Liberty University & Jerry Falwell...

Amazing...

I'm absolutely amazed at the breadth and depth of intellectual debate on this topic/thread that I started as simply a somewhat provocative statement about Liberty and Falwell, whom I detest.

As far as I can discern, the debate has now moved to whether God punishes or does not punish.

It is hard for me to believe that God is a "punishing God" for a few simple reasons (none of them based on any expertise I have in Biblical scholarship, incidentally):

1. How come there are horrible dictators and torturers running amok in the world? If God were truly a punishing God, those people would already be long gone.

2. Why are people being locked up in prisons in this country for smoking marijuana while polygamists who are abusing children and relatives in Utah are walking free - no one dare prosecutes them. If God were truly a punishing God, he'd let out the pot smokers and punish the polygamists.

3. Why is it possible for our country to be run by a man and a family and all their connections that have led to such an evil outcome in Iraq, with innocent and poor Americans being sacrificed on the altar of greed and oil profits, while the terrorist network supported by his friends in Saudi Arabia is relatively free and unharrassed? If God were truly a punishing God, this monstrous abuse of power and taking advantage of the American people would have been addressed by now.

I sort of like to think of God as a "non-punishing God". Otherwise it is just too difficult to explain the criminality and deviltry that walks free every day of our life on this earth, not the least of which is walking around the Oval Office every day of this sad and hopefully short-lived regime of George W. Bush (a fellow traveller of Falwell if there ever was one).

 

I'm unqualified to much connect the the possible Biblical representation of a God who punishes to some particular moderns whom we think should be punished by God. I will observe that much divine activity was from a certain perspective very slow in arriving. The story is that the Hebrews suffered for four hundred years before the Exodus. From the first century to the fourth century Christians were persecuted mercilously under the Roman government . The same Scripture which IMO represents God as wrathful at times also says He is has a plan to bring all to justice dispensing due rewards and proper punishment. And, I guess I think that if I could tell God how to run His creation, then I, not him, would be God.

 

Agreed. The existence of evil in the world tells us nothing specific about the nature of G-d nor his plans during our short lives. We are but a mist and then we evaporate. Where were we when the foundations of the earth were laid? Does the clay say to the potter, "Why did you make me?" He is faithful. He will bless the obedient and punish the disobedient according to his covenants. He is faithful.

Dave

 

And this is a perfect illustration of what is at stake here. As enlightened human beings we are granted the gift of intelligence and reason, and we do indeed ask our Creator "why did you make me?" In fact, the Creator gave us that ability, and in my opinion casts a critical eye towards those who simply accept myths and fairy tales without any basis for the truth. This is particularly true when those "myths and fairy tales" (sometimes known as the Bible) have been grossly altered by man and his political needs to represent a justification for oppression of large portions of humanity - as the Word has been so ill-used for so many centuries.

 

Indeed the question of the ages. For us Christians the Bible tells us we are created to glorify God.

 

Perhaps we are using two different methods here... My view is that it is arrogant to ask G-d questions that he has already answered in inerrant scripture, insisting that he has not provided clear answers, when in fact he has. The scriptures are not "myths and fairy tales" and to call them such is stupidity, not enlightenment. My apologies for being so ineloquent, but I have to head out for a meeting.

Blessings,

Dave

 

Proverbs 17:22 says "A joyful heart is like good medicine."

In our study of psychology we know that laughter releases beta endorphines, a natural pain killer.

Isaiah 40:22 says "It is he who sits upon the circle of the earth..."

No flat earth here, yet written thousands of years before man learned the earth was round.

Most of the dietary laws of Leviticus are now highly recommended by the medical profession to reduce cholesterol, etc.

For hundreds of years scholars refudiated much of the history of the OT. Yet, archeological discoveries have proven time and time again the OT contains factual history.

For instance, scholars denied Moses could have written the first five books of the OT because there was no written language in his day. Archeological discoveries have unearthed a written language in Moses' day. Carbon Dating has proven much of the history of the OT.

Now, let me say, if you call Jonah and the Whale a myth or fairy tale, I may be inclined to agree with you. But, this does not mean the Bible is all fiction.

Jesus spoke in parables. Perhaps much of the OT is parabolic. Jonah and the Whale could certainly be a parable, myth, or fairy tale. But it is the moral of the story that's important and in this case it's "What happens when we disobey God?"

I could go on but I have to finish a paper.

 

But the Bible does not present it as fiction. There were/are literary types available for that, but that is not what was used here. The Bible clearly presents Jonah as a real prophet, who really spent three days in the belly of a great fish. It also presents Adam and Eve as real people.

One problem with your statement "...this does not mean the Bible is all fiction," is who is to decide what is and what is not fiction? The parabolic literature is clearly defined as such by its genre, and is obvious to all, but it would appear that you're saying any story that does not fit the laws of nature could not be true. Of course, God wrote the laws of nature and can do with them as He sees fit. Also, what do we do with the resurrection? That is a much more fantastic account than Jonah. Do we define that as fiction too?

BLD

 

Hi Barry,

God is magnificent and powerful enough to do whatever He so desires. He could most definitely create a fish big enough to swallow a man.

My point was that we spend too much time arguing over whether something in Scripture is true that we detract from what the story means which makes it easy for us not to obey.

If we call it fiction, myth, or a fairy tale, then we don't have to follow the moral of the story or the Divine lesson in it for us.

I personally don't care whether Jonah (a real person, prophet) and the whale is true or not. The point of the story is we suffer if we disobey God. This is far more important than whether or not the story is true, I think.

You do bring up an interesting point, however. God did indeed create the laws of nature. Would he then violate those laws?

 

YES

Yes. What scientific evidence is there to support it? Has anyone ever seen it or experienced it, or written it down other than the clearly biased ancient texts modified extensively by man throughout the ages to serve human political purposes as much (or more so) than religion?

 

Re: YES

===

Carl

Would you clarify which ancient texts are your reference and exemplify their being extensively modified for political purposes?

 

Re: Re: YES

Some of this has come from a lifetime of reading and study, and identifying all the texts from which I've drawn this conclusion would be a difficult undertaking since I'm not in the "Bible profession", so to speak....

However, here is a web link that summarizes (and adds to) what I already have learned....

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

Hope it helps - it makes for interesting reading, regardless of one's perspective on faith.

Personally, I do take some things as "faith" (e.g., belief in the resurrection of Christ - it has been DRILLED into me since youth). However, that does not mean I won't question it and try to seek scientific foundations for these highly irrational and unproven beliefs that many of us hold within.

 

Carl

I looked at your site.

1) It is not at all about modifying the TEXT. The word " text" refers to the original WORDS ( World Book Encyclopedia ;Grassmick, P and P of Greek Exegesis) . So, if you say "The text was modified for political purposes," then you are saying that the actual words of a particular writing were changed for that purpose.

For example, someone changed Paul's words in the Book of Galatians for political purposes. But your site does not argue that! So, I assume that you really have no evidence at all that the words of the New Testament Books were changed for political purposes. If you do have such evidence, I'd appreciate seeing it.


2) The site you reference , however, does make many wild claims, some without substantial proof. Consider one such claim: "The Gospel of John was not written by the apostle John." If you have significant evidence for that claim, which the site itself seems to have overlooked providing, then, I'd also appreciate seeing that.

Thanks,

 

???

It is hard for me to see how this statement:

"We're not quite sure how the task of compiling and translating a bible for the Roman, or Western church fell to Bishop Jerome of Dalmatia (340-420 C.E.), a few decades later, though imperial politics quite likely played a role. Jerome was highly educated and had devoted his life to the study and translation of scripture. He was a deeply devout adherent to the Roman faction, and the fact that the Roman church was wealthy and influential probably had something to do with his being the choice, since he had spent years in the cause of translating scripture into Latin and standardizing what are now New Testament texts for the benefit of the Roman church at the request of Damasus, the bishop of Rome. We can presume from the politics here that this certainly colored his choices.

Melito of Sardis, one of the disputants at that infamous Council of Rome of 140 C.E. that had spawned the Marcionite Church, had compiled a list of Hebrew scriptures that Jerome is known to have much admired. Yet Augustine, himself a rather nasty piece of work (the first known advocate of forced conversion and forced celibacy, among other things) intervened and convinced Jerome to include works on a list compiled by himself (Augustine), which was similar to one compiled by Athanasius, the author of the first Apostolic Creed. We don't know all the intrigues which convinced Jerome to accede, but some were almost certain to have been political, with Eusebius' earlier imperial commission among them. Jerome's choice of New Testament works was governed by his choices in the works he'd already translated and standardized for Damasus at Rome."

which comes from the web site I referenced does not imply political motivation for how the TEXT of the Bible was developed, and changed, according to the whims of those in power at the time.

This only makes sense. I mean come on! In what universe are any of you living where those who are the victors don't get to write the history????

 

Re: ???

===

Carl,

I don't think you are understanding at all the meaning of TEXT. Text is the Greek words of the NT autographa, it is NOT a translation of the Greek. Jerome translated the Greek text into Latin. He did NOT change the Greek text. If you have evidence that he did change the Greek text, then let's see it in your next post.

I live in the "universe" of Christian scholarship. The most erudite of scholars, those with PhDs in NT, see Jerome's work as simply a translation. Show me one PhD in NT who says otherwise!

Of course Jerome's translation has its faults--all do, English too. But we, me included, do NOT rely on it. We rely on the Greek text instead, Carl!


Carl, I'm NOT talking about rewriting history. That is NOT my issue. I'm responding to your own claim that the TEXT, Greek words of the Bible, was modified for political reasons --prove that claim it OR be gentleman enough to retract it !

I have the NT in Greek. Show me where any word in it is changed for political purposes!

 

For Bill Grover...

I would gladly retract any statements I've made, but I believe them to be true, and I've seen enough evidence to make me THINK they are true... so until otherwise shown.

Anyway, here is my latest "5 minute analysis" response to your last question about Greek TEXT....

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/grktxt.asp

Looks like that Greek TEXT has been changed aplenty to me through the ages, and for the political purposes I implied (if one intertwines the time periods and focus of this review with the previous web link I provided).

Your next question?

 

Re: For Bill Grover...

As F. LaGard Smith says, "Beware of Greek Scholars bearing gifts."

The pertinent issue is not whether the Nestle Text or the Textus Receptus have slight differences in the hundreds upon hundreds of copies of manuscripts, but where in the scripture are the inconsistencies. That is, does it matter that there have been slight transmission errors with respect to the entire meaning and relevance of the scripture. What impactful doctrines hinge on these slight transmission errors? Not too many.

Dave

 

Re: Re: For Bill Grover...

Herein lies the problem for many. In the NIV there are numerous footnotes regarding verses saying those particular verses are not found in the original manuscripts.

So, when we say the Bible is true and accurate, which Bible? Which translation--the NIV? KJV? Moffatt? Phillips? Why do so many Greek scholars have so many different interpretations of Scripture?

 

Re: For Bill Grover...

==

Carl,

I'm a little disappointed that you move on to another referenced site without answering my questions from the first. My questions on that were, 1) what is the evidence that the apostle did not write John , and, 2) how is a translation a change in text?

If it would be easier for you, we can just trade referenced websites instead of you and I actually discussing things. I can provide sites for my views and you for yours. Degreeinfo can become just a place to post websites and not a place for scholarly dialogue..

This new site you provide is a defense of the Textus Receptus upon which the KJV was translated. Making the observation that many errors by copyists have been discovered, it says the proper way to determine what most likely was the truer text, ie, discover and eliminate many of the mistakes of copyists, is not to rely on the newly discovered earlier manuscripts.



Now, having read yet another website you reference, I do have three NEW questions which I suppose will go unanswered as did my others:

First, would I still like you to provide evidence that even ONE WORD in the Greek NT was changed for POLITICAL purposes. That was, if you recall, your claim. Neither of your two sites says that much less evidence it.

Show me your proof that if a scribe's eyes skipped a line or if a copyist accidentally omitted a word from the manuscript he copied from that he did that for unscrupulous political purposes.

And second, show me how any mistake of a NT copyist changed any teaching ever held by the church. But if no teaching was changed, then, Carl, what exactly would be the motivation for purposeful modifications to the Greek text?

And third, as you feel enabled to opine on matters of the NT Greek text, I suppose by the site you reference, apply that enablement to the, for instance, question of the text of John 1:18. Which is most likely the true text there and why?

What are your three answers?

 

Re: Re: Re: For Bill Grover...

Again, what manuscript differences are troubling, specifically, to any major doctrine in the NT? And how is G-d's plan of salvation nullified? Moreover, what significant differences in these translations make it impossible for us to know G-d's will for our lives? I do recommend Dr. Jack P. Lewis' History of the English Bible from KJV to NIV for further reading on this subject.

Blessings,

Dave