• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Biblical Criticism.

JP Cusick

JP Cusick

The Expert
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
1,240
Reaction score
177
Location
Hollywood, MD. USA, 20636
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Biblical Criticism started in earnest in 1835 with the book "Life of Jesus" by David Strauss.

At the second Vatican Counsel 1965 the Catholic Church embraced Biblical Criticism (especial credit goes to Pope Paul VI) which was an extremely enlightened thing for them to do, link HERE.

My own view is that the Biblical Criticism shows us that huge parts of the Bible are fiction or myth, and that some parts as like Jonah being swallowed by a big fish was just a child's story as like Cinderella or King Arther are for today.

That does not make it as a lie, but the truth does tend to get trampled under foot until we learn what is false and what is true.

This is an invite for anyone familiar with the Biblical Criticism topics then we might discuss it here.

And I do intend to post a few more specific "critical" items here in due time, as like on the Synoptic Problem and the JEDP sources.
 
JP Cusick said:
Biblical Criticism started in earnest in 1835 with the book "Life of Jesus" by David Strauss.

At the second Vatican Counsel 1965 the Catholic Church embraced Biblical Criticism (especial credit goes to Pope Paul VI) which was an extremely enlightened thing for them to do, link HERE.

My own view is that the Biblical Criticism shows us that huge parts of the Bible are fiction or myth, and that some parts as like Jonah being swallowed by a big fish was just a child's story as like Cinderella or King Arther are for today.

That does not make it as a lie, but the truth does tend to get trampled under foot until we learn what is false and what is true.

This is an invite for anyone familiar with the Biblical Criticism topics then we might discuss it here.

And I do intend to post a few more specific "critical" items here in due time, as like on the Synoptic Problem and the JEDP sources.
Click to expand...

I have never had a problem with fables, sagas and parables not being exact in describing the deeper truths behind them.
 
JP Cusick said:
Biblical Criticism started in earnest in 1835 with the book "Life of Jesus" by David Strauss.

At the second Vatican Counsel 1965 the Catholic Church embraced Biblical Criticism (especial credit goes to Pope Paul VI) which was an extremely enlightened thing for them to do, link HERE.

My own view is that the Biblical Criticism shows us that huge parts of the Bible are fiction or myth, and that some parts as like Jonah being swallowed by a big fish was just a child's story as like Cinderella or King Arther are for today.

That does not make it as a lie, but the truth does tend to get trampled under foot until we learn what is false and what is true.

This is an invite for anyone familiar with the Biblical Criticism topics then we might discuss it here.

And I do intend to post a few more specific "critical" items here in due time, as like on the Synoptic Problem and the JEDP sources.
Click to expand...

The Catholic Church has always condemned the heresy of modernism. Vatican II did not change this, no matter how many times ideologues claim it did.

Next time, why not site a credible source? (For instance, one that doesn't claim to adhere to a religious doctrine, while rejecting it)
 
Paleocon said:
The Catholic Church has always condemned the heresy of modernism. Vatican II did not change this, no matter how many times ideologues claim it did.

Next time, why not site a credible source? (For instance, one that doesn't claim to adhere to a religious doctrine, while rejecting it)
Click to expand...
If you just want to deny the topic then that is not a discussion, and I do not want to argue side-line things with you or with anyone.

The link to "American Catholics org" is in-fact a super credible source indeed, but I am not here as some representative of the Catholic Church - certainly not, as the link was simply giving some relevant info concerning the topic of Biblical Criticism, and I have no further interest in the Catholic teachings otherwise.

I do know that very many devoted Catholics were upset by the Vatican II and I do sympathize but that is not my battle to discuss.

==============
Back to the topic:
==============

The term "Criticism" does not really mean to criticize, as the name of "Biblical Criticism" is just the name given by Scholars of the Bible trying to explain the process of scrutinizing the text of the Bible - for better or for worse.
 
JP Cusick said:
If you just want to deny the topic then that is not a discussion, and I do not want to argue side-line things with you or with anyone.

The link to "American Catholics org" is in-fact a super credible source indeed, but I am not here as some representative of the Catholic Church - certainly not, as the link was simply giving some relevant info concerning the topic of Biblical Criticism, and I have no further interest in the Catholic teachings otherwise.

I do know that very many devoted Catholics were upset by the Vatican II and I do sympathize but that is not my battle to discuss.

==============
Back to the topic:
==============

The term "Criticism" does not really mean to criticize, as the name of "Biblical Criticism" is just the name given by Scholars of the Bible trying to explain the process of scrutinizing the text of the Bible - for better or for worse.
Click to expand...

Much of the angst surrounding VII was not about the council itself, but liberals trying to hijack it.
 
JP Cusick said:
Biblical Criticism started in earnest in 1835 with the book "Life of Jesus" by David Strauss.

At the second Vatican Counsel 1965 the Catholic Church embraced Biblical Criticism (especial credit goes to Pope Paul VI) which was an extremely enlightened thing for them to do, link HERE.

My own view is that the Biblical Criticism shows us that huge parts of the Bible are fiction or myth, and that some parts as like Jonah being swallowed by a big fish was just a child's story as like Cinderella or King Arther are for today.

That does not make it as a lie, but the truth does tend to get trampled under foot until we learn what is false and what is true.

This is an invite for anyone familiar with the Biblical Criticism topics then we might discuss it here.

And I do intend to post a few more specific "critical" items here in due time, as like on the Synoptic Problem and the JEDP sources.
Click to expand...

You think "biblical" criticism began in 1835?

Augustine of Hippo?

The idea that critical thought came to the Catholic Church in 1835 shows ignorance of Catholic tradition beginning with Ignatius to this day.

It seems the only people who think the Catholic Church is a mindless herd of sheep are non Catholics and former Catholics who never paid attention.

There are tons of accusations that can stick, this ain't one of them.
 
JP Cusick said:
==============
Back to the topic:
==============

The term "Criticism" does not really mean to criticize, as the name of "Biblical Criticism" is just the name given by Scholars of the Bible trying to explain the process of scrutinizing the text of the Bible - for better or for worse.
Click to expand...
A better link to explain what is Biblical Criticism:

The New World Encyclopedia - Biblical Criticism.
 
So, whats the point of the thread? To debate whether biblical criticism is good?
 
JP Cusick said:
Biblical Criticism started in earnest in 1835 with the book "Life of Jesus" by David Strauss.

At the second Vatican Counsel 1965 the Catholic Church embraced Biblical Criticism (especial credit goes to Pope Paul VI) which was an extremely enlightened thing for them to do, link HERE.

My own view is that the Biblical Criticism shows us that huge parts of the Bible are fiction or myth, and that some parts as like Jonah being swallowed by a big fish was just a child's story as like Cinderella or King Arther are for today.

That does not make it as a lie, but the truth does tend to get trampled under foot until we learn what is false and what is true.

This is an invite for anyone familiar with the Biblical Criticism topics then we might discuss it here.

And I do intend to post a few more specific "critical" items here in due time, as like on the Synoptic Problem and the JEDP sources.
Click to expand...

This should be a WHOLE subsection actually, this is a HUGE subject.

Some parts of the bible are fiction or myth, but that's always been known, back in the days of Origen and even before. Literalism is a 19th Century invention.

But Comparing it to something like Cinderella (king Arther may be a better example) is a little untrue though, it's not a story in the way other fictional stories are stories, myth is often based in reality, and would hold as much weight as history (which back then was always intertwined With ideology, InFact it still is).

So it's not a fairy tale, perse.

Biblical Criticism doesn't figure out what is and is not historical only, it's a very small part of it.

It goes into when the books were written, what Sources they used, how far back the Sources go, what traditions do the Sources come from, what does the origional text say, there is textual criticism, what is the individual background of each text, what is the historical framework of the text, what is the historical exegesis of the text, and so on and so forth.

In my opinion Biblical Criticism is actually in a high point. the 19th Century criticism and early 20th Century criticism was quite sloppy and ended up being way to liberal, now there is a much more balanced view.

As far as the synoptic problem, the synoptic problem and the work on it done by biblical scholars has acutally ended up (inadvertently) supporting the Christian faith. Unfortunately there are some christians on this forum who are scared to Death of any biblical criticism, and who will say for example, that Matthew and John must have spoken Greek, and must have just remembered the same Things and so on, when any serious study of the text will give you the Source theory result. That at least Matthew and Luke used various Sources. But honestly this is not something that you have to be a biblical scholar to know, I think everyone even remotely interested in the New Testament should know something about this.
 
TobyOne said:
So, whats the point of the thread? To debate whether biblical criticism is good?
Click to expand...
No - certainly not - this is NOT to debate whether it is "good or bad" as I will not debate that with anyone.

Seeking the truth is always a positive thing, while suppressing the truth is always a negative thing.

We can certainly debate what parts are true and what parts are not true or accurate.

There are a couple important pieces of Biblical Criticism in the OP and I will expand on them, and I would hope that this discussion could dig deeper into the significance and the relevance of the research.

======================================


RGacky3 said:
This should be a WHOLE subsection actually, this is a HUGE subject.

Some parts of the bible are fiction or myth, but that's always been known, back in the days of Origen and even before. Literalism is a 19th Century invention.

But Comparing it to something like Cinderella (king Arther may be a better example) is a little untrue though, it's not a story in the way other fictional stories are stories, myth is often based in reality, and would hold as much weight as history (which back then was always intertwined With ideology, InFact it still is).

So it's not a fairy tale, perse.

Biblical Criticism doesn't figure out what is and is not historical only, it's a very small part of it.

It goes into when the books were written, what Sources they used, how far back the Sources go, what traditions do the Sources come from, what does the origional text say, there is textual criticism, what is the individual background of each text, what is the historical framework of the text, what is the historical exegesis of the text, and so on and so forth.

In my opinion Biblical Criticism is actually in a high point. the 19th Century criticism and early 20th Century criticism was quite sloppy and ended up being way to liberal, now there is a much more balanced view.

As far as the synoptic problem, the synoptic problem and the work on it done by biblical scholars has acutally ended up (inadvertently) supporting the Christian faith. Unfortunately there are some christians on this forum who are scared to Death of any biblical criticism, and who will say for example, that Matthew and John must have spoken Greek, and must have just remembered the same Things and so on, when any serious study of the text will give you the Source theory result. That at least Matthew and Luke used various Sources. But honestly this is not something that you have to be a biblical scholar to know, I think everyone even remotely interested in the New Testament should know something about this.
Click to expand...
The above quote by "RG3" is well said - and it is refreshing to see a person who knows what they are talking about.

As to "Cinderella" then I used that to explain the "Book of Jonah" because it is a commonly recognized fable, but I also worried that some people might jump onto "King Arther" as many people today believe that is a true story which it is not.
 
JP Cusick said:
The above quote by "RG3" is well said - and it is refreshing to see a person who knows what they are talking about.

As to "Cinderella" then I used that to explain the "Book of Jonah" because it is a commonly recognized fable, but I also worried that some people might jump onto "King Arther" as many people today believe that is a true story which it is not.
Click to expand...

Thanks I appreciate the compliment.

I prefer to use the term "myth" as it's used in modern scholarship, where the story may have a historical frame, (or may not), but the point of the story is not a historical retelling but rather a narrative making an ideological or religious or political point.

Cinderella isn't doing that, Cinderella is just a sraight fictional story that's main purpose is to entertain and give a little moral lesson, not the same with a story like King Arther or Jonah.

There may (or may not) have been a historical figure on which King Arther was based on, but if there wasn't like the King Arther of the story, at least not in the way the story goes, but the point of the story is ideological/Political, the same with Jonah. Assyria was a real place, and the story deals with actual political and religious issues, Jonah is presented as a prophet, and there may or may not have been a Jewish community in Assyria at the time, or a King who did good things at the time.

The point is not to figure out if there is any historical credibility to it, the story isn't trying to be a historical narrative or even a retelling of a historical narrative, it's a religio-political / ideological narrative.

As far as Titus 1:14's use of the word "Mythos" it's clearly used negatively in Pauls letters (He uses it also in 1 Timothy), so they translate it as fables, but that isn't the way modern scholars use the term "myth," and it's clear that Paul would'nt be reffering here to the Hebrew Bible, which we know he quoted as Authoritative.

I think anyone interested in Higher Criticism should read some of NT Wright, he breaks down many of the post enlightenment assumptions that other prior scholars have taking forgranted in Biblical Criticism ....
 
Paleocon said:
The Catholic Church has always condemned the heresy of modernism. Vatican II did not change this, no matter how many times ideologues claim it did.

Next time, why not site a credible source? (For instance, one that doesn't claim to adhere to a religious doctrine, while rejecting it)
Click to expand...

Biblican Criticism has nothing to do with Modernism.

One is a Scholarly discipline, the other is a philosophy and an era.
 
JP Cusick said:
more specific "critical" items here , as like on the Synoptic Problem.
Click to expand...
The infamous "synoptic problem" with the written Gospel accounts.

That "problem" is in that the Gospel according to Mark was the original manuscript, and Mark was a disciple of Peter which means that Mark is the gospel as told to Mark by the apostle Peter.

So it is found that the first and original Gospel account was done by Mark, and later came the Gospels of Luke and then Matthew, so it is discovered by their text that both Luke and Matthew copied and expanded on the Gospel of Mark, and Matthew also used and expanded off of the text of Luke.

Much later came the fourth Gospel of John.

The old idea of a "Q" source or lost "Q" documents appears to be well proven as inaccurate, unless some day such a source is ever found.

See link here = The Synoptic Problem and its Solution
"The Gospel of Mark was written first, and was composed in the late 60s AD.

The Gospel of Luke was second, and was most likely composed around 75 to 80 AD. The author used the Gospel of Mark as a source document.

The Gospel of Matthew was third, most likely composed 90 to 100 AD. The author of Matthew used both Mark and Luke as literary sources.

The hypothetical Q Gospel never existed. The double tradition material was created by Matthew's direct copying from Luke."
 
JP Cusick said:
The infamous "synoptic problem" with the written Gospel accounts.

That "problem" is in that the Gospel according to Mark was the original manuscript, and Mark was a disciple of Peter which means that Mark is the gospel as told to Mark by the apostle Peter.

So it is found that the first and original Gospel account was done by Mark, and later came the Gospels of Luke and then Matthew, so it is discovered by their text that both Luke and Matthew copied and expanded on the Gospel of Mark, and Matthew also used and expanded off of the text of Luke.

Much later came the fourth Gospel of John.

The old idea of a "Q" source or lost "Q" documents appears to be well proven as inaccurate, unless some day such a source is ever found.

See link here = The Synoptic Problem and its Solution
"The Gospel of Mark was written first, and was composed in the late 60s AD.

The Gospel of Luke was second, and was most likely composed around 75 to 80 AD. The author used the Gospel of Mark as a source document.

The Gospel of Matthew was third, most likely composed 90 to 100 AD. The author of Matthew used both Mark and Luke as literary sources.

The hypothetical Q Gospel never existed. The double tradition material was created by Matthew's direct copying from Luke."
Click to expand...

I don't think Q source has been proven to be innacurate at all.

The theory you're talking about has plenty of problems, such as the fact that what Matthew takes from Mark is done in a different way than the way Matthew takes from Q (or the common Luke/Matthew material), and some of it seams like it's closer to the origional phrasing. Also Q taken seperately, looks and flows perfectly as a sayings gospel.

The fact that we don't have any actual Q manuscripts isn't really a problem, if you consider that after the material was included in Matthew or Luke (especially Matthew, which was much more popular with the early church) there was no reason to to keep producing Q material, and when the galilean Churches from which it is thought Q sprung from, became less important compared to the Jerusalem Church and the Churches in Greek and Roman cities, the writings they used took more importance.

As far as the dating of Matthew, most scholars put Matthew AND luke in the 80s.

That being said the dating is VERY difficult to hold down or be dogmatic about, we simply don't know.

I'm not tied to the Q source theory, but I do think it's the best solution to the synoptic problem.
 
JP Cusick said:
The old idea of a "Q" source or lost "Q" documents appears to be well proven as inaccurate, unless some day such a source is ever found.
Click to expand...

If you are going to make a statement like this, I think it's important, in the interest of fairness, to be honest about the fact that this is merely your opinion. The fact is that the existence of Q continues to be the dominant position among biblical scholars (both religious and secular).

I am personally not convinced, but I'll be the first to admit that mine is the minority opinion. When you say that something has been "well proven as inacccurate", you may mistakenly lead people to believe that the question has been settled among the experts, when in this case the dominant position is that there was a Q.
 
RGacky3 said:
Biblican Criticism has nothing to do with Modernism.

One is a Scholarly discipline, the other is a philosophy and an era.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.
 
RGacky3 said:
Biblican Criticism has nothing to do with Modernism.

One is a Scholarly discipline, the other is a philosophy and an era.
Click to expand...
It is clear that most people today and especially those who profess the Bible - simply do not know anything about Biblical Criticism and that is a sad reality.

The Biblical Criticism is what opens up the Bible not only to the hidden truths but to the beauty and grandeur of such old documents.

Back around the turn of the 19th to the 20th century then Biblical Criticism was super hot stuff in books, but then the Protestant Churches turned against it and deliberately sought out to suppress it, and they did rather effectively trample down the truths of the Bible. The very best book on Biblical Criticism which instructed me on the depth of the subject was dated as 1923 and I have never yet found its equal or even a close shot to it.

Protestants treat the Bible as an idol, so their idolized Bible has got to be viewed as perfect and infallible and the Bible itself is some how the word of God (which it is not) and that idolatry is what still keeps people today ignorant of the Bible truths told in the Biblical Criticism.


========================================


JP Cusick said:
Biblical Criticism started in earnest in 1835 with the book "Life of Jesus" by David Strauss.
Click to expand...
Albert Einstein originally promoted the concept of a God / a Creator, but as it happens the dominating Christian demands took that to mean that people need to accept Jesus as Savior and anyone who did not would burn in a Hell had to join Christianity which is NOT what science was teaching about God.

Therefore Einstein and many others in scientific research had to stop referring to "God" simply because the reality of referring to the Creator God or even Intelligent design did not mean any endorsement of Christianity.

Where science shows us that there was a Big-Bang then yes that is a proof of a Creator God as it is proof of a creation day and proof that there was a "beginning" as like = "In the beginning God..." but that is not proof of Jesus as Christ or of Christianity.

I happen to believe in Jesus but Jesus did not claim to be God, as Jesus tells us to pray to God in Heaven, as in = "Our Father who are in Heaven ..."

So one of the BIG reasons as to why religion is excluded from science is simply because the aggressive Christianity can not separate Jesus from God and science can not separate God from the demanding Christians.

There are other examples of this distortion as like Jerry Lewis who promoted treating "Muscular Dystrophy" and the Christians demanded that he accept Jesus as Savior as if charity and love have to be connected to Christianity.

Both Jerry Lewis and Albert Einstein were Jewish.

My finding is that Einstein derived his concept of time (relativity) from the old Testament of the Bible (a.k.a. the Jewish part), because I too find references to time distortion told in the Bible which Christianity can not deal with but science can embrace.

"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind." ~ Albert Einstein.
 
JP Cusick said:
It is clear that most people today and especially those who profess the Bible - simply do not know anything about Biblical Criticism and that is a sad reality.

The Biblical Criticism is what opens up the Bible not only to the hidden truths but to the beauty and grandeur of such old documents.

Back around the turn of the 19th to the 20th century then Biblical Criticism was super hot stuff in books, but then the Protestant Churches turned against it and deliberately sought out to suppress it, and they did rather effectively trample down the truths of the Bible. The very best book on Biblical Criticism which instructed me on the depth of the subject was dated as 1923 and I have never yet found its equal or even a close shot to it.

Protestants treat the Bible as an idol, so their idolized Bible has got to be viewed as perfect and infallible and the Bible itself is some how the word of God (which it is not) and that idolatry is what still keeps people today ignorant of the Bible truths told in the Biblical Criticism.


========================================
Click to expand...

I haven't actually gone into much Biblical Criticism prior to the 1980s .... I've stuck to the new stuff. I do think the 19th century and early 20th century stuff made some mistakes (although my knowledge of it is second hand), such as over emphasis on the greek background and not the Jewish background, they didn't have the dead sea scrolls, and so on and so forth.

I DO believe that the bible is the word of God, but that doesn't mean I'm afriad of higher criticism, it just means I have to grapple with it, and understand it in the context of which it was written.

Albert Einstein originally promoted the concept of a God / a Creator, but as it happens the dominating Christian demands took that to mean that people need to accept Jesus as Savior and anyone who did not would burn in a Hell had to join Christianity which is NOT what science was teaching about God.

Therefore Einstein and many others in scientific research had to stop referring to "God" simply because the reality of referring to the Creator God or even Intelligent design did not mean any endorsement of Christianity.

Where science shows us that there was a Big-Bang then yes that is a proof of a Creator God as it is proof of a creation day and proof that there was a "beginning" as like = "In the beginning God..." but that is not proof of Jesus as Christ or of Christianity.

I happen to believe in Jesus but Jesus did not claim to be God, as Jesus tells us to pray to God in Heaven, as in = "Our Father who are in Heaven ..."

So one of the BIG reasons as to why religion is excluded from science is simply because the aggressive Christianity can not separate Jesus from God and science can not separate God from the demanding Christians.

There are other examples of this distortion as like Jerry Lewis who promoted treating "Muscular Dystrophy" and the Christians demanded that he accept Jesus as Savior as if charity and love have to be connected to Christianity.

Both Jerry Lewis and Albert Einstein were Jewish.

My finding is that Einstein derived his concept of time (relativity) from the old Testament of the Bible (a.k.a. the Jewish part), because I too find references to time distortion told in the Bible which Christianity can not deal with but science can embrace.

"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind." ~ Albert Einstein.
Click to expand...

I don't know what this has to do with biblical criticism ....?
 
JP Cusick said:
It is clear that most people today and especially those who profess the Bible - simply do not know anything about Biblical Criticism and that is a sad reality.
Click to expand...
That is certainly true of me. I really know nothing of biblical criticism except that--if I understand correctly--means that the Bible is not divinely inspired but was written by fallible man.

True?

JP Cusick said:
…but then the Protestant Churches turned against it and deliberately sought out to suppress it, and they did rather effectively trample down the truths of the Bible…
Click to expand...

If it’s true that biblical criticism means that God did not inspire its creation then it’s just another book so what truths could be in it?

JP Cusick said:
Protestants treat the Bible as an idol, so their idolized Bible has got to be viewed as perfect and infallible…
Click to expand...

Well, we do like our truth to come from the Holy Spirit so whatchagonnado?

JP Cusick said:
…and the Bible itself is some how the word of God (which it is not) …
Click to expand...

Heresy!

Where’s my pitchfork?

JP Cusick said:
Albert Einstein originally promoted the concept of a God / a Creator, but as it happens the dominating Christian demands took that to mean that people need to accept Jesus as Savior and anyone who did not would burn in a Hell had to join Christianity which is NOT what science was teaching about God.
Click to expand...

Haven’t heard this before! How did the domineering Christians pull this off?

JP Cusick said:
Therefore Einstein and many others in scientific research had to stop referring to "God" simply because the reality of referring to the Creator God or even Intelligent design did not mean any endorsement of Christianity.
Click to expand...

Well, I don’t see how it could. Science can correctly point you to a Creator but Science is unable to tell us who that Creator is. Yes, it could by Yahweh God or maybe Buddha or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Science does have its limitations.

JP Cusick said:
Where science shows us that there was a Big-Bang then yes that is a proof of a Creator God as it is proof of a creation day and proof that there was a "beginning" as like = "In the beginning God..." but that is not proof of Jesus as Christ or of Christianity.
Click to expand...

No argument here.

JP Cusick said:
I happen to believe in Jesus but Jesus did not claim to be God, as Jesus tells us to pray to God in Heaven, as in = "Our Father who are in Heaven ..."
Click to expand...

Wow! You sure are leaving a lot out to reach that conclusion. No real surprise, however, as I did show earlier that you are a heretic.

Now, what did I do with that pitchfork?!

JP Cusick said:
So one of the BIG reasons as to why religion is excluded from science is simply because the aggressive Christianity can not separate Jesus from God and science can not separate God from the demanding Christians.
Click to expand...

Oh, please!

The Bible is not a science book nor was it ever intended to be. We can use science to authenticate the truths of the Bible (Bible Apologetics) but science will never prove that Christ walked on water. The best we can do is show through science that the Bible is trustworthy so that when we read that Jesus did walk on water accepting that fact does not require a large lead of faith.

And we should not forget that the purpose of both science and religion is the pursuit of truth. While neither may be interchangeable with the other there is no reason why the two should not work mutually together to successfully fulfill their joint purposes.

JP Cusick said:
There are other examples of this distortion as like Jerry Lewis who promoted treating "Muscular Dystrophy" and the Christians demanded that he accept Jesus as Savior as if charity and love have to be connected to Christianity.
Click to expand...

Well…maybe! Accepting Jesus as Savior has everything to do with salvation / redemption. Charity should simply be a fruit of that.

JP Cusick said:
Both Jerry Lewis and Albert Einstein were Jewish.
Click to expand...

So biblical criticism is a Jewish plot?

JP Cusick said:
My finding is that Einstein derived his concept of time (relativity) from the old Testament of the Bible (a.k.a. the Jewish part), because I too find references to time distortion told in the Bible which Christianity can not deal with but science can embrace.
Click to expand...

I didn’t know that! What part (book, chapter, verse) gave him the idea of Relativity?
 
RGacky3 said:
I haven't actually gone into much Biblical Criticism prior to the 1980s .... I've stuck to the new stuff. I do think the 19th century and early 20th century stuff made some mistakes (although my knowledge of it is second hand), such as over emphasis on the greek background and not the Jewish background, they didn't have the dead sea scrolls, and so on and so forth.
Click to expand...
It is nearly impossible to find a copy of the old Biblical Criticism books and it was a fluke happen-chance that I stumbled onto the one that I found from 1923, as it went through a step by step explanation of the process and of the Bible from beginning to the end so I got it full blast which I rejected at first until I took it up and read it a second time in a better state of mind. I do not have access to that book anymore and so I have searched through book stores and online and look everywhere and I now find nothing like it anywhere. So if you ever see one of the old books then grad it and hold onto it.

You say that the old stuff made mistakes and I agree just as the new stuff makes mistakes too, and the biggest mistake of then all is what I believe you are referring to which is that the scholars (especially those older 19th century scholars) viewed the Biblical Criticism as proof that the entire Bible was a fraud and that God was a fraud and THAT is the biggest mistake of them all.

The scriptures need to searched and dissected and dig through it to find the most valuable yet hidden truths, see = "here a little, and there a little:"

RGacky3 said:
I DO believe that the bible is the word of God, but that doesn't mean I'm afraid of higher criticism, it just means I have to grapple with it, and understand it in the context of which it was written.
Click to expand...
I like what you say here so I am not challenging you.

For me then I see some parts of the Bible as extremely reveling and compelling, as like especially the original book of the Bible called the J source, while some other parts of the Bible are mostly irrelevant to any truly in-depth study and search for God and the truth.

RGacky3 said:
I don't know what this has to do with biblical criticism ....?
Click to expand...
You caught me and it is because you actually know what BC is and smart enough to see it that you saw through my side-line agenda.

That is a compliment to you and to your vision.

That was posted to do with another agenda which is closely related - IMO, as in I want to demonstrate that Biblical Criticism (science) does not have to exclude a real God.



===================================


The Baron said:
If it’s true that biblical criticism means that God did not inspire its creation then it’s just another book so what truths could be in it?

Where’s my pitchfork?
Click to expand...
My view is that even if God did inspire the entire Bible in its present form along with its fables and myths and even its unrealistic claims - then that changes nothing for those of us who truly want to find out what is real and what is not.

I really believe that some parts of the Bible is intended to keep out people who must not have such info given to them, as that kind of info can be dangerous in the hands of sinful people.

As like the Bible declares = In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ... - so God could have made it understandable by saying that in the beginning God had a Big Bang where the entire universe first began and over long periods of time it formed planets and galaxies and etc etc.

By making the words very harsh and matter-of-fact and words that are difficult for sinful people to embrace - then it shuts out those people while more enlightened people read right on through it.

The Baron said:
I didn’t know that! What part (book, chapter, verse) gave him the idea of Relativity?
Click to expand...
I really would hesitate telling this here - but you asked and below is the answer.

In the book of Genesis it tells that people lived hundreds of years, and then it tells that God shortened the human lifetime to just 120 years, see Genesis 6:3, and there is another point about time that one day with God is as a thousand (1,000) years for mankind, see Psalm 90:4, and see 2 Peter 3:8, so the Bible is telling us all (including Einstein) that TIME is relative and changeable. That even gives an explanation as to why the Astronauts on the Moon appear to be moving in slow motion - because they are factually in a different time zone.
 
JP Cusick said:
My view is that even if God did inspire the entire Bible in its present form along with its fables and myths and even its unrealistic claims - then that changes nothing for those of us who truly want to find out what is real and what is not.

I really believe that some parts of the Bible is intended to keep out people who must not have such info given to them, as that kind of info can be dangerous in the hands of sinful people.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard variations of this same argument from cultist for years now. It’s the “not all parts of the Bible are true but just ask me and I’ll tell what is true and explain the rest to you” kind of deal.

JP Cusick said:
As like the Bible declares = In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ... - so God could have made it understandable by saying that in the beginning God had a Big Bang where the entire universe first began and over long periods of time it formed planets and galaxies and etc etc.

By making the words very harsh and matter-of-fact and words that are difficult for sinful people to embrace - then it shuts out those people while more enlightened people read right on through it.
Click to expand...

Test-book!

“You can’t understand the Bible so I’ll have to explain it to you.”

What faith tradition do you belong to?

JP Cusick said:
I really would hesitate telling this here…
Click to expand...

I can imagine!

JP Cusick said:
… but you asked and below is the answer.

In the book of Genesis it tells that people lived hundreds of years, and then it tells that God shortened the human lifetime to just 120 years, see Genesis 6:3, and there is another point about time that one day with God is as a thousand (1,000) years for mankind, see Psalm 90:4 and see 2 Peter 3:8, so the Bible is telling us all (including Einstein) that TIME is relative and changeable. That even gives an explanation as to why the Astronauts on the Moon appear to be moving in slow motion - because they are factually in a different time zone.
Click to expand...

Uh, no.

With respect to the 120 year life of man, this is a time limit on how old people are allowed to get. It’s a limitation and not an alteration.

With respect to 2 Peter 3 and Psalm 90, these are comments of the greatness / eternal nature of God illustrating that there are none like Him.

There is no alteration of time here, either.
 
The Baron said:

That is certainly true of me. I really know nothing of biblical criticism except that--if I understand correctly--means that the Bible is not divinely inspired but was written by fallible man.
Click to expand...


No that's not what Biblical Criticism was, it's approaching the bible from a historical standpoint, not a devotional one.
 
JP Cusick said:
It is nearly impossible to find a copy of the old Biblical Criticism books and it was a fluke happen-chance that I stumbled onto the one that I found from 1923, as it went through a step by step explanation of the process and of the Bible from beginning to the end so I got it full blast which I rejected at first until I took it up and read it a second time in a better state of mind. I do not have access to that book anymore and so I have searched through book stores and online and look everywhere and I now find nothing like it anywhere. So if you ever see one of the old books then grad it and hold onto it.

You say that the old stuff made mistakes and I agree just as the new stuff makes mistakes too, and the biggest mistake of then all is what I believe you are referring to which is that the scholars (especially those older 19th century scholars) viewed the Biblical Criticism as proof that the entire Bible was a fraud and that God was a fraud and THAT is the biggest mistake of them all.

The scriptures need to searched and dissected and dig through it to find the most valuable yet hidden truths, see = "here a little, and there a little:"
Click to expand...

I think post "A marginal Jew" by John Meier, and other writings focusing on the Jewish Nature of Jesus ... At least New Testament Scholarship in the 19th and 20th Century has to be heavily questioned.

Alghouth I'm talking NT scholarship here, when you're talking about the Hebrew Scriptures, then Yeah I think the older stuff is still relevant ... but I'm more read up on NT scholarship than I am on the Hebrew Scriptures ... there's just too much stuff to learn :p

I like what you say here so I am not challenging you.

For me then I see some parts of the Bible as extremely reveling and compelling, as like especially the original book of the Bible called the J source, while some other parts of the Bible are mostly irrelevant to any truly in-depth study and search for God and the truth.
Click to expand...

I think you need to deal With all the Sources eventually, by the time you get to the New Testament all the Sources are in play, especially the deuteronomist Source, so even though there are Things in the Sources you might not like, you still have to grapple With it, because it belonds in the narritative.

You caught me and it is because you actually know what BC is and smart enough to see it that you saw through my side-line agenda.

That is a compliment to you and to your vision.

That was posted to do with another agenda which is closely related - IMO, as in I want to demonstrate that Biblical Criticism (science) does not have to exclude a real God.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I don't know why anyone has a problem With Biblican Criticism, some of my favorate writers in the Field are orthodox, conservative Christians, hell the biggest name these days NT Wright, is an Anglican Bishop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom