Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 69

Thread: Which Bible

  1. Top | #11
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    3,497
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    I thought the historical critical method basically talked itself into irrelevance. How can you study the bible without canonical exegesis?

    "A significant limitation of the historical-critical method is that its hyper-focus on human authorship tends to leave us with a jumble of at best vaguely related texts, each with its own distinctive finality and meaning. We have, in a word, what Isaiah meant and what the author of the book of Job meant and what Mark and Paul meant—but not what God means across the whole of the Bible."

    https://www.wordonfire.org/resources...e-bible/22322/
    Sounds like a plus to me. Why blame God for human weaknesses and failings?

  2. Top | #12
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,010
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Torin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    I thought the historical critical method basically talked itself into irrelevance. How can you study the bible without canonical exegesis?

    "A significant limitation of the historical-critical method is that its hyper-focus on human authorship tends to leave us with a jumble of at best vaguely related texts, each with its own distinctive finality and meaning. We have, in a word, what Isaiah meant and what the author of the book of Job meant and what Mark and Paul meant—but not what God means across the whole of the Bible."

    https://www.wordonfire.org/resources...e-bible/22322/
    The idea that there is such a thing as "what God means across the whole of the Bible" is a faith based assumption. You're free to believe it privately, but it has no place in objective scholarship.
    And you are equally free to believe that the writers of the bible were all disconnected liars or lunatics who made everything up. But THAT would stretch objective historical scholarship to breaking point.

    You must surely understand how extraordinary that sort of claim is.

    The Old Testament writers (Gods chosen people) were frequently writing to future audiences about the path along which God which had lead them thus far and the trajectory of future events. The New Testament writers were likewise writing about an unbroken chain of prophetic past events that lead up to exactly the point God intended for His chosen people, and the eschatology to follow.

  3. Top | #13
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    4,020
    Rep Power
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Torin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    I thought the historical critical method basically talked itself into irrelevance. How can you study the bible without canonical exegesis?

    "A significant limitation of the historical-critical method is that its hyper-focus on human authorship tends to leave us with a jumble of at best vaguely related texts, each with its own distinctive finality and meaning. We have, in a word, what Isaiah meant and what the author of the book of Job meant and what Mark and Paul meant—but not what God means across the whole of the Bible."

    https://www.wordonfire.org/resources...e-bible/22322/
    The idea that there is such a thing as "what God means across the whole of the Bible" is a faith based assumption. You're free to believe it privately, but it has no place in objective scholarship.
    And you are equally free to believe that the writers of the bible were all disconnected liars or lunatics who made everything up. But THAT would stretch objective historical scholarship to breaking point.

    You must surely understand how extraordinary that sort of claim is.

    The Old Testament writers (Gods chosen people) were frequently writing to future audiences about the path along which God which had lead them thus far and the trajectory of future events. The New Testament writers were likewise writing about an unbroken chain of prophetic past events that lead up to exactly the point God intended for His chosen people, and the eschatology to follow.
    What is your evidence for this? I've always wondered why religious people will believe in the bible vs the Koran and vice-versa.

  4. Top | #14
    Super Moderator Torin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    165
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Torin View Post
    The idea that there is such a thing as "what God means across the whole of the Bible" is a faith based assumption. You're free to believe it privately, but it has no place in objective scholarship.
    And you are equally free to believe that the writers of the bible were all disconnected liars or lunatics who made everything up. But THAT would stretch objective historical scholarship to breaking point.

    You must surely understand how extraordinary that sort of claim is.

    The Old Testament writers (Gods chosen people) were frequently writing to future audiences about the path along which God which had lead them thus far and the trajectory of future events. The New Testament writers were likewise writing about an unbroken chain of prophetic past events that lead up to exactly the point God intended for His chosen people, and the eschatology to follow.
    You claimed that there is such a thing as "what God means across the whole of the Bible," which is a faith based assumption. It assumes the existence of God, it assumes that God inspired the Bible, and it assumes that God has a single meaning across the whole of the Bible. Those assumptions cannot be demonstrated objectively, so they are a matter of personal faith and have no place in objective scholarship.

    And this doesn't mean I think "that the writers of the bible were all disconnected liars or lunatics who made everything up." That's clearly a false dichotomy. There are probably some true things, and some valuable things, and possibly some degree of similarity of theme, in the Bible. I can accept all of that without accepting the claim that the Bible was inspired by God in order to convey a unified message.

  5. Top | #15
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    3,497
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Torin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    I thought the historical critical method basically talked itself into irrelevance. How can you study the bible without canonical exegesis?

    "A significant limitation of the historical-critical method is that its hyper-focus on human authorship tends to leave us with a jumble of at best vaguely related texts, each with its own distinctive finality and meaning. We have, in a word, what Isaiah meant and what the author of the book of Job meant and what Mark and Paul meant—but not what God means across the whole of the Bible."

    https://www.wordonfire.org/resources...e-bible/22322/
    The idea that there is such a thing as "what God means across the whole of the Bible" is a faith based assumption. You're free to believe it privately, but it has no place in objective scholarship.
    And you are equally free to believe that the writers of the bible were all disconnected liars or lunatics who made everything up. But THAT would stretch objective historical scholarship to breaking point.

    You must surely understand how extraordinary that sort of claim is.

    The Old Testament writers (Gods chosen people) were frequently writing to future audiences about the path along which God which had lead them thus far and the trajectory of future events. The New Testament writers were likewise writing about an unbroken chain of prophetic past events that lead up to exactly the point God intended for His chosen people, and the eschatology to follow.
    Are you suggesting that the editors of the Harper Collins Study Bible have such a low opinion of the Biblical authors? Because I do not think that is true.

  6. Top | #16
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,010
    Rep Power
    20
    No. I'm not 'suggesting' that.

  7. Top | #17
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    3,497
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    No. I'm not 'suggesting' that.
    Well, then the trajectory of your critique is really wandering.

  8. Top | #18
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,010
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Torin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Torin View Post
    The idea that there is such a thing as "what God means across the whole of the Bible" is a faith based assumption. You're free to believe it privately, but it has no place in objective scholarship.
    And you are equally free to believe that the writers of the bible were all disconnected liars or lunatics who made everything up. But THAT would stretch objective historical scholarship to breaking point.

    You must surely understand how extraordinary that sort of claim is.

    The Old Testament writers (Gods chosen people) were frequently writing to future audiences about the path along which God which had lead them thus far and the trajectory of future events. The New Testament writers were likewise writing about an unbroken chain of prophetic past events that lead up to exactly the point God intended for His chosen people, and the eschatology to follow.
    You claimed that there is such a thing as "what God means across the whole of the Bible," which is a faith based assumption.
    It's not faith based if that's what you heard directly from God.

    It assumes the existence of God,
    I can safely assume that a person who refers to themself as 'Torin' wrote that.
    If I heard a voice speaking in the next room, I can safely assume it came from someone.
    But I gather you think delusion or fiction are more plausible explanations.

    it assumes that God inspired the Bible,
    Yes. Either John of Patmos was God's stenographer or he was making it up.
    Canonical exegesis reads John's testimony as if John himself really did view the entire corpus of scripture (Gods Word) in terms of an unfolding history of Gods relationship with mankind.

    and it assumes that God has a single meaning across the whole of the Bible.
    It assumes one single bigger picture over time.

    Those assumptions cannot be demonstrated objectively,
    The bible writers themselves explicitly state what their purpose is. It's right there in their text.
    Any subjective assuming being done is on the part of those who claim that the existence of God must be excluded as ahistorical.

    so they are a matter of personal faith and have no place in objective scholarship.
    This is your personal belief. We should exclude it from objective scholarship.

    And this doesn't mean I think "that the writers of the bible were all disconnected liars or lunatics who made everything up." That's clearly a false dichotomy. There are probably some true things, and some valuable things, and possibly some degree of similarity of theme, in the Bible. I can accept all of that without accepting the claim that the Bible was inspired by God in order to convey a unified message.
    OK
    Quick quiz.
    Q1. Any/all of the bible writers knew that their writing contained deliberate falsehood? Yes/No
    Q2. Any/all of the bible writers lunatics? Yes/No
    Q3. Any/all of the bible writers wrote historical/scientific truths and we can't account for how they learned such? Yes/No

    Bonus question - can the historical critical method provide objective proof/evidence that Moses or David or Luke were lunatics, liars or plagiarists?

  9. Top | #19
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,010
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    No. I'm not 'suggesting' that.
    Well, then the trajectory of your critique is really wandering.
    Where? In your mind?
    Just stick to the quote function rather than putting words in my mouth.

  10. Top | #20
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    3,497
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    No. I'm not 'suggesting' that.
    Well, then the trajectory of your critique is really wandering.
    Where? In your mind?
    Just stick to the quote function rather than putting words in my mouth.
    I'm very confused about your postings. Are you trying to critique the "historical critical method", or just individual posters?

Similar Threads

  1. The Bible
    By steve_bank in forum Religious Texts
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-16-2019, 09:47 PM
  2. the dog ate the bible
    By BH in forum Freethought Humor
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-17-2018, 03:21 PM
  3. Murder in the bible
    By phands in forum General Religion
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 07-09-2018, 02:30 PM
  4. Most Ignored Bible Teachings
    By ideologyhunter in forum General Religion
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-22-2016, 03:52 PM
  5. The Bible
    By DLH in forum Religious Texts
    Replies: 171
    Last Post: 06-04-2015, 09:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •