Wrong. People don't elevate the authority of scripture because they're malleable. On the contrary, they are forced into strained eisegesis because of the presumed inerrancy associate with text labeled as scripture.
-
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!
The 'Scripture' Syndrome
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
Well, I'm glad that's settled.
Yes and no. At an individual level, people elevate scripture if it can be used to support their position. This means that the scripture that can be used to support the greatest number of positions gets the widest support.
... so no individual looks for "malleability" as something they're looking for, but for a collection of scripture to become dominant in society, it has to be able to be flexible enough to be useful to a wide range of people.
Is there any interpretation of scripture that isn't strained?
Yes: the straight-forward understanding of an informed translation.
I reject the idea that any document written and compiled by many people with different points of view and agendas over ages can have one "straight-forward translation".
dantech
Well-Known Member
It's the reader's choice to consider scripture unchallengeable. When a person decides that a certain text comes from a perfect God, he relinquishes his right to challenge this text. To sum up, I believe that the contestability of a text depends on the reader's opinion of who the author of this text is.
OK ...
Kolibri
Well-Known Member
If scripture claims to be 'inspired' or 'God breathed' then there needs to be evidence to back that claim. Otherwise it is 'blind faith' or attaching weight to something that may or may not be worth it.
If it is from God, then one would expect that the meaning of the text would be preservable over the centuries, or restorable at least via many families of copies to study - that is if it is meant to endure to a specific time period.
If it comes from the Creator, then the wisdom that is in its pages would have to be provable by the effect it has on people who apply it, no matter how the world changes around them.
It would have to tell the truth about it's history. Verifiable by archeology as things get dug up. It will be more credible if the men used are shown to be scrupulously honest about their own failings. (Sometimes difference between secular records and spiritual records can be dismissed by the record of honesty displayed - some nations boasted about victories but were silent when it came to military defeats).
If it foretells the future, then it has to always prove true, and not just internally.
If there are many men used to write this letter over a long period of time, then the internal harmony should stand out as amazing. (Seeming conflicts should be able to be harmonized in some manner).
If it touches at all on science, it should be accurate. (This one is even more valuable if it was accurate long before science caught up with it's understanding).
There may be other ways to prove if it is inspired but I am drawing a blank after this list.
If it is from God, then one would expect that the meaning of the text would be preservable over the centuries, or restorable at least via many families of copies to study - that is if it is meant to endure to a specific time period.
If it comes from the Creator, then the wisdom that is in its pages would have to be provable by the effect it has on people who apply it, no matter how the world changes around them.
It would have to tell the truth about it's history. Verifiable by archeology as things get dug up. It will be more credible if the men used are shown to be scrupulously honest about their own failings. (Sometimes difference between secular records and spiritual records can be dismissed by the record of honesty displayed - some nations boasted about victories but were silent when it came to military defeats).
If it foretells the future, then it has to always prove true, and not just internally.
If there are many men used to write this letter over a long period of time, then the internal harmony should stand out as amazing. (Seeming conflicts should be able to be harmonized in some manner).
If it touches at all on science, it should be accurate. (This one is even more valuable if it was accurate long before science caught up with it's understanding).
There may be other ways to prove if it is inspired but I am drawing a blank after this list.
Last edited:
Dear Jay,
The term "Scripture" has no more authority than the individuals who established the canon for that set of text. With respect to the OT, Yeshua pointed out that the "Scripture" of the OT could not be broken. Whereas the "Christian" canon was compiled by the Roman Catholic bishop of Alexandria in 367 AD, and its' authority has no better standing than that individual, who was a member of the Council of Nicaea, along with the beast with two horns like a lamb, Constantine. Yeshua best pointed out the status of Protestant "Scripture" in his parable of the evil one sowing his seeds among the good seed, and that the tare seeds would remain until the "end of the age". The "Christian" dogma in the most part simply nails the good seed to their idol, which is the pagan cross, and they adhere to the seed of the false prophet Paul, and his message of lawlessness.
Kolibri
Well-Known Member
There are internal considerations regarding the Christian Greek Scriptures as to what could be considered canonical and what could not.
Since it is supposed to be God's word it must give evidence of that it is a product of holy spirit. So, if it contains superstitions or demonism or encourages creature worship it would have to be considered unauthentic.
It needs to support its purported authorship by being in total harmony with the Hebrew Scriptures as well as the rest of the Greek portion of the Bible.
Each book would have to be keeping hold "to the standard of wholesome words...that result from union with Christ Jesus." (2 Tim 1:13; 1 Co 4:17)
The apostles were accredited by virtue of Jesus picking them after a night of prayer, one being replaced also with the leading of the holy spirit. One of the features of the early church were special "gifts" of the "spirit," one of which was "to discernment of inspired expressions" (1 Co 12:4,10). The apostles themselves attested to other specific writers, such as Luke and James. With the death of the last apostle, John, this internally considered reliable chain of divinely inspired men would have been broken - devaluating anything written after about 98 C.E.
Since it is supposed to be God's word it must give evidence of that it is a product of holy spirit. So, if it contains superstitions or demonism or encourages creature worship it would have to be considered unauthentic.
It needs to support its purported authorship by being in total harmony with the Hebrew Scriptures as well as the rest of the Greek portion of the Bible.
Each book would have to be keeping hold "to the standard of wholesome words...that result from union with Christ Jesus." (2 Tim 1:13; 1 Co 4:17)
The apostles were accredited by virtue of Jesus picking them after a night of prayer, one being replaced also with the leading of the holy spirit. One of the features of the early church were special "gifts" of the "spirit," one of which was "to discernment of inspired expressions" (1 Co 12:4,10). The apostles themselves attested to other specific writers, such as Luke and James. With the death of the last apostle, John, this internally considered reliable chain of divinely inspired men would have been broken - devaluating anything written after about 98 C.E.
Last edited:
And yet you haven't a clue what "Yeshua pointed out." You simply quote mine New Testament narratives - most penned by anonymous apologists and all written decades later - narratives that you embrace and peddle as gospel truth because they're part of your scripture.
So, ironically, your pretentious preaching exemplifies the problem.
Jayhawker Soule,
You are very right to question the accuracy of the term, scripture.
The only scripture I pay attention to is Bible Scripture. Men, no matter how sincere they may be, have zero authority when it comes Bible doctrines. The Bible is an open letter to all people, and all who want to be blessed by The only true God, will search the scriptures for truth about our creator and lifegiver, and the things we must do to be pleasing to Him, Prov 2:1-11.
We should not leave our eternal life in the hands of men, in whom no salvation belongs, Ps 146:3,4. Jesus said that even babes can understand God's word, even when the wise and intellectual ones cannot, Matt 11:25,26. So none of us can blame others for us not knowing God's word accurately.
The Bible tells us that all scripture is inspired by God, so we have no legitimate reason for not trusting what we read in God's word, The Holy Bible, 2Tim 3:16,17, 2Pet 1:20,21. There is no other real authority!!!
rosends
Well-Known Member
My take is that the word acts as a signifier of the position of the person citing the text. if I say I am quoting scripture then you know my position is that f a believer. You can choose to discuss "scripture" with me which would require sharing my belief-construct, or you can choose to discuss "text" with me if I can talk about the words as text (which would connote a different origin and a lesser perfection or authority). So the word, itself, might not mean anything, but it might signify the experience base from which the person using the word intends to discuss something.
It's hard to imagine a better example of intellectally vapid circular reasoning.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
This is flawed reasoning, as it is circular. You are pretty much saying that the Bible tells us that the Bible is inspired by God, so we should believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and we should believe everything in it. Of course every scripture is going to claim its own validity in this way. How does this provide any evidence toward the validity of the text?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Just a reminder that the "N.T." didn't exist at the time that these were written, nor was the Jewish canon yet agreed upon. What "scripture" most likely refers to in the above is the Torah, the first five books in your Bible.
Kolibri
Well-Known Member
After the books added by Ezra only Nehemiah and Malachi remained. The canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was, therefore, well fixed by the end of the 5th century B.C.E. They were considered either as 22 or 24 books depending if Ruth was included with Judges and Lamentations was included with Jeremiah or not. What we have today as canon therefore has been completed since about 443 B.C.E.
Was it generally recognized as such at the time of the writing of the Christian Greek Scriptures?
The Jewish historian Josephus, in answering opponents in his work Against Apion (I, 38-40 [8]) around the year 100 C.E., confirms that by then the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures had been fixed for a long time. He wrote: “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time. Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver. . . . From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.” - Canon — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
Was it generally recognized as such at the time of the writing of the Christian Greek Scriptures?
The Jewish historian Josephus, in answering opponents in his work Against Apion (I, 38-40 [8]) around the year 100 C.E., confirms that by then the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures had been fixed for a long time. He wrote: “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time. Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver. . . . From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.” - Canon — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
Last edited:
This is why i ran a poll the other day, 'Does the word scripture mean it is true?'
So this idea that the word 'scripture' now implies 'authority', is even worse...Unless we get direct authorization from heaven declaring it as fact, none of it is anything other than man made; unless proven otherwise, and even then when proven divinely inspired, it doesn't mean every word within it is fact, as man is full of ego and corrupts everything.
Clearly this whole ideology is messed up, when we see the world we live in, where everything is corrupted, and that some people wander around claiming my book is more holy than yours, in a place near hell.
Last edited:
TheInfiniteLight
Member
Whoever doubts scripture doubts that God can me born of flesh and dwell with men. You see, in your mind you think it is impossible for a supernatural being to be made flesh as a human being, however, what you don't realize about yourself is that you in fact know very little about anything if you can doubt the power of divinity.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But:
There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed: some scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmoneandynasty, while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or even later. -- Development of the Hebrew Bible canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and
Later rabbinic tradition asserts that prophecy ceased with the conquest of Alexander the Great in 332 B.C. E. In effect, this meant that books composed thereafter were not to be included in the prophetic canon, the second of the Hebrew Bible’s three parts. This view can be substantiated by the absence of later debate about the canonicity of the prophets, the lack of Greek words in the prophetic books, and the inclusion of Daniel and Chronicles in the Writings rather than in the Prophets.It must be the case, therefore, that the Prophets were canonized late in the Persian period, probably by the start of the fourth century. -- Creating the Canon - My Jewish Learning
Metis,
The Hebrew Scriptures existed when Paul wrote that all scripture was inspired by God, 2Tim 3:16,17. Jesus used the Hebrew Scriptures and Jesus said; Your words are truth, John 17:17. Peter also wrote about Bible Scripture, 2Pet 1:20,21.
God Himself wrote, that all scripture is pure, refined as silver refined in a furnace 7 times, He also said that He would protect His sayings from that generation, forever. That would include The Greek Scriptures, after all the Greek Scriptures sum up many of the things started in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Apostles made sure that every Christian, in the first century, and until now, knows what books are true and were inspired by God. There were many books, but only 66 that made up the Bible Canon were inspired by God Almighty.
God is fair in all His judgments, Deut 32:3,4, Job 34:11,12. If God did not keep His word, The Bible accurate, how could God judge the world?? Rom 3:5,6.