Pardon for the slip on the keyboard. It is the UBS (United Bible Society), not the USB. Interconfessional translation work is only recognized when in cooperation with the UBS by a decision made by all the participating faiths in these ecumenical versions.
MarcusScriptus
JoinedPosts by MarcusScriptus
-
86
What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?
by sabastious ini want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.
the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.
-sab.
-
-
-
86
What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?
by sabastious ini want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.
the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.
-sab.
-
-
MarcusScriptus
I actually don’t know exactly which translation my cousin Charlie worked on because, as he tells me, I can only get the information from the copyright holders because of an agreement he has made to remain publicly anonymous.
But I did some snooping around and I gather he either worked on the NRSV or maybe was a representative of some sort on a Catholic translation either here in the United States or in Canada. Catholics can no longer make translations of the Bible without Protestants on the translation boards, and by the way he has spoken it appears he has some insight as to the problem occurring between the Catholic Biblical Association and the USCCB.
I do know he has had some contact with the USB and their translation software, although he is an avid Adapt It user, so it is likely it was one of these. He has retired recently, however, so I don’t know much more.
I also think that Charlie was making reference to the Common English Bible (CEB) in his email and not the ESV as I was under the impression that the ESV had just completed its Apocrypha/Deutero section. The CEB has not, but since it has Roman Catholics on its board, it appears they are about to embark on the same. But then again, I shouldn’t double guess him even if age makes him mix up some things.
As to his remarks about the New World Translation the answer is “Yes.” Charlie has not only read and studied it, he has had several copies in his library over the years. I believe all he has now is an electronic version (from the Society itself), but I have no idea how he gets what he gets.
This is a man who has had the privilege of handling facsimiles of Qumran texts. He has shown me proto-Masoretic texts that show that the quotation in Hebrews 1:10 comes from a Psalm that originally has the Tetragrammaton in the oldest versions, was likely one of the places that the LXX used a Tetragrammaton substitute, and has empirical textual data to prove that the Masoretes employed “Lord” in its place. A Hebrew manuscript translation of Hebrews 1:10 contains the name in this spot, and the NWT reference edition has this noted in the footnotes as a “J” mss., but the Witnesses conveniently avoided “restoring” it despite the evidence that even they uncovered.
This is but one of many horrendous examples of clear misrepresentation of the original texts that he shared with me over the years. So when Charlie referred to it as “anathema,” I personally believe he was well within his field of expertise and authority to do so.
-
86
What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?
by sabastious ini want to start reading the bible more but i do not want to use the nwt.
the fact that the nwt took so many liberties makes me a little gunshy about other translations, which one would you recommend?.
-sab.
-
-
MarcusScriptus
I’m related to a Bible translator who worked on an ecumenical Bible version, and I submitted this question to him (which is why it took so long after your original question that I am posting). This is his reply:
The concept of one Bible translation being more praised or accurate than another is a fallacy. The science governing the rendition of Bible languages into modern English is so exact that the only reason there are various translations is because one group or denomination favors a particular rendering of a word or two or the use of a certain idiomatic expression over another.
Beyond this all modern translations currently on the market are as accurate as the other. None is more praised than the other in some “secular” fashion as I am aware of, but I do know that certain religious movements prefer one version over another. The Evangelistic movement in the United States has made the New International Version the best-selling version in our country, but these numbers might be misleading.
These same movements buy large quantities of the NIV for pews and distribution often creating large excesses to be kept on hand by church groups and individuals that do not get out to the public at large. This I have witnessed personally. It doesn’t account for the total popularity, but it cannot be discounted either for the mere fact that the NIV is officially used in only a minority of denominations as the translation of choice. The NIV was translated by a board consisting of Evangelistic Christians, but the Psalter was recently approved for personal study for Roman Catholics in the United States by the USCCB which has been published with an imprimatur by the Catholic Publishing Company.
When various religious denominations come together and a Bible translation is required, it is the New Revised Standard Version that is almost always chosen. The reason for this is that the board of translators is a balance of various denominations, including Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, and Jewish. If there is a translation that is “recommended” or “praised” most by most scholars, it is the NRSV. This is by no means a universal agreement, but because of it being the least biased in rendering and being so easy to read while retaining such great accuracy (it also has every book of every canon translated) it has become the version of choice by practically all scholastic programs in the US. My experience is that it is the least favored choice of the American public, however.
The NASB is the sister version of the NRSV, but because it was rendered by a very conservative board of Christians excluding Orthodox, Catholics, and Jews, it is generally not accepted in scholarly circles. However, of all the versions on the market it is probably the most accurate for a formal-equivalent version. It is also the most difficult to read and the worst of all the versions at keeping to English idiom. It is highly favored by Fundamentalists, but generally by groups that tend to engage in triumphalism. This may be the reason it doesn’t get the praise that it deserves on its own merits.
There are some very new versions on the market, but it is still too early to tell what is going to happen with these. The English Standard Version (which, by the way, does not represent the “standard” recognized by any denomination, so I am not sure why they added that into their title) is very easy to read, very exact, but is yet incomplete and does show some renditions that, while quite inventive in originality, are problematic as they seem to favor less accepted definitions of some terms that have been viewed as vital to Christology.
Again there are other versions like the New Living Bible, and even something called the World English Bible (WEB). While some individuals favor these, none of them stand out over the others.
Last, but not least, is a peculiar oddity that I wish I understood. The most widely read English version of a Catholic translation in the entire world is the New Jerusalem Bible. It is neither formal equivalent, nor is it dynamic, nor entirely something meeting in the middle. It is highly accurate however, and it’s best described as “literary,” meaning it attempts to render things as accurately as possible without sacrificing how beautiful the rendering can be made by engaging the English language to its fullest.
Usually, when the NRSV is not available or not chosen for a scholarly group, the second version that is usually chosen in its stead is the NJB. And if there’s a Protestant who wants to have a Catholic Bible on hand (or even just wants to read a very beautiful and expressive translation), universally, across boundaries of conservative and liberal groups alike it is this marvelous version you will most often find being used.
However, and this is what I don’t understand, it is not the official version read in Roman Catholic services in the USA. For some reason the New American Bible (which is not bad but leans toward something similar to the NASB—and therefore doesn’t lend itself to being poetic) is the only one allowed to be read in Mass for Catholics in our country (they can read and own any other version of a Catholic Bible, like the NJB, however).
This is likely because it is owned by the USCCB, and they receive royalties from its sale. While the NAB is accurate, it is not as scholastic or artful as the NJB. And currently the NAB is in its own self-created limbo as a new revision has been made but not able to be released due to the USCCB not giving a percentage of the proceeds to the translation board itself who hold some claim on its copyright.
Perhaps no other version of a Catholic Bible has been so highly praised by non-Catholics as the NJB, so I am perplexed at why the NJB is not officially used in American Liturgy. If it is just a matter of funds, then the USCCB is doing their people a disservice by ignoring what in Europe and the rest of the world recognizes as one of the best works in Catholic translation—and translations in general for that matter (as many of my colleagues have agreed)—we have on hand.
Thus, as this somewhat lengthy explanation shows, a scholastically applauded version is not usually the one the public or a denomination applauds. Practically all else is as accurate as anyone needs, with only word choices and syntax creating the differences that make one version stand out over another.
C.J.M.H
I asked if he was including the New World Translation in his remarks. He replied: “Are you kidding? That’s considered anathema is my world.”
-
284
To new Christians on JWN
by brotherdan ini wanted to make a few comments to those of you that have recently begun to question or have already left the wt and made their way onto this site.
this site is a great resource to learn how others are coping with leaving the organization and moving on into a fulfilling life.. i wanted to write this post because i think reading something like this would've been helpful to me to understand where a lot of people that comment on this site are coming from.
you are going to hear from a wide range of people that have moved on to a diverse range of beliefs.
-
-
MarcusScriptus
A person cannot feel fully content if the choice they have to make violates what they conceive as true as they conscientiously understand it. This is a Biblical teaching.—Romans 14.
Therefore you can’t say that an atheist can’t feel truly content about their decision. Some atheists reject not the possibility of a deity but “God” as currently represented by the religions of today. Because of crimes done in this God’s name, and falsehoods preached by some religions that claim to teach the only truth about God, a person may feel they are violating their understanding of justice and integrity by engaging in the worship of this “God” as accepted by various religions today. Therefore atheism is the only valid choice they can make without violating their conscience.
Even if following God is what makes us content in the objective sense, if one’s conscience cannot find contentment in such a doctrine one violates their conscience if they adopt it. For it is written: “Whatever is not from faith is sin,” and “blessed is the one who does not condemn himself for what he believes.”—Romans 14.22,23.
One who finds no contentment in the worship of God because it violates their conscience does not find God.
-
58
Do You Still Believe the Bible is God's Word?
by cantleave inif so why???.
btw - i just see it as collection of old books written by men who reflected the thinking and knowledge of their time?.
-
-
MarcusScriptus
If there is one thing I am, ex-witness, it's that I’m totally in agreement with the scientific models on the origins of the universe and life. I’ve also taught the scientific method for several years, and one thing I can say is that it is not “proven” that the earth is any certain age. This doesn’t mean the date of 4.-so-many years is incorrect, but it isn’t “proven.” We must be very careful with the way we present and use terms in association with the application of science.
The mistake many make regarding the methodology is that all that science holds as true is “proven” or “fact,” but the reality is that according to the scientific method there is no such requisite. (I can’t “prove” that there will be air available to sustain your life the next time you take your breath, but I have evidence to support that hypothesis. This doesn’t make my “prediction” about your next breath false or “proven,” it just makes it the most likely model that fits with what evidence we have on hand. My hypothesis about your breath is no less scientifically correct just because I cannot prove a future event until it happens.)
For example, I believe in evolution. So I will tell someone that I hold to the “theory of evolution.” Is it wrong to use that term since I hold to this model of science?
No. It will always remain a “theory” because there were no eyewitnesses to the first steps the theory puts forth, regardless of the fact that everything points to these first steps as occurring. Without the verifiable eyewitness testimony and some other type of empirical evidence, evolution, though as true as you can get in my book, is correctly referred to as the “theory of evolution.” It will never be called anything else unless such empirical testimony can be found that proves to be objective in the exhaustive sense. This doesn’t mean the theory is false or without proof to support, it just means this is as far as the methodology goes in labeling things.
The same is true about the age of the earth. There is no “proof” that the earth is such-and-such years old. We can give the best educated guess, but that is it. There were no eyewitnesses alive then who are hear now who can supply empirical evidence which can withstand test under independent variation in order for what we know to ever leave the position of “theory.” Yes, it’s the best guess we have, yes we know by application of the scientific method that is likely true, but no, it is not “proven.”
The rule is for something to be “proven” requires that empirical evidence of an proven objectively nature (under all and any circumstances) exists. You can’t debate over empirical evidence unless one or both parties are insane (i.e., “Mount Rushmore exists, objectively so”), but the evolutionary model is only a hypothesis because the model is supported by means of circumstantial evidence instead of empirical evidence. But these things don’t have to be “proven” since we have enough objective evidence to relatively support the hypothesis (the application of lex parsimoniae, popularized as Occam's razor ).
-
31
New Testament polluted by Greek philosophy? The "Word"=LOGOS
by Terry init is very interesting to trace the origin of an idea through history to see how it develops and where it leads.. it might take a journey from ancient pagan greece all the way to the new testament and into christian theology!.
the greeks invented philosophy.
the use of the mind to determine the answers to existence and meaning.. .
-
-
MarcusScriptus
My personal views are closer to those highlighted by Leolaia, I just tend to avoid offering what I believe which I guess I shouldn't fear doing here (old habits die hard). I have often seen the common play on words between Wisdom/Sophia/Isis as likely since Semitic language is far from exact or direct. They always beat around the bush, like the “you yourself have said it” response the Nazarene makes during questioning after his arrest. But I’m also of the opinion that several people composed the book of Wisdom, that it comes from two or three Hebrew sources, and maybe several Greek interpolations before its final form in the LXX.
Either way I don’t see the introduction of logic, despite where it comes from, as a “pollution” of the text. I feel it is part of the natural genesis of things. If the message that that religion really believed in was ever to become a “universal” one or katholicos instead of remain a sect of Judism or of Gnostic thought, especially after the challenges made by Marcion and his odd canon of an edited Luke and several epistles by Paul, the message could not be stuck in old logistic forms understood only by Jews. Non-Jewish folklore already played a large part in the construction of the primeval sections of Genesis, so why not follow a similar pattern in the texts the Christians composed? According to the Church Fathers the authors didn’t conceive of their writings as belonging to any type of canon anyway, so it is not logical to believe they would be writing their compositions to meet some sort of standard or criteria in the first place.
Finally, it is the text the Christians chose for themselves regardless if such interpolation is objectively and inarguably “pollution.” It isn’t like any of us here are writing anything new that you don’t learn in a college-level religion course (or even in the footnotes of some basic Bible editions). The Witnesses and some Fundamentalists might be unaware of these things, but you’re not going to find any modern-day cleric, religious, catechist, or scholar in mainstream Christianity that is going to be the bit surprised by any of this. You want to see some real “pollution” or “dirt” on the Bible? Just read the complex footnote apparatus to the New Jerusalem Bible. It will make you wonder how those translators can even believe in the Bible enough to translate it after all that you find in those notes. In fact it sometimes sounds like those translators didn't even believe in the Bible at all.
-
31
New Testament polluted by Greek philosophy? The "Word"=LOGOS
by Terry init is very interesting to trace the origin of an idea through history to see how it develops and where it leads.. it might take a journey from ancient pagan greece all the way to the new testament and into christian theology!.
the greeks invented philosophy.
the use of the mind to determine the answers to existence and meaning.. .
-
-
MarcusScriptus
There is another possible school of thought the often gets ignored by some of us who have for years been infected by JW theology. Because the author of the gospel of John was quite familiar with Jewish writings it is of no surprise that the preface to this work is often viewed as being based on the book Wisdom of Solomon, rejected as canonical by the Watchtower and some Protestants. Because of this there is often a failure to consider what the author of this gospel may have thought of this work and how it obviously influenced him according to the more popular opinions holding sway in scholastic circles.
It has been suggested by some, though I am yet unsure personally regarding this hypothesis, that the Greek “logos” was likely borrowed by the writer of John as the equivalent term for an old Semitic idea involving wisdom. Some very famous critical analysts and lexicographers agree, as explained by Michael D. Marlowe:
“ Marvin Vincent, Frederic Godet, Hugh Mackintosh, and John Campbell … [argue] that John ‘used the term Logos with an intent to facilitate the passage from the current theories of his time to the pure gospel which he proclaimed.’”
In the book of Wisdom, the Messiah is personified as God’s Wisdom*. The author of the Wisdom of Solomon draws a narrative in which Wisdom graces humankind by leaving God’s side and coming to dwell with us. Throughout this book, Wisdom speaks for God in an official position as spokesman. It is this “spokesman,” common to Hellenistic kings as it was to the royal families of the Semites, that the term “logos” came to be applied as an equivalent.
Marlowe adds: “When he [the author of John] asserts that the logos became flesh he is indeed saying something that was never dreamt of by Philo or the Greek philosophers; but in all other respects it is their logos — the cosmic Mediator between God and the world, who is the personification of God's Truth and Wisdom.”
If this hypothesis is correct—and there is far more evidence in the sciences of etymology and history to give further weight to this argument—then the author of John was not attaching a Hellenistic philosophical attribute to his Logos, but the other way around. The author was more likely quoting the book of Wisdom, using the Greek word for God’s spokesman while taking advantage of its familiarity with Greek speakers to present Jesus as this Personification of God’s Wisdom, the Spokesman of God, God’s Word—in other words the fulfillment of the texts in the Wisdom of Solomon.
It should be noted that scholars believe the author of Wisdom, though writing in Hebrew, could have also been its translator into Greek, influencing the versions found in LXX. The Greek renditions show the author (or translator, if a different individual), while composing the work in the typical Hebrew style of verse, to nonetheless gracefully play with the philosophical terms borrowed from the Greek, very masterfully too, as if borrowing them with the sole intent to re-inventing them in the Semitic context of the book. This is exactly what the author of John is believed to have done with the prologue to his gospel account, according to the hypothesis, thus making the first part of chapter 1 a composite type of quote of Wisdom along the lines to this variant view.
*- References to "Wisdom" in this book are in the feminine because “wisdom” is always such in Hebrew, like “house” is always feminine in Spanish, though neither truly have gender. Because of an inability for most English speakers to comprehend this genderless use of gender, it is often translated into English version as if Wisdom is a woman, even though this is not so nor even comprehended this way by speakers of other languages that employ gender-logistics in their idiom, lexicography, syntax, and language.
-
58
Do You Still Believe the Bible is God's Word?
by cantleave inif so why???.
btw - i just see it as collection of old books written by men who reflected the thinking and knowledge of their time?.
-
-
MarcusScriptus
Thanks, Tec & Cantleave…and actually a belated thank you to all of you. I have been far gone from the grips of the Watchtower since just about the time HTML had revolutionized the Internet and the masses finally discovered it. I avoided the Internet until I found this board and read off and on for years with great interest, only to recently tell myself: Hey, I’ve never said thank you or got involved. So here I am. Forgive me if my lingo is so far removed from JWs of today or even yesterday, as a lot of unlearning has separated me now from then.
To answer your question, Cantleave, except for the gospel accounts I can’t say there is much that I am aware of. Though I have studied a lot of ancient religious literature, I can say I’ve given them all the familiarity I have to the Bible. I do know, however, that when a philosophical truth is universal it rings throughout various forms of ideologies. For example, there is a lot in the expressions of the current Dalai Lama that is very much like the higher mysticism of Christianity today.
But I do know from others mainly, and not so much myself, that the gospel accounts are very rare, unique in fact. Though other religions may have tales of gods becoming human or having sons or daughters live on the earth, even sacrificing their lives for us, they have never been composed in a narrative so different that they qualify as their own genre in ancient literary studies.
Most notably it is the behavior of Jesus of Nazareth at his own execution and its implication that makes this form of narrative rare. Logic gets thrown out of the window at the point when Jesus mutters about those nailing him to the cross: “Forgive them, Father, because they don’t really know what they’re doing.”
Excommunicated as a pariah in a physically abhorrent nature in a drama that suggests nothing but utter failure to the onlooker is celebrated as a victory that is supposed to defy any attempt at human reasoning while at the same time tell humanity it no longer needs to even try to be as good as God. That doesn’t occur in any other literature, ancient or modern, and is considered a literary first in that no narrative before has ever drawn its protagonist or hero as such a total humiliated loser while finding such a successful Savior in such imagery at the same time.
And afterwards the event is even raised as applause-worthy for the very fact that it makes no sense and any attempt to do so on one’s own cannot help one to make sense of it. In all other religious literature appeals are always made to logic as if they were trying to prove themselves. In the execution of Jesus of Nazareth the opposite is taught.
But outside of this feature there is actually a lot to be found that is similar in one way or another in a lot of holy books of various religions, eastern and western. And at times, such as in the case of Noah, the writers interpolated their own history into foreign religious folklore to either teach a lesson, or as in the case of the Gilgamesh flood story, mock the religious basis of the tale from which it originated.
But again, I respect the views of all persons. Many of my closest of companions are atheists, and many religious people hate me (some directly because of my years of scholarly study in the discipline of higher criticism). But I have been able to grow independent of the Watchtower despite it saying we never could because of what many of you have written here or have done seemingly unnoticed before I. So thank you all.
-
58
Do You Still Believe the Bible is God's Word?
by cantleave inif so why???.
btw - i just see it as collection of old books written by men who reflected the thinking and knowledge of their time?.
-
-
MarcusScriptus
Ah! If it’s reasons why I do believe in the Bible, then that’s different!
1. You can historically follow the construction of many of the books, especially the New Testament books, through the use of critical source analysis.
When you let what we know from both Jewish history and from critical analysis explain itself, that the references to Cyrus in Isaiah were written during Cyrus’ lifetime by the so-called school or author known as Second Isaiah around the year 538 B.C., the insistence that these texts have to qualify as some sort of “portal into the future” is gone. If they were indeed “forecasts of the future,” then they were made but briefly before Cyrus conquered Babylon. If they were basic prophecies (meaning merely speaking on behalf of God), then how do they prove that the Scriptures are false since they are merely telling people that Cyrus’ reign and allowance of the Jews to restore worship in their homeland were reasons for hope?
The Church Fathers kept historical accounts as to who wrote what books that eventually made up the New Testament. Remember that the first Christians were in no hurry to add books to the Hebrew Scriptures and it was the Gnostic threat that first began to try to use popular Christian writings as if they were some sort of system of inspired “proof texts” to support their heretical views. So when it comes to uncovering the origins and reasons for the texts, at least one can verify that they aren’t fraudulent.
2. The Scriptures draw an incredibly inspiring description of the God of Abraham, especially as seen in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
Unlike the Watchtower teaching that the theme of the Bible is “the kingdom” with the Governing Body as its current rulers, turn out it’s all about who God is, what people used to believe about God, what incorrect things they use to believe about God, what God says about himself, what others accuse God of saying, and about how God feels about us and what he promises. From beginning to end, whether the Tetragrammaton appears in it or not, whether it’s a book found only in the Protestant version of the canon or a wider canon such as accepted by Anglicans, Catholics, and the Orthodox. It’s the story about one Person in particular—God.
But especially once the gospel is told do we learn things about this God that no one could have guess at. So controversial are these claims that more than 2000 years later people are still arguing over it. When was the last time you saw such fervor over arguing Plato?
3. The Scriptures invite me and speak in an almost indescribable manner that inspire contemplative even wordless, shapeless commune between myself and this God of whom it reveals.
Now this is why I personally believe it to be the word of God. I can’t claim this to be the experience of every reader because clearly it is not.
Interestingly this appeal survived the almost 20 years I spent as a Witness. When my faith was crushed when certain years did not prove to bring about the promised end and then finally that I had wasted so much time preaching to others to follow a spiritually and ideologically poisonous path, that main Character of this book brought me sanity I didn’t expect to ever find of feel comfortable about again. This Book’s appeal was not damaged beyond repair by my Watchtower days.
No, I don’t have empirical evidence to offer. It’s not about that. It’s not about the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine of having “the one true faith” and “prove it” and things like that. It’s a matter of the heart.
Sure, there are scholastic reasons why I believe as I do. But unlike the dry religion of the Jehovah’s Witness that has no mystical experience, no dimension where one actually experiences the emotional love from God—or at least we’re not allowed to because “those things died out with the apostles, blah, blah, blah”—a book which is a revelation about Somebody is an invitation to have a relationship with that same Person.
And it’s okay if you don’t believe it. I’m not more important than you because of my convictions. I get to breathe the same air you do. You get to enjoy the same sunshine I enjoy. When I let the Bible be what scholars, great teachers of the past, the testimony of the communities from which they claim say it’s supposed to be about, I no longer feel the need to constantly be trying to maneuver every conversation into an opportunity to get my religion across to those who don’t share it. I can actually be free to like and love people just as they really are (something not even the religion of the Watchtower can bring about).
It’s those that feel they have to constantly attack the other opposing view or shout it out until they’re blue in the face and destroy the dignity of all others who choose otherwise that I question in the end, regardless of whatever those convictions they claim to hold might be, Biblical or not.
P.S.--And my belief is not destroyed by accepting the theory of evolution or knowing that the earth is likely billions upon billions of years old, and from becoming an advocate and later teacher of the scientific method (I'm retired now).
-
58
Do You Still Believe the Bible is God's Word?
by cantleave inif so why???.
btw - i just see it as collection of old books written by men who reflected the thinking and knowledge of their time?.
-
-
MarcusScriptus
I think we expect too much of the Bible, sometimes.
We get it so drilled into our psyche that the Bible “has to be this and can’t do that,” that we don’t let it be just whatever it is. The writers never make claims that if people don’t read its contents, study them, and then preach them that its “divine Author” will “smite thee!”
I don’t recall Jesus ever instructing his apostles to write anything down, yet we somehow have been given the idea that Jesus practically bestowed copies of the Christian Scriptures upon people as he ascended into heaven:
“And lo, I drop onto thee copies of the New Testament. Take this to thy breast, make copies of thine own, and distribute them among the peoples. Remember, only he that readeth and understand what is contained therein shall be saved. Farewell!”
There’s nothing in these texts that say it’s contents are meant to be scientifically sound or can’t be using some sort of parable or fable-like narrative to get its points across, or that the people who wrote it aren’t allowed to express different opinions, or that doing so somehow violates some rule.
I mean, where is it written that one writer can’t contradict another writer without a text losing its claim to being inspired? Or is that some hoop we set on fire and demand this collection of writings to jump through lest we claim it unworthy?
I don’t remember the Bible asking us to set up such a hoop for it to jump through in the first place.
Where did we get the idea that Bible is some self-contained work? If it is, then where was the list of books in the Old Testament that said: “Thou shalt add no books unto this work lest ye be cursed, except they be the following: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John….”?
Wasn’t religious authority and not the book itself that which determined whether books were inspired or not? It couldn’t have been a popularity contest as to which books were more widely distributed and far more familiar with the Christian congregations at large, otherwise we may have seen the Shepherd of Hermas instead of Hebrews and the Apocalypse of Peter instead of the Revelation to John.
And if it’s supposed to be a book upon which to base a religion totally upon we would have works like the Didache or other types of instructions on how to meet, what to do when we meet, etc.: “If this had been an actual emergency, thou wouldest been given instructions on how ye were to sally forth and more. But nay, this be only a test…”?
People have a right to make up their own minds as their conscience dictates regarding things like the authenticity of the Bible. But there’s nothing wrong with any of us occasionally retesting our conclusions, especially by re-evaluating our own evaluating methods and seeing what conclusions we end up with if our own measure lines fail to meet the test.
Who’s to say that our criteria for measurement is so objectively final in its produced conclusions that, if there is a God, our own word and our limited experience can completely determine these things by their own authority?
“And the words found herein shall be considered inspired and only so if the reader’s own criteria for measuring them be met. If not, please dispose of this writ in receptacles only most appropriate for such. We thank thee ahead of time for keeping America beautiful.”
(Note: The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society announces a new and most accurate modern-day translation of these above quotes to be made available later this coming year in various formats, including Signed English for the Deaf Who Care Enough to Watch It on Video. Apparently the Divine Name occurs in these few sentences a total of 128,995.87231 times but was somehow erased by Christendom who then went about and covered their tracks regarding this crime instead of the more important ones like crusades and sexual abuse and burning saints as heretical witches. Smart way for those Christendomers to cover their tracks!)