• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Final Authority

James2028

James2028

Member
That's not what the Original Only
Christians mean. They're talking
about a mystical original Bible
with the original autographs,
which never existed.
 
James2028

James2028

Member
sojourner said:
There is no infallible scripture. Human beings are fallible — no matter how inspired they are.

The scholarship is apologetic in nature, and not critical or exegetical. That’s why it’s bogus. It’s a slugfest between the Protestants and Catholics as to “who’s more authoritative.” “Inspiration” and “authority” are not reality-based attributes. This is like trying to apply mathematics to love. It doesn’t work that way.
Click to expand...

NO
 
James2028

James2028

Member
sojourner said:
Stop prevaricating. You say in one post the Bible doesn’t exist, then in the next you talk about it as if it does. Which is it going to be? Can’t have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Simple grammar determines
that " the Bible " is singular.

We all know there are billions
of bibles and that the Alexandrian
bibles do not match the Syrian bibles
in content, volume or doctrine.

I believe the purified text theory.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
James2028 said:
Simple grammar determines
that " the Bible " is singular.

We all know there are billions
of bibles and that the Alexandrian
bibles do not match the Syrian bibles
in content, volume or doctrine.

I believe the purified text theory.
Click to expand...
The problem, as I see it, is that this theory presupposes that there was, at some point, an “original text” for each book. This ignores the fact that many of the OT accounts began as oral stories, many of them with roots in older cultural accounts from Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, etc. It also ignores the fact that the Synoptics were, most likely, oral stories before being written down. It also ignores the documentary hypothesis, which is the best theory we have for the way in which a few of the OT books were authored and compiled. In short, it’s just shoddy scholarship, IMO.
 
James2028

James2028

Member
sojourner said:
The problem, as I see it, is that this theory presupposes that there was, at some point, an “original text” for each book. This ignores the fact that many of the OT accounts began as oral stories, many of them with roots in older cultural accounts from Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, etc. It also ignores the fact that the Synoptics were, most likely, oral stories before being written down. It also ignores the documentary hypothesis, which is the best theory we have for the way in which a few of the OT books were authored and compiled. In short, it’s just shoddy scholarship, IMO.
Click to expand...

We're primarily talking about the N.T.
Of course there were no original O.T.
autographs at the time of the N.T.

Most Christians believe all scripture
is given by inspiration of God,
including the O.T.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
James2028 said:
We're primarily talking about the N.T.
Of course there were no original O.T.
autographs at the time of the N.T.

Most Christians believe all scripture
is given by inspiration of God,
including the O.T.
Click to expand...
Still, there is the problem of the gospels having their origin in oral story. I doubt the existence of any “original” documents, outside the letters of Paul.

[edit]
If “original document” is taken out of the equation, your theory is dead, because it assumes at least a onetime existence of such documents. I claim that there never were any. Outside of Paul, and possibly John.
 
James2028

James2028

Member
sojourner said:
Still, there is the problem of the gospels having their origin in oral story. I doubt the existence of any “original” documents, outside the letters of Paul.

[edit]
If “original document” is taken out of the equation, your theory is dead, because it assumes at least a onetime existence of such documents. I claim that there never were any. Outside of Paul, and possibly John.
Click to expand...

J.E.D.P. Documentary Hypothesis
with sitzimleben hermeneutics

no, the Lord said that Moses wrote
the first five books of the O.T.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
James2028 said:
J.E.D.P. Documentary Hypothesis
with sitzimleben hermeneutics

no, the Lord said that Moses wrote
the first five books of the O.T.
Click to expand...
The gospel writers said Jesus said Moses wrote them. It’s HIGHLY unlikely that Moses was an actual person. Even if he were, he would likely have been illiterate.
 
James2028

James2028

Member
sojourner said:
The gospel writers said Jesus said Moses wrote them. It’s HIGHLY unlikely that Moses was an actual person. Even if he were, he would likely have been illiterate.
Click to expand...

They lived with Jesus.
So are you saying the apostles lied ?
I recommend a college class
in apologetics.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
James2028 said:
They lived with Jesus.
So are you saying the apostles lied ?
I recommend a college class
in apologetics.
Click to expand...
No. The gospels are too late for any of the authors to have lived with Jesus. There’s no evidence that the authors were apostles.

I recommend a college class in exegesis.
 
James2028

James2028

Member
The Accommodation Theory:
Jesus actually did say that Moses
wrote the first five books, but Jesus
repeated false statements in order
not to confuse his listeners.

Speaking rude in speech,
but not in knowledge,
that's stupid.

He spoke words of certainty
the scripture said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top