can choose through force of will to do what is right all the time. That is because sin enslaves.

I have no idea what your basis is for presenting this cult of personality as being, in any way, related to Christian doctrine. It's closer to EST.

Originally Posted by Leif Erikson

It may be easy to say this about religion from an outsider's perspective. But then, you don't talk with God or hear his voice. The personal relationship with the outside force is not a human construction, I can tell you from my personal experience. And I can tell you you'd know it for yourself from your own personal experience, if you asked God to open your heart to him and further asked him to reveal himself to you in a way that could convince you.

The Old Testament (and Saul on the way to Tarses) is full of stories of people to whom God Spoke while they were just minding their business. Is it your POV that God, failing, perhaps in his old age, is unable now to speak without an express invitation? He has to be on the 'buddy list' or he gets caught by the spam blocker? If that isn't the case, you've got a lotta (space) nerve to assume so blithely that He couldn't be speaking to brown jenkins, too, even if he doesn't attend your church.

All in all, you have a little god.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I hate to sound harsh, but that is absurd. There is not one single person on this earth who interprets every part of the Bible literally. If you find a single person, I will eat my hat.

At first, you really confused me when you said this. Now, as I research the Roman Catholic position on the Bible, it becomes more understandable.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Roman Catholic position on the Bible is further clarified in Dei Verbum, one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council (Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, n. 11 & 12) This document states the Catholic belief that all scripture is sacred and reliable because the biblical authors were inspired by God. However, the human dimension of the Bible is also acknowledged as well as the importance of proper interpretation. Careful attention must be paid to the actual meaning intended by the authors, in order to render a correct interpretation. Genre, modes of expression, historical circumstances, poetic liberty, and church tradition are all factors that must be considered by Catholics when examining scripture. The Roman Catholic Church holds that the authority to decide correct interpretation rests ultimately with the church through its magisterium.

So now I understand that the Catholic Church teaches differently from what many Protestants believe.

But let's be careful not to mix terms. I didn't say that the Bible is 100% literal. Here was my stated position:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I interpret the Bible literally all the time, except sometimes when the Lord is speaking, and especially when he's speaking through visions or dreams. It's obvious from the text that visions and dreams aren't always meant to be interpreted literally. But the information that's presented as historical, I tend to accept on face value.

That is a very common conservative Christian perspective, as demonstrated by this source (whatever you may think of the value of Wikipedia ):

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

It is commonly taught in the most conservative Christian seminaries[12] that certain sections of the Bible should be interpreted as literal statements of the author and are not intended as parable. These include creation in Genesis, the flooding of the entire world in Genesis, the lifespans as enumerated by genealogies of Genesis, the historicity of the narrative accounts of Ancient Israel, the supernatural intervention of God in history, and Jesus' miracles [13][14] These views however do not contend the literalistic values that parables, metaphors and allegory are not existent in the Bible [15][16] but rather relies on contextual interpretations based on the author's intention. [17]

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

But God only selected a few rats. The others are SOL. And you feel that expresses more caring.

Yet again, you seem to like to debate with yourself rather than with me. This is not what I said. What I said is that his picking up the one rat rather than waiting for one of the lot to wander onto his hand expresses more caring for the one than the free will perspective does. I didn't say anything about the others- you are right now adding them into the conversation.

Now on the matter of those other "rats" you refer to, I'd first of all say that I don't believe they are eternally tortured. There is only one verse in the Bible that explicitly says that, and it is in Revelation, a vision. I could get more into that verse, if I wanted, as I've already done earlier in this thread.

The other passages refer to eternal fire and eternal destruction, which are different concepts from eternal torture. There is a passage of the Bible that says body and soul are destroyed in hell, and I believe that. The spirit is what lives and is eternally tormented, and it involves the ideas and beliefs of people, all that they stood for. Hitler is being "eternally tortured" in that he is disagraced and his name is written in infamy. I believe that the damned will be annihilated.

Now, since we're going by Christian Biblical theology, we're assuming that God is all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful. A god of such infinite qualities is well positioned to determine whether it is good and worthwhile to create people on a temporary basis for temporary purposes and then eliminate them. He might make some for glory and others for what Paul calls "common purposes." He, as maker of creatures and the one who decides where they go, and with infinite qualities that make him a rightful Judge, is well placed to know better than us how he is to deal with people and what their fates should be.

If you cannot understand God's will, that doesn't make it unjust.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

So, then, God is free to sin? Or is your position that His Nature is Perfect, therefore he is not free to sin. Wouldn't that make our choices more numerous than God's? And how would you reconcile that POV with Jesus' hesitation in the Garden of Gethsemane? Was he free to refuse the cup, or not?

Are you suggesting that it is sin to not want to endure unbelievable agony? I believe that God's nature is perfect, though, and I think you'll find that most Christians believe God's nature is perfect. So he isn't free to sin. The devil might try to tempt him, but he never submitted to any temptation. He remained pure and sinless, in accord with his nature.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I have no idea what your basis is for presenting this cult of personality as being, in any way, related to Christian doctrine. It's closer to EST.

There are many scriptures throughout the Bible that affirm predestination. My point about personality is based on personal experience that all humans share, in addition to the scriptures revealing divine perfection, predestination and God's love.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The Old Testament (and Saul on the way to Tarses) is full of stories of people to whom God Spoke while they were just minding their business. Is it your POV that God, failing, perhaps in his old age, is unable now to speak without an express invitation? He has to be on the 'buddy list' or he gets caught by the spam blocker? If that isn't the case, you've got a lotta (space) nerve to assume so blithely that He couldn't be speaking to brown jenkins, too, even if he doesn't attend your church.

All in all, you have a little god.

Actually, brownjenkins has just told everyone on the Theology thread in one of his recent posts that he doesn't believe in a god. That statement indicates that either no god has spoken to him (as he believes), or he is hearing God and just doesn't know it, or he is tuning God out. So I think BJ will agree with me that my statement, that he doesn't "talk with God or hear his voice" (or at least doesn't understand it as God's voice, if he does hear it) is valid.

[hectorberlioz]

Lief, I just want to say I'll never be the giant you are in this subject, so keep posting, my good friend!

[Lief Erikson]

You're very kind. I very, very much appreciate that comment .

[Butterbeer]

Lief: Yet again, you seem to like to debate with yourself rather than with me

*Put the mirror down Lief and look around!*

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I've never heard of any manuscripts or fragments of manuscripts surviving from before the second century, but the early texts that do exist from then on show remarkable consistency. Which fragments are you talking about?

Posting from school and don't have can't look it up, but I believe there were two, one called...P46 or somesuch. Don't remember exactly. At least pretty sure there are fragments from the Pauline letters from before the 2nd century.

Yet there was wide distribution at an early time period of texts with only minute differences. Whether they were amateurs or not, and even though the texts were copied from other texts, the similarities between the content of such an enormous number of manuscripts is amazing.

The more documents you have, over the larger an area of geography, the more you can cross-check them to work out what the original would have said.

Of course they show pretty much the same content, as they were all copied from the same sources, and after about 300 AD professionals got involved which I'm guessing would have increased the accuracy pretty dramatically. There are still a lot of errors from the earlier times though, and such errors may been inherited in later manuscripts - so even if later sources corresponds with earlier we can't be 100% sure that's what the original (which we don't have) read.

I'll give you some sources.

Bruce Metzger got a master's degree from Princeton Theological Seminary, a doctorate from Princeton University, and was awarded honorary doctorates by five colleges universities, including St. Andrews University in Scotland, the University of Munster in Germany, and Potchefstroom University in South Africa. He has authored and edited fifty books, served as resident scholar at Tyndale House, Cambridge, England, as visiting fellow at Clare Hall, University of Cambridge, in 1974 and at Wolfson College, Oxford, in 1979. He is professor emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary after a forty-six-year career teaching the New Testament, was chairman of the New Revised Standard Version Bible Committee, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy, and serves on the Kuratorium of Vetus Latina Institute at the Monastery of Beuron, Germany. He is the past president of the Society of Biblical Literature, the International Society for New Testament Studies, and the North American Patristic Society.

There's really no point in citing his credentials. I have no idea of the quality of Princeton, of the 50 book he's written, how good the Bible he's revised is, etc. If I was sceptical of your sources I'd ask for the names and check Wikipedia (not saying that it's the ultimate place for wisdom & truth, but it does usually contain at least somewhat accurate information on these topics). All this just makes it harder for me to respond.

I cited this background on him from page 57 of "The Case for Christ." In his words, "In addition to Greek manuscripts, we also have translations of the gospels into other languages at a relatively early time-into Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. And beyond that, we have what may be called secondary translations made a little later, like Armenian and Gothic. And a lot of others- Georgian, Ethiopic, a great variety.

"[This matters] because even if we had no Greek mansucripts today, by piecing together the information from these translations from a relatively early date, we could actually reproduce the contents of the New Testament. In addition to that, even if we lost all the Greek manuscripts and the early translations, we could still reproduce the contents of the New Testament from the multiplicity of quotations in commentaries, sermons, letters, and so forth of the early church fathers."

We could no doubt reproduce much of it, but we can't be sure they meant the same to the early church-fathers (some of whom may have used different canons) as they do to us today.

According to Metzger, "The quantity of New Testament material is almost embarrassing in comparison with other works of antiquity. Next to the New Testament, the greatest amount of manuscript testimony is of Homer's Iliad, which was the bible of the ancient Greeks. There are fewer than 650 Greek manuscripts of it today. Some are quite fragmentary. They come down to us from the second and third century AD and following. When you consider that Homer composed his epic about 800 BC, you can see that there's a very lengthy gap."

When you consider that Homer began as an oral tradition and wasn't written down before the late 8th/early 7th century (iirc) in an age with very low literacy/writing capabilities (the greek letters had just been introduced), that the Homeric hymns weren't as important for the greek cult as the NT was to the early Christians (far, far less, actually), that the greek gods didn't have as much impact through their history and were largely abandoned - and later as good as prohibited - after the 1st century AD (iirc)...

And according to Frederic Kenyon, the former director of the British Museum and author of The Palaeography of Greek Papyri, "in no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament." He further said, "The last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed."

I'd claim that this is a bit exaggerated, but I don't have anything on me to back that up right now.

Could you repeat them for me?

The last chapters of Mark, the passe on the adulteress from John and the first verses of John.

The major doctrines of the Christian Church are repeated in many places in the different gospels and epistles, rather than confined to any single passage in any particular book. So if any variation did happen in the passage involving a major doctrine, this would be clarified by the other passages and by other books, including other "variations" of the same book.

Yet in addition to this, even the more significant errors didn't get close to damaging the credibility of the New Testament, because there is such a multiplicity of documents over such a broad area. In Metzger's words, "the more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church." (The Case for Christ, p. 65)

I'd argue that this is largely because the errors were inserted to reinforce already-held doctrines one had interpreted from the text - thus removing them still leaves one with the opportunity to interpret the texts the way they'd already been interpreted (they may open for new ones as well, but those are of course not considered by the various churches).

Eh? We don't accept Catholic tradition as necessarily divinely inspired. I bet it has several things right, but that doesn't make it divinely inspired. You'll have to give me a citation on that, if you're going to say most Protestant denominations accept it. Though that whole point is a tangent, as it's unrelated to Biblical reliability.

I never said divinely inspired. As far as I can see many protestant denominations still use Catholic traditions in their doctrines though (like the story of the Fall of Lucifer).

About your comment regarding real text-criticism, I'd again refer you to the multiplicity of documents and the work of the scholars I've cited. But I'd like to add to that the point that several of the New Testament books were regarded as scripture by the Early Church right from the get-go (In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter refers to the books by Paul as scripture), and so would have been carefully preserved on merit of that as well.

Paul was held as scripture by many of the early fathers - I'd claim they are regarded as fathers of the modern church precisely because they threw their lot with Paul. There were many groups that dissented, though, like the early jewish Christians, the Coptic church, etc.

Got to run, late for class.

[Falagar]

About your comment regarding real text-criticism, I'd again refer you to the multiplicity of documents and the work of the scholars I've cited. But I'd like to add to that the point that several of the New Testament books were regarded as scripture by the Early Church right from the get-go (In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter refers to the books by Paul as scripture), and so would have been carefully preserved on merit of that as well.

Just noticed that I didn't really answer the point you raised here (had to run, as noted). I'd argue that even though Paul was regarded as scripture from early on it isn't a safeguard against copying errors or people editing the texts to suit their own agenda, though I agree that in the case of Paul the letters are probably as close to the earliest documents as one can hope for.

The whole post was rushed, but I don't have any time to 'improve' upon it these days.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But let's be careful not to mix terms. I didn't say that the Bible is 100% literal. Here was my stated position:

That wasn't the position I was responding to. I was responding to this position:

I feel an approach where we choose to interpret some parts as literal and other parts as metaphorical winds up being us choosing for ourselves what we want to believe.

To truly interpret all of the Bible as literal is simply not feasible. I'll go for your moderated position, but you simply can't condemn reading parts of the Bible as metaphorical, and retain any sense at all.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Falagar

I'd argue that this is largely because the errors were inserted to reinforce already-held doctrines one had interpreted from the text - thus removing them still leaves one with the opportunity to interpret the texts the way they'd already been interpreted (they may open for new ones as well, but those are of course not considered by the various churches).

Then don't call them errors; call them sacrilege. Call the spade a spade!

I never said divinely inspired. As far as I can see many protestant denominations still use Catholic traditions in their doctrines though (like the story of the Fall of Lucifer).

It's true. There are many teachings that are taken from the Catholic Church that the Protestants retain, even if they can't be really firmly supported from Scripture.

Paul was held as scripture by many of the early fathers - I'd claim they are regarded as fathers of the modern church precisely because they threw their lot with Paul. There were many groups that dissented, though, like the early jewish Christians, the Coptic church, etc.

The Coptic Church? The Coptic Church split after the Council of Chalcedon, in the fifth century. They may have gone heretical, but they most assuredly "threw their lot with Paul"; same canon, same idea of Christianity, etc. Don't forget, Paul, and those who condemned the Judaizers, were also early Jewish Christians.

[Rían]

totally OT, but I gotta say, Falagar, I love that Aikanáro ref in your siggy!

Now back to the thread topic ...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Posting from school and don't have can't look it up, but I believe there were two, one called...P46 or somesuch. Don't remember exactly. At least pretty sure there are fragments from the Pauline letters from before the 2nd century.

Okay, that's possible. I was thinking of the gospels, not the epistles.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Of course they show pretty much the same content, as they were all copied from the same sources, and after about 300 AD professionals got involved which I'm guessing would have increased the accuracy pretty dramatically. There are still a lot of errors from the earlier times though, and such errors may been inherited in later manuscripts - so even if later sources corresponds with earlier we can't be 100% sure that's what the original (which we don't have) read.

I've already cited scholars who have pointed out that the New Testament is 99.5% pure. I've also pointed out the errors in the estimations of "variations." I've also presented other professionals who have attested to the incredible accuracy of the New Testament, especially in comparison with all other ancient texts. You have, as yet, presented no evidence with which to counter this.

Originally Posted by Falagar

There's really no point in citing his credentials. I have no idea of the quality of Princeton, of the 50 book he's written, how good the Bible he's revised is, etc. If I was sceptical of your sources I'd ask for the names and check Wikipedia (not saying that it's the ultimate place for wisdom & truth, but it does usually contain at least somewhat accurate information on these topics). All this just makes it harder for me to respond.

Please check the credentials I've given you- you'll find they're very strong, and I suspect that they'll convince you he's a very powerful source.

Originally Posted by Falagar

We could no doubt reproduce much of it,

All of it, my sources say.

Originally Posted by Falagar

but we can't be sure they meant the same to the early church-fathers (some of whom may have used different canons) as they do to us today.

One of the criteria for selecting the scriptures of the current New Testament canon was that they had to have been accepted by the Early Church fathers. So they used and accepted roughly the same books.

Originally Posted by Falagar

When you consider that Homer began as an oral tradition and wasn't written down before the late 8th/early 7th century (iirc) in an age with very low literacy/writing capabilities (the greek letters had just been introduced), that the Homeric hymns weren't as important for the greek cult as the NT was to the early Christians (far, far less, actually), that the greek gods didn't have as much impact through their history and were largely abandoned - and later as good as prohibited - after the 1st century AD (iirc)...

You're underrating its importance to the Greek world by a lot, but more importantly, the Iliad is the ancient historical document with the greatest amount of textual attestation after the New Testament. So regardless of whether or not it makes sense that there would be as few manuscripts as there are, the point is how solidly backed the New Testament is in comparison with all other historical documents of antiquity.

Originally Posted by Falagar

I'd claim that this is a bit exaggerated, but I don't have anything on me to back that up right now.

That's what you'll need, because you're contradicting professional sources.

Originally Posted by Falagar

The last chapters of Mark, the passe on the adulteress from John and the first verses of John.

There isn't actually any problem with the last chapters of Mark- only the last part of the last chapter of Mark. The main part that there is some difficulty with there is the part involving the encounters with the resurrected Jesus. However, the debated part of this comes after the text already describes the women finding the stone of the tomb rolled back and angels telling them, "Jesus is alive." So even if we say that the last half of this book was a later addition (which wouldn't, by the way, mean it isn't divinely inspired), that still wouldn't overthrow the attestation to the resurrection found in Mark. But even if we dropped the attestation to the resurrection found in the end of Mark, we'd still find it attested in prophecies Jesus makes about himself earlier in the book, as well as in many other books of the Bible, in many places.

I don't know enough about the supposed changes in John to comment on them, as yet. Would you care to elaborate on your contentions regarding those parts of the Bible?

Originally Posted by Falagar

I'd argue that this is largely because the errors were inserted to reinforce already-held doctrines one had interpreted from the text - thus removing them still leaves one with the opportunity to interpret the texts the way they'd already been interpreted (they may open for new ones as well, but those are of course not considered by the various churches).

I'd say that the messages were already repeated in so many passages that this would be unnecessary. Reinforcement would be unnecessary.

But, if the last part of the last chapter of Mark wasn't in the original, you might be right about that intention. My own suspicion is that, if it wasn't in the original, the other author may have just wanted to finish up the respected manuscript for tidiness's sake. It should end with the resurrection and perhaps ascension of Jesus, after having had such a lead-in, he may have felt. But, even if Mark wasn't the author of that part, we don't actually know what the intention was and it doesn't have much relevance anyway, since the doctrines there are stated and restated in so many other places.

Originally Posted by Falagar

I never said divinely inspired. As far as I can see many protestant denominations still use Catholic traditions in their doctrines though (like the story of the Fall of Lucifer).

Not that I'm saying you're wrong about this, but to back your point (which is still not proven to me), maybe you should use another example. The Fall of Lucifer is described in two places in the Bible I can think of right off the bat, and I suspect that in Revelation there's a third mentioning of it that I'm forgetting.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Paul was held as scripture by many of the early fathers - I'd claim they are regarded as fathers of the modern church precisely because they threw their lot with Paul. There were many groups that dissented, though, like the early jewish Christians, the Coptic church, etc.

Got to run, late for class.

I'll defer to Gwaimir's response on this.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Just noticed that I didn't really answer the point you raised here (had to run, as noted). I'd argue that even though Paul was regarded as scripture from early on it isn't a safeguard against copying errors or people editing the texts to suit their own agenda,

I've already given you many strong citations that show that this did not happen. Metzger, Kenyon, Geisler, Nix . . . You have yet to debunk them with anything beyond suppositions.

Originally Posted by Falagar

though I agree that in the case of Paul the letters are probably as close to the earliest documents as one can hope for.

I've cited sources saying that this is not only true of the epistles, but of the entire New Testament.

Originally Posted by Falagar

The whole post was rushed, but I don't have any time to 'improve' upon it these days.

Don't worry about it . It's nice to be discussing this with you, again!

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

That wasn't the position I was responding to. I was responding to this position:



To truly interpret all of the Bible as literal is simply not feasible. I'll go for your moderated position, but you simply can't condemn reading parts of the Bible as metaphorical, and retain any sense at all.

I expected that those who read my post would understand the statement you've quoted about literalism and metaphor in the context of the rest of my post, which includes the exceptions I had previously noted .

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm glad you put a lot of thought and prayer into making that determination, even if I disagree with your approach .

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I interpret the Bible literally all the time, except sometimes when the Lord is speaking, and especially when he's speaking through visions or dreams. It's obvious from the text that visions and dreams aren't always meant to be interpreted literally. But the information that's presented as historical, I tend to accept on face value. And if it seems initially repugnant to me, I research it more carefully to learn more about what it means and whether or not it really is barbaric or bad at all.

What you say here is different from taking the Bible literally. I too take the historical aspects as just that, historical aspects. (That are, therefore, factual.)

For a harmless example, literal interpretation would include believing the world is roughly 6000 year old. Dangerously, literal interpretation would include believing that women must submit to men in marriage.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I also examine carefully my own natural values to find out if they are in line with what the Bible is saying. If they aren't, I'm more likely to be wrong in my natural values than the Bible is, for it is eternal and I am finite.

I agree with this statement too. Though I would actually need to study the Bible to carry this out, and I have not done so. In lieu of studying, thoughtful prayer will simply have to do.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

All humans make mistakes and often value errors, so I can't trust myself and expect the Bible to fit fully with my natural standards. That would be making myself God. Rather, my sole standard must be God's standard. If something in the Bible that God approves seems immoral or wrong, I pray, seek the counsel of wiser Christians than myself and more information, and most importantly, listen to the voice of God answering me. God validates his own word and proves it moral, in all the places where his Word might seem immoral to us.

I agree with all this too, which makes me wonder, what exactly is so different between our two positions?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I feel an approach where we choose to interpret some parts as literal and other parts as metaphorical winds up being us choosing for ourselves what we want to believe. Which I think is about the same as us making up our own religion . I know that that sounds harsh, and I guess it is. I just don't see a logical way of escaping that.

You already said before that you do determine for yourself, as is completely sensible, what is meant to be metaphorical and what is meant to be literal. I do this too. It's impossible not to. So why do you now say that doing this is making up your own religion? Obviously neither of us are doing that.