by Terry 46 Replies latest watchtower bible
Terry, you raise vaild points and those points are addressd in the NT.
Yes at times they may seem contridictory, if we take a passage in isolation, but viewed in the WHOLE, I don't think they are.
Yes people can pervert a passage,taken out of context from the TOTAL writings of an author, and use it to justify serious crap, but who's fault is that? the people doing that or the writer who was take out of context?
SCROLL into the debate to 7 minutes and 30 seconds of the Bart Ehrman vs Craig Evans debate and listen.
If you find it interesting go back to the beginning and listen to the whole debate on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HTaVZ1pqRU&feature=related
7:30 Ehrman
Listen from the beginning of this one. Nice summation:
I'd like to weigh in here, but this debate has little bearing on me or on my faith. I have never thought that each written word of the bible was inerrant. I personally give added weight to the things written by John or Peter, because they were with Jesus. But I have always believed that the message of God is there for all to see, and that this message is inerrant.
So these debates are not really going to affect someone whose belief is foremost with God, more than a book inspired of God but handled and translated by men.
Tammy
I'd like to weigh in here, but this debate has little bearing on me or on my faith. I have never thought that each written word of the bible was inerrant. I personally give added weight to the things written by John or Peter, because they were with Jesus. But I have always believed that the message of God is there for all to see, and that this message is inerrant.
So these debates are not really going to affect someone whose belief is foremost with God, more than a book inspired of God but handled and translated by men.
Am I wrong in hearing you say you DON'T WANT TO WATCH these debates?
Both views are represented quite well.
If we decide what we are going to conclude BEFORE we hear a matter---is that a show of strong faith or weak faith?
I've been watching them, Terry. I just haven't heard anything (so far) that I haven't already thought of.
Tammy
Edited to add: 'Or that I haven't already read before.'
Thanks for you response PSacramento.
I've been watching them, Terry. I just haven't heard anything (so far) that I haven't already thought of.
Tammy
Edited to add: 'Or that I haven't already read before.'
Okay. Thanks!
Terry, am I understanding you correctly? Historical Jesus some 2,000 years ago did exist and that is a proven fact of history?
According to this topic he did exist. I read of opposing views that Historically Jesus did not exist.
Whether he existed or not, I am sure that the Holy Bible is not Holy at all and is a documental history written by men with their own agenda.
Blueblades
Terry, am I understanding you correctly? Historical Jesus some 2,000 years ago did exist and that is a proven fact of history?
According to this topic he did exist. I read of opposing views that Historically Jesus did not exist.
Whether he existed or not, I am sure that the Holy Bible is not Holy at all and is a documental history written by men with their own agenda.
Let me answer this 3 different ways (all with the same conclusion).
1.History can't tell us what happened. History tells us what probably happened.
2.Statistically you can only apply a per centage of confirmation to repeatable events. The number of persons attesting to an event does not
guarantee how likely that event was to have ocurred. Thousands of people witness apparitions of the Virgin Mary, for example.
3.If you arrive at a pond and see ripples you might well plausibly assume "something" dropped into the pond at some point.
All the above dovetail into this conclusion: Somebody named Jesus or Joshua or Yeshua or Iesus lived at such and such a time OF WHOM it has been attested (and believed by others who heard) that he was a miracle worker and rabbi of extraordinary charisma.
The details about this person have been orally transmitted for 80 years before actually being written down (those writings do NOT currently exist).
These 80 years after the fact writings did not agree with each other and were changed repeatedly by copyists and translators until there was significant additional material distorting and corrupting the orignal writings. With the LOSS of the originals it cannot be confirmed HOW MUCH or WHICH now-existing- copied material is factual, fantasy or ideology by later writers.
Make sense?
