"Forged" by Bart Ehrman (page 9)

leavingwt

Dagney: Not to mention, eternal torment, should one reach the wrong conclusion, after reading the best available, translated texts.

PSacramento

What is different between the writings of almost anybody else and the NT is how they are used. Through the ages and continuing as fervently today, wars are started, people are judged/condemned, families torn apart, women abused etc. by the words contained in the NT. Did you see my link on the new "Apostolic Reformation!?"

What ANY document is used for after it is written has NOTHING to do with it was historicaly accurate or forged or whatever.

I doubt all historical writings, of course! But pondering words and philosophies, whether exact or not, from ancient philosophers is quite different than using the words and phrasing contained in the NT to determine life and death for people. And that is what it is used for. I see it on here everyday.

What people decided to use the Bible for is PEOPLE's fault, not the fault of a book or the writers of a book.

That people decided the NT, for example, was inspired writing is people's problem, you won't find any gospel or letter claiming to be that.

That is why the who, when, where and why should be questioned and tested. My life has been greatly affected by people's use of the NT.

I agree that it should be tested and it HAS been and contiunes to be so.

The point is the criteria shoudl be the same as for any other historical document.

Again, the nowhere in the NT do you find the Gospels of writings claiming that the authors and their writings are inerrant or even inspired.

The only mention of "inspired scripture" is in the letter to Timothy and those scriptures are NOT specified or named.

That some people choose to view the bible, whole or in parts, as inerrant or infaliabel or "written by God" or whatever, has NOTHING to do with WHAT those documents are.

If 300 years from now some decides that the "lord of the rings" is insipred and makes it their bible, that won't change whether or not the copies of those books are legit or not.

LWT, of course! How could I forget eternal torment!!!! Another lovely doctrine. But of course, some believers on here say "no, that is not what it means." Others say "yes, it's exactly what it means." All believersin the same book...ai yi yi!!!!

If god really loved mankind, he would have made it really easy and clear for us to understand what he wants from us. But since that didn't happen, we have to question and research the history, context and culture of a book that claims to be his word (s).

leavingwt

Dagney: You just need more faith.

Band on the Run

Yes. Different localities had access to different sacred writings. There was not a NT as we now know. If I recall correctly, Timothy is not believed to be a true work of Paul. That :all scripture is inspired of God and true" was one of my puke NT phrases. They definitely had three or four scriptures that they reported ad inifinitum. They almost ruined John 3:16 for me.

I had a cousin Tim, who was a JW, his father was the overseer. The statement by Paul to take a little wine for your stomach seemed to repeated all the time. I fail to see the grand theological statement in the verse.

PSacramento

LWT, of course! How could I forget eternal torment!!!! Another lovely doctrine. But of course, some believers on here say "no, that is not what it means." Others say "yes, it's exactly what it means." All believersin the same book...ai yi yi!!!!

If god really loved mankind, he would have made it really easy and clear for us to understand what he wants from us. But since that didn't happen, we have to question and research the history, context and culture of a book that claims to be his word (s).

And you have brought up THE main issue, which is NO how legit the writings are BUT how LEGIT the INTERPRTATIONS are and THAT is what shoudl be discussed and argued.

Dagney

What ANY document is used for after it is written has NOTHING to do with it was historicaly accurate or forged or whatever.

@PSac: I think we must agree to disagree. In this case, with the importance and value given to the NT, I think it absolutely matters.

The bottom line of all of this and everything religious is it's a "faith" issue. I had that trust and faith for many years. I did not question the Bible, I had faith it was basically true, even though for those many years, the inconsistencies always troubled me. Now I understand why they troubled me which I learned from books and posts on discussion boards.

I do not have that faith anymore. But I have respect for yours.

Dagney

@ LWT: I know. (Our posts crossed..lol.)

PSacramento

We can certainly agree to disagree, this isn't the WTBTS :)

I do NOT view the bible as inerrant, I simply view it as the writings of Man.

I see it as a historical document infused with theology because the writers were inspired by their faith, to write about what they saw and how they understood it, I believe that some were inspired by the HS and expressed that inspiration in a way that was common and understandable to ancient man, but NOT aimed at Us.

I think that in our zeal ( by our I mean believers in God), we put far too much on the bible and far too less on Our Lord, Our God and how they revealeds themselves and continue to reveal themselves to Us.

As I have said a few times, the bible is part a PART of God's revelation to Us.

Dagney

I don't think ANYTHING in the Bible was aimed at us. I agree with you there.

I forgot to add, if I have any Bible questions, I'm going to ask Leo. She's the only one I trust. I am so thankful she is on this board.

"Forged" by Bart Ehrman

Share this