The Bible, Why not Reliable? (page 2)

notverylikely

The critics are bias, just as the "apologists" are, that is just human nature.

Hey, I am not biased. I just say what the evidence suggests (or practically proves).

PSacramento

Hey, I am not biased. I just say what the evidence suggests (or practically proves).

Sure you are, as am I, it's ok though, we are the summation of our experiences.

leavingwt

If you are truly interested in real research into the subject of the bible, you need to read BOTH sides of the equation.

I think I know what you're trying to say, but I would like to get more specific.

Rather than "reading both sides", I would recommend that people accept ideas for which there is sufficient evidence. (Yes, this is subjective.) However, there is a point at which "reading the other side" is a complete waste of time, because of the sufficient evidence already considered. What do I mean?

Example: How many books on Flat Earth Theory are you interested in reading? Why not?

So, if I begin reading a Christian book of apologetics, and within the first few chapters there is a non-stop series of logical fallacies, what am I to do? If the author goes on an on about what the Lord spoke to him and put on his heart, how am I to take this? Of what benefit is it to me?

You are on record here, in other threads, saying that "personal revelation" is the only thing will/should/might convince a person to become/remain a Christian. This, I can both accept and resepct. So, we could read as many books as we'd like, but until Jesus himself reaches out to us, we're not going to accept it or we're going to accept it because it was convenient or we were born into it, etc.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

sayitsnotso

Do you have access to YouTube?

I do, but i'm not in a position to use you tube right now.

sayitsnotso

earth was created before the sun?

Where does it say this in the bible?

PSacramento

You are on record here, in other threads, saying that "personal revelation" is the only thing will/should/might convince a person to become/remain a Christian. This, I can both accept and resepct. So, we could read as many books as we'd like, but until Jesus himself reaches out to us, we're not going to accept it or we're going to accept it because it was convenient or we were born into it, etc.

I agree, 100%.

But reading both sides allows us to understand the critiques and even agree with them if need be so that there is not "stumbling block".

See, taking Bart as an example, he maskes valid points, but they are not new nor are they original and they have been answered many times over, in some ways not very well and inothers, wuite well.

Heck the simpel fact that WE are discussing these issues and that these issues have been discussed for many, amny decades before us, centuries even, goes to show that Questioning scripture is NOT a bad thing it is a good thing.

Deputy Dog

Sayitsnotso

3. The notion that if everyone followed the morals of the bible the world would be a better place.

If you think the purpose of the law (something no one but Christ could follow) was to make the world a better place, what do you do with this pasage?

Rom 5:20

But the Law entered so that the offense might abound...

leavingwt

But reading both sides allows us to understand the critiques and even agree with them if need be so that there is not "stumbling block".

This is true. There is some value in understanding the other guy's opinion. It won't necessarily help us find truth.

See, taking Bart as an example, he maskes valid points, but they are not new nor are they original and they have been answered many times over, in some ways not very well and inothers, wuite well.

I often hear this criticism. But, for me personally, I had NEVER heard the things that Bart writes about in 'Misquoting Jesus'. Why? The Kingdom Hall didn't teach it. MOST churches don't teach it. I didn't attend a theological seminary. So, in a sense, claiming that Bart is writing about a 'known' body of evidence is meangingless to folks who don't know about it. Moreover, he never claims to be offering something original. As a former Christian and a Professor of Religious Studies at a respected university, he brings something to the table.

Upon learning some of these points that are "not new", I asked myself: Why didn't any of pastors/elders/preachers I've known in the past mention any of this stuff? Each person can reach their own conclusion on that question. Probably because they sincerely believed in their faith and wouldn't want to introduce me to anything that would shake my faith -- even if the information were true. This put me at a great disadvantage, early on.

Heck the simpel fact that WE are discussing these issues and that these issues have been discussed for many, amny decades before us, centuries even, goes to show that Questioning scripture is NOT a bad thing it is a good thing.

You are not a Fundmentalist and you are not an Eyes Closed believer. Here in the Deep South, we are overrun with Fundamentalism. A friend of mine recently told me that her son's private, Christian school taught his class that there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. (Allow that to sink in.) At any rate, if Professor Ehrman can a help a few folks to be a little more circumspect in their religious thinking, he's done us a great service. As a former Fundamentalist (JW), his book was of great interest to me. I had previously based my entire life upon EACH FREAKING WORD in the Bible.

yknot

I generally like the bible.....

However it is best to remember it was compiled into the book we know much later.......

Translations do differ.........

Also what was in circulation at what time so as to keep in context the writers intent.

For instance one of the scriptures often cited at the KH is 2 Tim 3:16. Paul certainly didn't consider his letter to be scripture as we view it now, so that begs the question which scriptures is he referencing?

((( I will admit that Terry (Alan F also) makes a lot of great points in his Bible threads, they make me realize why Bible Scholars lack emotional faith when discussing their bodies of work.))))

In the end, belief in the Bible is a personal choice.........

PSacramento

You are not a Fundmentalist and you are not an Eyes Closed believer. Here in the Deep South, we are overrun with Fundamentalism. A friend of mine recently told me that her son's private, Christian school taught his class that there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. (Allow that to sink in.) At any rate, if Professor Ehrman can a help a few folks to be a little more circumspect in their religious thinking, he's done us a great service. As a former Fundamentalist (JW), his book was of great interest to me. I had previously based my entire life upon EACH FREAKING WORD in the Bible.

I think what Bart did MAY have had the best of intentions, I just think that he got caught up in it.

His own mentor Bruce Metzger was instrumental in Bart's "enlightenment".

But I agree with you, I don't KNOW what it is to be brought up believing that the Bible is infalliable and I don't know what effect that would have had in my life.

I DO SEE the effect the JW;s view have had on my parents and older sister though and everyday, my heart breaks a little bit more...

The Bible, Why not Reliable?

Share this