Infallibility of Scripture (page 5)

LittleToe

Asymptotically, the perfectly honest reader would be a dead man. The living can only pretend "disinterested interest".

LOL - you just gave me my first grin of the day. This is priceless

MsMcDucket

So which bible should we read? The Torah, Koran, King James.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Canonic texts in Jewish and Christian traditions

Traditionally more open to discussion and editorial interpretation is the concept of a canonic text, that is, a single, authoritative text for each of the books in the canon, one which depends on editorial selections from among manuscript traditions that had been independent of one another. Significant separate manuscript traditions in the canonic Hebrew Bible are represented in the Septuagint translation's variants from the Masoretic text that was established through the Masoretes' scholarly collation of varying manuscripts, and in the independent manuscript traditions that are represented by the Dead Sea scrolls. Additional, otherwise unrecorded texts for Genesis and the early chapters of Exodus lie behind the Book of Jubilees. These, and the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves, emphasize that even canonic Hebrew texts did not possess any single hard and fast authorized manuscript tradition, in the first centuries BCE. New Testament Greek and Latin texts presented enough significant differences that a manuscript tradition arose of presenting diglot texts, with Greek and Latin on facing pages. Jerome's Vulgate was a successful attempt at establishing a canonic text, one that passed without challenge until the humanist textual inquiries of the 15th and 16th centuries

LittleToe

Take you pick.

The JW method of straining out the gnat and gulping down the camel will avail you nought, on this one

MsMcDucket

The JW method of straining out the gnat and gulping down the camel will avail you nought, on this one

Excuse me? I didn't understand your analogy? Did it have something to do with the bible?

peacefulpete

The living can only pretend "disinterested interest

True enough, this is why a committment to a dispassionate methodology is required.

OneLord

Dear Narkissos,

I can honestly not figure out whether I am not intelligent enough to understand you, and my mind is hopelessly trapped in religious thinking or if you have simply developed a nice thesis to give your mind rest from religion .

I can tell you I personally believe God did know of say the holocaust "before" (my small mind humbly refrains from speculating what was "before" time) he created the eons and therefore also that the holocaust to an extent was his desire. JWs speak of God allowing things, but they need to add to that that the things God allows, he also sustains, carries through and is responsible towards. On the other hand, God has specific purposes revealed to Church. Therefore I think to speak of the two wills of God is the best we can do. I think those that discard that idea forget what they are up against here, namely something no man can fully understand anyway.

I know that this is soo far from JW thinking.

Narkissos

this is why a committment to a dispassionate methodology is required.

Good point PP: that's where the formal rules of academic scholarship, which transcend the schools and fashions to an extent, are relatively helpful. Not that what meets their standards is necessarily true, but at least they provides common grounds for valid criticism.

OneLord, I think you perfectly got my point and I also got yours.

Glad you came here.

Terry

The sooner we admit it publicly the better:

All religion is a variant of mysticism.

What do we know and how do we know it?

Mysticism:

1.The church, mullah, bible, torah, koran, guru, shaman, etc. is amazingly connected to a higher power and will provide this information to you. All you must do is leave your own brain in a jar by the door and do exactly what we tell you.

2.You can discover "truth" for yourself; it is inside you. You need nobody to teach you. Just listen to the sound of my voice and read my books (see #1 above).

3.Magesterium is the guiding light to truth. Faithful and Discreet slave writing is the guiding light to the truth. Sola Scriptura is the guiding light to the truth. Prophetic interpretation is the guiding light to the truth. (See#1 above)

Anybody care to refute this?

Terry

SINFUL MAN is already a presupposition.

SINFUL accepted as stated by norms stemming from ancient books of dubious purity.

Man is what he is in relation to the norm of everyday life in the most practical sensibility

Who is the focus in everyday life but man and his life? A potent God who willed otherwise would hardly allow a millisecond to pass without his will being done. But, this amazingly absent God has his ethereal hands tied by "weak", "sinful", "imperfect" and evanescent humanity who just won't follow instructions on how to man the lifeboats.

Answer this question: WHO IS IN CHARGE of God's will? Is it God or Man?

If God is compelled to wait on man; clearly Man is in charge.

Narkissos

Anybody care to refute this?

I have, several times, obviously to no avail.

Don't you realise that your #2a is antithetic to #1, 2b and 3? Only the former is really characteristic of mysticism.

Infallibility of Scripture

Canonic texts in Jewish and Christian traditions

Share this