|
leinad
|
 |
« on: July 24, 2003, 11:49:21 AM » |
|
In the Christianity thread, there was a mini-discussion on the canon of the Bible, but now it has tangented into a debate on baptism. So in case anyone else has thoughts on this, I'm starting a new thread. the authority of scripture - I believe all scripture is God-breathed, but I'm not sure what scripture is. Can I really trust people from the middle ages to put together the perfect canon. Somehow, I doubt it.
I've had similar questions, and, frankly, I think this is one of those areas when all you can really do is have faith, even if it might not make sense. So I try my best to trust that God has had His hands on the assembly and translation of Scripture over the years, even when I wonder how certain passages ever made it into the canon or I struggle with what appears to be a bad translation, etc. I share bloop's uncertainty about which books really belong in the Bible. My problem with simply trusting that God has ensured that we have the correct canon, is that that rationale could just as easily be used by Catholics to justify their 73-book version of the Bible (which includes 7 books from what Protestants call the Apocrypha.) Anyone else have thoughts to add? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2003, 12:15:45 PM » |
|
I've had several doubts about the veracity of the Bible, especially the early books. I mean, the creation story really sounds like a superstitious myth, and so much is left unexplained! This is, of course, to be expected: God probably couldn't explain quantum physics to a nomadic shepherd, though if anyone could, He could. But the Bible isn't a technical manual.
Anyway, tradition has it that God revealed the pre-Exodus events to Moses, who then wrote them down. Along the way, he also wrote down the events he himself experienced, with someone else (Joshua?) filling in the events during and after his death. However, I think it's just as likely that Genesis is an oral tradition (especially the pre-Abraham parts) which (like all oral traditions) grew and changed somewhat in the retelling. Someone (maybe Moses; he forgot his Gameboy and needed to occupy himself somehow while wandering in the desert) attempted to compile a complete history of the earth as it pertains to the Jews and so (perhaps aided by the Spirit) he recorded Genesis through much of Exodus. Deuteronomy, of course, is merely a transcript of Moses' speech, perhaps taken down by Joshua or some scribe for later disseminaiton.
Ok, I actually do have a point here. What I'm saying is that my biggest doubts pertain to the earliest (chronologically) books of the Bible.
As far as the New Testament goes, I have little doubt that it is more or less what it says it is. I don't believe that every word should be taken literally, and I do believe that one should consider the context, the intended audience, and the culture of the day when reading it. I think it is fairly apparent that not only did the disparite authors have slightly differing ideas about the faith, Paul (who wrote much of the New Testament) even changes his mind or realizes he was wrong on a few details. Rather than thinking this undermines the text or the message it conveys, though, I think it indicates the innate flexibility of the gospel message: God cares less about whether your head is covered or not or whether you eat certain kinds of meat or not than whether you have love or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2003, 12:18:35 PM » |
|
A re-reading of that last post made me feel the need to issue a slight caveat: I'm not really a hippie, and I don't believe in the whole 'make-your-own-religion' postmodern thing. So don't take what I said and run with it, because I still believe in the underlying message and basic truth of the Scriptures  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
oneafroboy
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2003, 07:35:28 PM » |
|
As much as "have faith" is wise counsel... There does come the problem with books that Protestants traditionally do not considered a part of the Bible. The Apocrypha for example. One could say, "have faith, God knew what He was doing." Or even the Mormon books. "Have faith that Joseph Smith was a prophet and these new books belong in the canon of Scripture." I still believe in the 66 books of the Bible as the true canon of Scripture. But honestly, this is a part of my faith I find hard to defend. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\"Living your life like you're trapped in a bad rap video is just not that appealing.\"
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2003, 07:48:28 PM » |
|
This topic is always frustrating for me. On the one hand, all of the questions and doubts that have been raised are perfectly valid, and I can't say a thing to refute any of them; in fact, I share many of them. But on the other hand, I ultimately cling to the cliche but biblical counsel of simply having faith, even though I can't understand it. So there's really not much I can say in this thread. [_[
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2003, 07:59:22 AM » |
|
I think there are logical reasons why some books were not included. The Gnostic books (such as the so-called Gospel of Thomas) were written much later than the others and contain some new ideas which seem incongruous with the known teachings. The Apocrypha either had nothing new to say or were dubious in their accuracy, though I suppose the same could be said for many other books.
There are also logical reasons why some books were included: many of them refer to one-another (especially the New Testament). Jesus quotes from almost all the Old Testament books at one time or another, and seems to hold them in high regard. In several cases, clear evidence of apostolic authorship is presented. And they all seem to agree with one another fairly well for books and letters written by different people to different audiences for different purposes.
Not that arguments against these things can't be thought up. But I thought I'd share some of the arguments I've heard FOR the scriptures.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2003, 09:05:08 AM » |
|
I know of one book, the Book of Tobit, that is full of historical inaccuracies, so I'm certainly glad it failed to make it into the Bible.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2003, 10:03:15 AM » |
|
Mr. Granath, a Bible teacher I once had who I respect very highly, once said that the current canon was more or less set from less than 100 years after the death of Christ. What the council did was determine which books (i.e. the gnostic books) would be excluded from the scriptures, not necessarily which books would be included. A subtle distinction, I admit, but an interesting statment.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2003, 10:25:55 AM » |
|
I think it's important to note that the people who determined the canon had a much closer proximity with Jesus than we have, and therefore I'm glad that the canon was basically set so soon after Christ ascended.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
polka_dot
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2003, 11:37:44 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
OUT! OUT! You demons of stupidity! - Dogbert
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2003, 11:55:17 AM » |
|
Believe it or not, every book that was rejected from inclusion in the protestant canon was done so for good reason. Reasons include: Inaccuracies (aka Tobit, as Josh mentioned) Inconsistencies Chronological or geographical errors Outright false teachings Neither Jesus nor the apostles quoted from them There is, of course, nothing wrong with reading any of these books. For more information |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
rebel546
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 26, 2003, 01:05:48 AM » |
|
Are you sure it's Tobit? I always thought it was Tobin. Oh well.
I think one of the criteria for being in the canon is it had to be Written by or under an apostle.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 26, 2003, 09:48:33 AM » |
|
Yes, that's true of New Testament books. All were guided by an Apostle (and the Spirit, of course).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
standman87
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2003, 10:29:14 PM » |
|
This topic is always frustrating for me. On the one hand, all of the questions and doubts that have been raised are perfectly valid, and I can't say a thing to refute any of them; in fact, I share many of them. But on the other hand, I ultimately cling to the cliche but biblical counsel of simply having faith, even though I can't understand it. So there's really not much I can say in this thread. <_< I agree. Call me stubborn but the Bible as is will do. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I tried to say the right things in the right way, but simple silence is the only way to conclude my attempt.
Ponderings and then restatements from both sides will cause more of the same.
So remember: Stan, yes, this man, gave his best and is leaving it up to you and Him to do the rest.
Farewell
|
|
|
|
ixoye41
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2003, 11:47:30 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
[][
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2003, 10:22:03 AM » |
|
I know this is off-topic of the canon, but i am glad Luther ended up humbly accepting books like James, so those of us that claim to be protestant don't look upon those books in the same way we do the Apochrypha.
Agreed. Similarly, John Calvin never knew exactly what to make of Revelation, but he was humble enough to simply admit to not understanding it and leave it to someone else to interpret. I'm glad he didn't simply rip the book out of his Bible or something, because it's an infinitely important part of Scripture. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2003, 08:05:57 PM » |
|
Yes, that's true of New Testament books. All were guided by an Apostle (and the Spirit, of course). Hmm...except they cheat: Hebrews is ascribed to Paul because they wanted to stick it in there when it is just as likely to have been written by Apollos or someone we haven't even heard much about. In the same way, many of the 'traditional' authors represent a best-guess, . I'm glad he didn't simply rip the book out of his Bible or something, As opposed to, say, Thomas Jefferson, whose own version of the Bible I have very little faith in. Some of the New Testament is self-referential, by the way...Peter admonishes some of his correspondents to treat the writings of Paul with the same authority one would treat Scripture. There's a couple more like that in there, too, but I don't remember right now  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
