Discussion on TD&D guidelines

Feedback and site usage questions

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
r~
Sage
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Purpose of this subforum

Post #1

Post by r~ »

Please change (or remove) the statement “that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority.”

It is clearly within the realm of Christian Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma to debate which Words of the Bible carry the authority of the Holy Spirit and which ones do not. This statement encourages the teachers of the laws that kill at the expense of the ministers of the new covenant.

I would expect a Christian site to do the opposite.

Peace
ItS
r~

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"

Post #11

Post by Shermana »

What do you mean there is "No one Bible"? There are copies of the books that make up the Bible found in the Dead Sea scrolls for one thing. This forum, as I have argued against even, accepts the 66 "traditional Protestant canon" as the Bible for debate. As for manuscript differences, that is an issue for debate on this board.

Chase200mph
Banned
Banned
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 4:08 pm
Location: Near Pullman Wa.

Post #12

Post by Chase200mph »

Shermana wrote:What do you mean there is "No one Bible"? There are copies of the books that make up the Bible found in the Dead Sea scrolls for one thing. This forum, as I have argued against even, accepts the 66 "traditional Protestant canon" as the Bible for debate. As for manuscript differences, that is an issue for debate on this board.
Shermana: What do you mean there is "No one Bible"? There are copies of the books that make up the Bible found in the Dead Sea scrolls for one thing. This forum, as I have argued against even, accepts the 66 "traditional Protestant canon" as the Bible for debate. As for manuscript differences, that is an issue for debate on this board.[/quote]
Answer: I see, the four pillars without cause given to the “majority� of rest that didn’t make through the editing process? Judas the one true believer in Jesus, no other had more faith IN Jesus than he….because this and the rest didn’t make it into the bible doesn’t invalidate the one true bible concept? I mention this too because the bible is incomplete now isn’t it….
What about this then….since there are 38000 denominations, there are as many differing doctrines and amongst these numbers there are … the New International Version (©1984), New Living Translation (©2007), English Standard Version (©2001), New American Standard Bible (©1995), King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.), International Standard Version (©2008), Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010), GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995), King James 2000 Bible (©2003), American King James Version, American Standard Version, Douay-Rheims Bible, Darby Bible Translation English Revised Version, Webster's Bible Translation, Weymouth New Testament, World English Bible, Young's Literal Translation…..

Should we also weigh in that Revelation has been added to, that a 12 year olds girls dream sequence makes up the latter part of this book? No, there is NO ONE bible….
Now as to the issue of debate…..can one debate about what one feels the bible is claiming? Because after all, we are still talking about doctrine views as it concerns the bible.

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"

Post #13

Post by Shermana »

Answer: I see, the four pillars without cause given to the “majority� of rest that didn’t make through the editing process?
You know, I completely agree that the "majority concensus" canon by the Protestant (and earlier Orthodox) church is wrong and selective and biased to favor a Paulinian view of the Church that discounts the canons of earlier groups that included books like the Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc. But unfortunately for the sake of objective scholarly debate, as I have learned to my chagrin earlier this year, this sub-forum only accepts the Protestant canon for the sake of Theology, which includes books that are nearly universally considered Spurious as well and discounts books that early church fathers like Iraneus held Canonical like Enochn, and as did the authors of the Sinaiticus like the Shepherd of Hermas. So this forum should effectively read "Theology of the Protestant Canon" but it doesn't. Nonetheless, the sub-forum guidelines specifically say this is the case.


Judas the one true believer in Jesus, no other had more faith IN Jesus than he….because this and the rest didn’t make it into the bible doesn’t invalidate the one true bible concept?
Once again, I have EVEN ARGUED AGAINST THIS concept of the 66 Book Bible being the one up to debate on this forum, and said that the Deutero-canon should be open to debate as authoritative as well here, and that the vastly discredited texts like the Pastorals and Ephesians and Ruth should be open to discussion on their non-authenticity or held in doubt. But if you want to discuss the Gospel of Judas, you are welcome to here.
I mention this too because the bible is incomplete now isn’t it….
Depending on what you mean by "incomplete", I thoroughly agree that the current "standard Canon" is indeed lacking books which the earliest believers considered to be truly inspired and was made mainly to pursue a biased set of Orthodox Theology.
What about this then….since there are 38000 denominations, there are as many differing doctrines and amongst these numbers there are … the New International Version (©1984), New Living Translation (©2007), English Standard Version (©2001), New American Standard Bible (©1995), King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.), International Standard Version (©2008), Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010), GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995), King James 2000 Bible (©2003), American King James Version, American Standard Version, Douay-Rheims Bible, Darby Bible Translation English Revised Version, Webster's Bible Translation, Weymouth New Testament, World English Bible, Young's Literal Translation…..
All of the above mentioned nonetheless use the same Canon and have translation differences or source manuscript differences at best, but its important to note those translation and source manuscript differences for the sake of dispute on critical passages with murky word definitions that make a huge difference in how to interpret them.
Should we also weigh in that Revelation has been added to, that a 12 year olds girls dream sequence makes up the latter part of this book?

I personally believe Revelation was written with real prophetic inspiration (and interpolated afterwards, such as with the KJV of 1:11 and other places), but even the earliest Fathers considered it to be part of the Antilegemona. Papias said that it was written by Cerinthus. There's much to debate about it here. But on this sub-forum, all you can do is debate on what it's supposed to see.
No, there is NO ONE bible….
Agreed. With the caveat of the meaning of the word "Bible" in this case being "canon".
Now as to the issue of debate…..can one debate about what one feels the bible is claiming? Because after all, we are still talking about doctrine views as it concerns the bible.
That is all we can debate about the "Bible" (read: Protestant Canon) on this sub-forum, we can debate what we think it means, and what we think its supposed to say, we can debate the translation, the manuscript differences, and the interpretation. We cannot however disagree with the authenticity of the Canon.

czyz
Scholar
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:49 pm
Location: Papillion, NE

Post #14

Post by czyz »

If one is using a document as primary reference for substantiation of a claim and if this forum believes in the free give and take as is customary in debate, then one should provide corroborated evidence in addition to that document. A rule such as "the bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority" does not fit the aim of a forum that debates the authenticity of Christian belief and its text, the bible.

If one does not have to defend the bible's authority then what is the point of having a forum that debates Christianity and religion? Any time one asks on the board (which has been asked by many people across many threads) for a person to substantiate their belief, it is a violation of your quoted rule as many believers use the bible as their reference.

Believers have the right to use the bible as reference but non believers have the right to question it's authenticity and ask for substantiation of belief beyond what is written. Please consider changing this rule.

olavisjo
Site Supporter
Posts: 2749
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:20 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Post #15

Post by olavisjo »

czyz wrote:
Please consider changing this rule.

What you are asking is equivalent to asking that the Theory of Evolution stand or fall based on considerations of Abiogenesis.
The purpose of the subforum is to ask "what does the Bible say about X" and not "did X actually happen".
The questions you are asking are more appropriate for the Christianity and Apologetics subforum.
"I believe in no religion. There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man’s own invention..."

C.S. Lewis

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 17743
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 64 times
Contact:

Post #16

Post by otseng »

czyz wrote: If one does not have to defend the bible's authority then what is the point of having a forum that debates Christianity and religion?
It is only in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum that this guideline applies. It does not apply in all other debate subforums.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 6441
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 158 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion on TD&D guidelines

Post #17

Post by William »

Recently Member PinSeeker had this to say...
LINK
The Biblical narrative (it matters not whether you think it's a myth or not, and I might remind you that the purpose statement of TD&D states that Scripture is assumed here to be authoritative, which means, according to any dictionary, able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable)
The purpose statement has this to say about it.
The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.
Since it is mythology, and since Christians themselves disagree with how to interpret said mythology, I see it as acceptable to refer to the stories in the bible as mythology without breaking any rules. Defending the mythology as 'authoritative' is fine by me but I think there are times when Christians use the idea of the bible being along the lines of "the final word on matters" doesn't allow for the critiquing of those stories unless one happens to be a Christian arguing their different interpretations.
To my way of thinking, something authoritative does not mean one has to believe it is true or be unable to critique other interpretations.

To be sure, "something which is trusted as being accurate or true/reliable" is fine if that is the way one wants to believe in it, but that shouldn't mean that it cannot be called mythology and treated as such. My own critique wasn't involved in making any demands that anyone proves the bible is true. Rather I was focused upon a particular biblical mythology and using the bible itself as part of my argument related to the creation mythology.

Thoughts?

Overcomer
Guru
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Re: Discussion on TD&D guidelines

Post #18

Post by Overcomer »

William wrote:
Since it is mythology, and since Christians themselves disagree with how to interpret said mythology, I see it as acceptable to refer to the stories in the bible as mythology without breaking any rules.


It's your opinion that it's mythology and you have the right to think that and argue for your beliefs.
However, I think that discussions suggesting that the Bible is mythology can be covered in the Apologetics Forum. That's where challenges with regard to the validity of Scripture, God, Christianity. etc. can be made and a defense of them can be mounted.

William wrote:
To my way of thinking, something authoritative does not mean one has to believe it is true or be unable to critique other interpretations.
But the word "authoritative" is defined as "able to be trusted as being accurate or true". The Theology and Doctrine forum is one where the Bible is indeed considered authoritative. People can discuss interpretations of Scripture there, but those wanting to deny that it's worthy of being authoritative can do so in the Apologetics Forum -- at least, that's the way I see it.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 6441
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 158 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion on TD&D guidelines

Post #19

Post by William »

Overcomer wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:42 pm William wrote:

But the word "authoritative" is defined as "able to be trusted as being accurate or true".
Which is all that it means. This does not mean that one cannot critique it. After all, that is what Christians are doing when they argue interpretations. They are not trusting the bible, but rather, they are trusting their particular interpretations of the bible and it is the interpretations which are being treated as authoritative and thus trusted as being accurate or true.

Overcomer
Guru
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Re: Discussion on TD&D guidelines

Post #20

Post by Overcomer »

Overcomer wrote:
But the word "authoritative" is defined as "able to be trusted as being accurate or true".
To which William replied:
Which is all that it means. This does not mean that one cannot critique it. After all, that is what Christians are doing when they argue interpretations. They are not trusting the bible, but rather, they are trusting their particular interpretations of the bible and it is the interpretations which are being treated as authoritative and thus trusted as being accurate or true.
I understand what you're saying, but when Christians discuss the meaning of Scripture and refer to scholarship on the matter, they aren't suggesting that the Bible is not the Word of God. Nor are they questioning its authority. Their goal is to understand it better and, while doing so, remain respectful of it and its source, that is, God.

And I see a difference between "critique" (examining something critically which is what Christians have been doing for centuries) and "criticize" (attack, denounce, malign, deprecate, trash, belittle -- take your pick of these synonyms). When you call the Bible nothing but mythology, you are denouncing it, something that you are free to do in the Apologetic Forum. So there is a place here for talking about Scripture as mythology. It just isn't the Theology and Doctrine Forum.

Post Reply