(December 20, 2017 at 3:32 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: That's a theory but it isn't very credible considering all of the turmoil going on in the region at that time.  

So there's this guy Paul who's racking up frequent boat and donkey miles flittering around the towns in Asia Minor and the Western Med.  Every once in a while he would zip off a long scroll to his buddies in some far off town giving them a prop talk on his magic man.  In the meantime rebellions and wars are breaking out all over the place but Paul's letters survive all of the havoc and end up in a central library.  That's really turning water into wine.  

Sure, there was a very real Christian religious movement at that time but the idea that it was written down in detail is almost certainly false.  Like all of the other religions it was most certainly based on oral stories that varied among the regions. 

It was around 690 A.D. before all of the stories were actually written and compiled into an unified book, the first Bible and it was written in Latin by a committee based in England.

I think few doubt the historicity of Paul. I'm pretty sure scholars agree that Paul is the genuine author. Other books in the NT are considered to be written "in the name of" various apostles. Dishonest practice, but hey, it's religion.

(December 19, 2017 at 5:17 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: You read the Bible with legal precision, but it wasn't written that way. When Paul wrote his epistles, his primary intent was to communicate with his various parishes concerning practical as well as spiritual matters. If he had known that his letters would some day be considered the "Word of God," he might have been more careful about what he said.

The entire Bible concerns practical as well as spiritual matters, so that's no basis to separate Paul's letters from other Scripture.

Quote:True. But even if you carefully read the gospels and accept that Peter was the rock or foundation of the church, that still doesn't get you to inerrancy to begin with. "Peter is the rock" doesn't inherently mean that "everything Peter writes is inerrant." That is a stretch... but it seems as though this sketchy conclusion begins the journey to accepting your doctrine.

Vague interpolations get you to accept the doctrine of inerrancy-- then, once you accept the doctrine, the selfsame nebulous verses that you used to arrive at inerrancy become themselves inerrant. The whole thing is dizzyingly circular. Without conceding any of your own beliefs, you can at least see where I'm coming from, right?

I disagree that the verses are vague or nebulous. I agree that it's circular. Since you mentioned the Timothy passage, I thought you were looking for Biblical references on the subject, which are necessarily circular. If you're just wondering why I accept it personally, it's a matter of faith. The Bible feels right to me. It speaks to my soul. When I follow its precepts life is good. When I lapse, it's not so good.

Quote:I see nothing wrong with deferring to the judgment of those who have made it their life's work to analyze a text.

First, I didn't say it was wrong. I said there was nothing to discuss. This is a discussion forum. When one person just links to a wikipedia article and won't discuss further, what's the point?

Second, while he can personally defer to anyone he likes, declaring the matter as definitively settled is wrong. Has he defined scholar? Has he defined definitively settled? Has he determined what the scholars all think on the subject? No. He just knows that it's definitively settled. Again, there's no point in talking to such a person. Fact is that some scholars think Luke was wrong. Some think Josephus was wrong. Some think both were right (which is where I'm at right now). But no, it's definitively settled that Luke's wrong because link. Whatever.

---

(December 19, 2017 at 8:45 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I doubt that alpha will agree with their assessment, but most scholars consider 1 & 2 Peter to be spurious. "Peter" the author most likely lived much later when Paul's epistles were heavily circulated amongst believers.

See above. You don't know what most scholars believe on the subject, as you haven't defined scholar and haven't surveyed them. Further, truth isn't determined by majority vote. When there's disagreement on an issue I take an interest in, I tend to read the different sides and come to my own conclusion, or sometimes remain agnostic.

(December 19, 2017 at 1:17 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I already posted this, but I would like to read your explanation:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

How long did it take to count the world back then?

Did the secular source date the count when the order was given or when the order was complete? obviously it took more than a year to complete.

your web site shows a two year descrepency at best.. So if your source counted when the task was completed 2 to 4 years could easily have elapsed. It is obvious by the narritive tha as soon as Joseph hear of the census he got him and his wife counted. which could have seen HtG alive.

The author of Luke erred; Quirinius was not the Roman govenor of Syria when Herod was alive. He was off fighting in a Roman war far away from Syria; another individual was the govenor; look it up.

(December 20, 2017 at 9:58 am)Jehanne Wrote: The author of Luke erred; Quirinius was not the Roman govenor of Syria when Herod was alive.  He was off fighting in a Roman war far away from Syria; another individual was the govenor; look it up.

R-tard... I did not say he was alive. I simply asked when did the secular historean count the census. the day the census was issued or the day it was complete. Why? because as I understand it a census like that one could take years to start, record compile and complete.

Herod died in 6 BC quirinius took power in 4 bc. If Herod issued the proclamation for the census before his death and was not completed till the new legit took over, then who do you think gets the credit?

For the Jews it would be the man who started it.

For the gentiles it would be the man who saw it through.

Luke was a gentile as was most of rome back then.

(December 20, 2017 at 1:36 pm)Drich Wrote:

(December 20, 2017 at 9:58 am)Jehanne Wrote: The author of Luke erred; Quirinius was not the Roman govenor of Syria when Herod was alive.  He was off fighting in a Roman war far away from Syria; another individual was the govenor; look it up.

R-tard... I did not say he was alive. I simply asked when did the secular historean count the census. the day the census was issued or the day it was complete. Why? because as I understand it a census like that one could take years to start, record compile and complete.

Herod died in 6 BC quirinius took power in 4 bc. If Herod issued the proclamation for the census before his death and was not completed till the new legit took over, then who do you think gets the credit?

For the Jews it would be the man who started it.

For the gentiles it would be the man who saw it through.

Luke was a gentile as was most of rome back then.

Read his bio, love:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius

He got his governorship in 6 AD; Herod had been dead for 10 years.

The author of Luke got his facts wrong.

(December 20, 2017 at 8:55 am)alpha male Wrote: The entire Bible concerns practical as well as spiritual matters, so that's no basis to separate Paul's letters from other Scripture.

I meant to say practical for that church at that time. Perhaps he wasn't intending for churches hundreds or thousands of years later to continue following his advice to the letter. It was practical in the sense that it was useful for his contemporaries to follow. If there was a manual on how to cut down trees written at that time, it might have suggested that an axe is the best tool for the job. It might have been correct at the time it was written. But since the advent of the chainsaw...

Quote:I disagree that the verses are vague or nebulous.

There is no clear set of verses that get you to the doctrine of inerrancy.

If Timothy 3;16 had said "In all the books that will one day be collected into the Christian canon, including this letter, you will not find one single error. The epistle written by James is without error. Both of Peter's epistles are without error. The accounts of Jesus' life according Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are without error"... This would be much clearer than "All scripture is god-breathed and practical..." etc...

Taken by themselves, these verses aren't vague. But when used to justify inerrancy, they require interpolation. I have trouble wrapping my head around the notion that Paul referred to works that had not been written yet and with which he himself was wholly unfamiliar. (But then again, I try to avoid magical thinking.) To summarize: by themselves, the verses might have clear meaning. As justification for inerrancy, they are vague.

There are a number of ways to clearly state the doctrine of inerrancy. You'll find no such clear statement in the NT.

Quote:I agree that it's circular. Since you mentioned the Timothy passage, I thought you were looking for Biblical references on the subject, which are necessarily circular.

Fair enough. I guess this brings our argument to the old crossroads: You choose faith/ I choose logic. Circularity is a lapse in logic. But I suppose strict adherence to logic may demonstrate poor faith. Kind of a deal-breaker for me personally.

Quote:If you're just wondering why I accept it personally, it's a matter of faith. The Bible feels right to me. It speaks to my soul. When I follow its precepts life is good. When I lapse, it's not so good.

I can accept that. Heck, I might even admire it if so many believers didn't use such reasoning as an excuse to leave issues unexamined. But put the way you have put it here, I respect your position. Who am I to say that you are not entitled to employ a given thing in your life when it benefits you? 

William James made a good argument for the viability of faith along those lines in "Will to Believe." John Hick also wrote an essay titled "A Rational Basis for Theistic Belief" which argues that your line of reasoning here is actually logical and doesn't require faith.

But by the same token, logic works for me, as well as many others. There are those who would not only impose scripture on themselves but everyone else too. We can't forget the bloody history of Christianity. Left unchecked, it will move beyond the sphere of what works for a given individual and try to shape society according to its precepts-- often in a way that exudes hypocrisy.

Also, getting back to logic, have you considered that confirmation bias might be at work when you "follow its precepts and life is good" ???

Quote:See above. You don't know what most scholars believe on the subject, as you haven't defined scholar and haven't surveyed them.

LOL, I hate to leave a wikipedia link after what you have said, but the authorship of Peter is discussed within: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Peter

I actually was drawing from memory before. My sister got me an annotated Catholic Bible which discussed scholarly interpretations of verses in the footnotes and also discussed authorship in the introduction to each book. (I think she was trying to lure me back to the flock, tee hee.) That Bible is somewhere in my many boxes of books and I wish I had the will to go dig it out. But when I use scholar, I mean "the community of educated theologians." No, I haven't surveyed them personally. But this doesn't mean such a survey hasn't been performed? The annotated Bible explored many avenues from Peter being the genuine author to pseudonymous authorship.

Quote:Further, truth isn't determined by majority vote. When there's disagreement on an issue I take an interest in, I tend to read the different sides and come to my own conclusion, or sometimes remain agnostic.

Majority vote? A majority vote among all believers would most certainly result in "Peter himself wrote it." A majority vote is different than a consensus among theologians. 

Here is a thought experiment: If you were to conduct two polls, one among Christians who have actually read 1 and 2 Peter, and another among Christians who haven't read them, which group would express a higher percentage toward Peter's authorship? It is my guess that you would find many more Christians who have not even read the books claiming with certitude  that Peter wrote them. There would be more disagreement among those who have actually read the works (because this group would include theologians). This involves some guesswork on my part, but I think you can see where I'm coming from.

One informed opinion is a thousand times more valuable than a thousand uninformed opinions.

It's just that when one examines the landscape of believers "a thousand uninformed opinions" seems to be the more appropriate descriptor. You are an exception, as are the community of those who study the Bible as a profession.

(December 21, 2017 at 1:43 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: I meant to say practical for that church at that time. Perhaps he wasn't intending for churches hundreds or thousands of years later to continue following his advice to the letter. It was practical in the sense that it was useful for his contemporaries to follow. If there was a manual on how to cut down trees written at that time, it might have suggested that an axe is the best tool for the job. It might have been correct at the time it was written. But since the advent of the chainsaw...

Yes, and people today try to discern what was due only to circumstances of the time, and what is generally applicable. Most churches today don't require a woman to have a covering on her head, for example. Inspiration doesn't need to apply to all people in all places of all times.

Quote:There is no clear set of verses that get you to the doctrine of inerrancy.

If Timothy 3;16 had said "In all the books that will one day be collected into the Christian canon, including this letter, you will not find one single error. The epistle written by James is without error. Both of Peter's epistles are without error. The accounts of Jesus' life according Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are without error"... This would be much clearer than "All scripture is god-breathed and practical..." etc...

Taken by themselves, these verses aren't vague. But when used to justify inerrancy, they require interpolation. I have trouble wrapping my head around the notion that Paul referred to works that had not been written yet and with which he himself was wholly unfamiliar. (But then again, I try to avoid magical thinking.) To summarize: by themselves, the verses might have clear meaning. As justification for inerrancy, they are vague.

As a spiritual thinker, they're clear enough to me. The Bible isn't trying to logically convince materialist atheists of its positions. I don't get why you would even consider the issue in that way.

Quote:Fair enough. I guess this brings our argument to the old crossroads: You choose faith/ I choose logic. Circularity is a lapse in logic. But I suppose strict adherence to logic may demonstrate poor faith. Kind of a deal-breaker for me personally.

More like the old false dichotomy.

I choose logic when it's appropriate to do so. Logic is a tool, not a way of life. If you looked at yourself honestly you'd find you live much less logically than you suppose. We're more emotional than rational beings.

Quote:But by the same token, logic works for me, as well as many others. There are those who would not only impose scripture on themselves but everyone else too. We can't forget the bloody history of Christianity. Left unchecked, it will move beyond the sphere of what works for a given individual and try to shape society according to its precepts-- often in a way that exudes hypocrisy.

Can you forget the bloody history of communism, a philosophy that was arrived at through logic?

[quote]
Also, getting back to logic, have you considered that confirmation bias might be at work when you "follow its precepts and life is good" ???

Yes, and I'm certain there's more to it that that. One extreme example is 20 years of sobriety following 15 years of daily alcohol and drugs.

Quote:LOL, I hate to leave a wikipedia link after what you have said, but the authorship of Peter is discussed within: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Peter

I actually was drawing from memory before. My sister got me an annotated Catholic Bible which discussed scholarly interpretations of verses in the footnotes and also discussed authorship in the introduction to each book. (I think she was trying to lure me back to the flock, tee hee.) That Bible is somewhere in my many boxes of books and I wish I had the will to go dig it out. But when I use scholar, I mean "the community of educated theologians." No, I haven't surveyed them personally. But this doesn't mean such a survey hasn't been performed? The annotated Bible explored many avenues from Peter being the genuine author to pseudonymous authorship.

I can guarantee that such a survey hasn't been performed, as I know educated theologians who have never been surveyed on it. It would be impossible to identify and survey all such people. When someone says Scholars agree that... on a Biblical issue it's generally bullshit. They have no idea what the level of agreement is. They're usually referring to a general sense that they get from articles they've seen in journals. Journals aren't necessarily representative of the general population. They're likely to tend to the provocative in what they publish. Maybe most scholars agree with the conventional wisdom, but such pieces aren't going to sell magazines.

Quote:Majority vote? A majority vote among all believers

No, I'm referring to a majority vote among scholars. Even if you did conduct a survey of all scholars and found a majority position, that wouldn't make the position true.

(December 21, 2017 at 9:19 am)alpha male Wrote: No, I'm referring to a majority vote among scholars. Even if you did conduct a survey of all scholars and found a majority position, that wouldn't make the position true.

Can you point to some scholars who defend Biblical inerrancy?

(December 20, 2017 at 1:44 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(December 20, 2017 at 1:36 pm)Drich Wrote: R-tard... I did not say he was alive. I simply asked when did the secular historean count the census. the day the census was issued or the day it was complete. Why? because as I understand it a census like that one could take years to start, record compile and complete.

Herod died in 6 BC quirinius took power in 4 bc. If Herod issued the proclamation for the census before his death and was not completed till the new legit took over, then who do you think gets the credit?

For the Jews it would be the man who started it.

For the gentiles it would be the man who saw it through.

Luke was a gentile as was most of rome back then.

Read his bio, love:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius

He got his governorship in 6 AD; Herod had been dead for 10 years.

The author of Luke got his facts wrong.

Glob...

Your not even past a chapter one reading yet.

Ok sport read chapter one past verse 5 where luke say the following things happened while herod ruled. read to verse 24. So everything between verse 5 and 24 did indeed happened while herod was king. Now... What changes in verse 24? how does verse 24 start? it starts by saying "later." later meaning what? don't know how much later as the bible does not point out when during herod's rule Lizzy got her news about her up comming pregnancy. we don't know how long between the announcement and the actual pregnancy we don't know when in that process herod died. but according to your history if that can be trusted herod the great did indeed die.

The point? verse 5-24 happened while herod the great ruled. anything after verse 24 is up in the air as luke tells us what happens after 24 came "later.' which could mean months days weeks or years. Secular history woud seem to suggest perhaps even a decade.

Still with me?