Rational religion.

[Elijah John]

For debate.

Is there any reasonable way to approach religion and the Bible?

If so, how if not "picking and choosing"

Also.

Is the Bible entirely evil and irrelevant? A complete anachronism?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 6 by Justin108]

You seem to be saying that the notion that God exists is completely irrational. Got it. We'll have to agree to disagree on that fundamental premise.

But I'm not sure how you can say that because Science itself has not disproven God, unless of course, I missed the headlines.

Hasn't it? Human history is littered with various claims of supposedly supernatural beings taking human form or possessing humans, speaking to humans, intervening in the weather or creating earthquakes, and lots of other interactions with the universe. The universe, or course, has known laws of conservation that no one has been able to dispute. If any of these critters were real, there would have to be empirical evidence left over from their interactions, per the conservation laws. Of course there isn't even a single scrap of data supporting that. Which means either the conservation laws don't exist , or all of these god creature claims can't possibly be real.

So god claims are, in fact, irrational. That's just at the generic level. When you get into specifics of certain gods, the logical paradoxes pile up quickly and make the notion even more absurd.

But let us suppose for the sake of argument that God exists, and He has something to do with the Bible.

What then, if not "picking and choosing" would you consider the most rational and least "hypocritical" approach to the Bible based on your your spectrum of rationality?

Or is the mainstream Christian or Jew just as irrational as the Fundamentalist in your book?

If God exists, what is the flaw in seeing the Bible as being inspired by God, but not as infallible dictation. Inspired the way love poetry is inspired by the beloved?

If your particular flavor of god is infallible, then it can't possibly produce a fallible thing, correct? The Bible is clearly fallible, full of all manner of errors. Like I said, once you get into specific characteristics of one of these creatures the logical paradoxes just pile up...

This way, one does not have to defend every absurd, atrocious or erroneous part the Bible may contain, and one is still able to mine some gems that inspire a person to be a better person, and live a better life.

And those gems don't need the existence of anyone's personal god creature to still be gems, do they.

[McCulloch]

Catalogs : List or catalogs of recognized books provide a historical record of how the bible developed. Below is a list of some of the earliest bible catalogues.


source: "All Scripture Inspired of God" pub WBTS 1963, study IV p. 303

Thank you for that cherry picked example.
The Shepherd of Hermas is a Christian literary work of the late 1st or mid-2nd century, considered a valuable book by many Christians, and considered canonical scripture by some of the early Church fathers such as Irenaeus.
The First Epistle of Clement (Ancient Greek: Kl"mentos pros Korinthious "Clement to Corinthians") is a letter addressed to the Christians in the city of Corinth. The letter was composed at some time between AD 80 and 140. The epistle was publicly read from time to time at Corinth, and by the 4th century this usage had spread to other churches. It was included in the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus, which contained the entire Old and New Testaments. It was included with the Gospel of John in the fragmentary early Greek and Akhmimic Coptic papyrus designated Papyrus 6. First Clement is listed as canonical in "Canon 85" of the Canons of the Apostles, suggesting that First Clement had canonical rank in at least some regions of early Christendom.
The Didache also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is a brief anonymous early Christian treatise, dated by most modern scholars to the first century. The work was considered by some Church Fathers to be a part of the New Testament.

[William]

[Replying to post 19 by JehovahsWitness]

Thanks for the data. I am not sure it really answers the question regarding the word of mouth to pen and paper or where all the paper trail evidence is stored. We have rather, fragments of the stuff, and such things as the dead sea scrolls have been left out of the bible, plus other writings so it would be fair at least to assume that if the bible is indeed the word of the God of Israel (specifically) then it can be said that a lot of the word ended up not being included in the bible, and even considered to being 'dubious' depending upon who was telling the story or holding the reigns of power.

Seems to me that there is no grantee whatsoever that the bible can be called the genuine word of any God. Not even Jehovah. Which means it is possible that it does not witness Jehovah altogether.

If the word was that precious, why are we left with fragments of the originals?

Where is the original full gospel of any of the disciples who it is claimed wrote these books?

There is still a sniff of the possibility/probability of corruption. Having to rely on the word of man in regard to the authenticity of the word of God?...

...Not a great position.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 21 by McCulloch]



# QUESTION: Is there is evidence that the apocryphal books were not originally recognized as part of the inspired Scriptures?


SECULAR HISTORY

Firstly, it should be noted that The Greek Septuagint Version was originally produced without the Apocrypha

Josephus wrote: There are not with us myriads of books, discordant and discrepant, but only two and twenty [the equivalent of the thirty-nine books of the Hebrew Scriptures according to modern division], comprising the history of all time, which are justly accredited. ... From the time of Artaxerxes up to our own everything has been recorded, but the records have not been accounted equally worthy of credit with those written before them, because the exact succession of prophets ceased", Against Apion, Book I, par. 8 (according to the translation in The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 1, p. 163)

Philo did not recognized any of the books of the Apocrypha as inspired.

BIBLICAL TESTIMONY

Jesus and the First century bible writers deliberately avoided the Apocryphal books. The account of Jesus Christ has im quoted or referring to over half of the books of the Hebrew scriptures without once making a single reference to the so called apocryphal books and not one of the Christian Bible writers ever quoted from the Apocrypha, although they doubtless used the Septuagint, which in their day contained the Apocrypha, thus indicating deliberate design.

BIBLE SCHOLARS

All apocrypha books should be avoided; . . . they are not the works of authors by whose names they are distinguished, [for] they contain much that is faulty, and . . . McClintock & Strong's Cyclopedia, Vol. 1, p. 290. -- Jeromes correspondenc to Lata

Thus there are twenty-two books . . . This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a fortified approach to all the books which we translate from the Hebrew into Latin; so that we may know that whatever is beyond these must be put in the apocrypha" - Jerome, Prologus Galeatus (Vulgate)








RELATED POSTS

Should true Christians denegrade Hebrew scripture ?
viewtopic.php?p=1065096#p1065096

Should true Christians limit their canon to the gospels?
viewtopic.php?p=1065014#p1065014

What does it mean that the bible is "inspired of God"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 65#p867965

Who do bible writers claim gave them the words they penned?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 08#p840508

Is there is evidence that the apocryphal books were NOT originally recognized as part of the inspired Scriptures?
viewtopic.php?p=838822#p838822

How should we view Iraneus' and other early catalogues?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 84#p923384

Does the idea of a Great Apostacy negate the authenticity of the bible canon? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1045515#p1045515

To read more please go to other posts related to...

BIBLE CANON , BIBLICAL COMPILATION and ...THE APOCRYPHA

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 21 by McCulloch]

# QUESTION: Is there is evidence that the apocryphal books were not originally recognized as part of the inspired Scriptures?

You are asking the wrong question. I am not debating the Jewish canon. Many Christians have the mistaken idea that the books of what would eventually be known as the New Testament were well established in apostolic times. If God himself really wanted an authoritative revelation of His teachings to the newly formed church, why would God leave it to humans to argue amongst themselves about which books to include and to exclude. The Shepard of Hermas, Didache, the First Epistle of Clement, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Revelation of John were all fiercely debated in the early church. If God could inspire the writing of the New Testament, why couldn't God inspire the writing of the table of contents for the New Testament?

[JehovahsWitness]

Many Christians have the mistaken idea that the books of what would eventually be known as the New Testament were well established in apostolic times.

Why are you saying this to me? I have presented and documented the evidence of the development of both the Hebrew and the Christian canon below. Feel free to consult the links

Summary of how the bible developed
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 566#838566

Supporting information: documentation & references
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 732#838732

CONCLUSION: "By the close of the second century, . . . a high degree of unanimity concerning the greater part of the New Testament was attained among the very diverse and scattered congregations of believers not only throughout the Mediterranean world but also over an area extending from Britain to Mesopotamia." - Bible scholar Bruce Metzger


If there is anything that I have posted that you contend is not factually sound, feel free to present a counterargument, preferably with similar rational, evidence and references.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 21 by McCulloch]

# QUESTION: Is there is evidence that the apocryphal books were not originally recognized as part of the inspired Scriptures?

You are asking the wrong question.

No, I don't believe I am. The books you name to are generally referred to as New Testament Apocrypha, and my answer presents the evidence and rational for the view that none of the apocrypha (whether that of the "Old" or "New" Testaments) were ever considered as part of the bible canon.

I am not debating the Jewish canon.

I didn't say you were (see above)

The Shepard of Hermas, Didache, the First Epistle of Clement, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Revelation of John were all fiercely debated in the early church.

Well that would depend on what you mean by "the early church" and "fiercely debated". If you are suggesting that any of the above with the exception of Paul's letter to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation were ever considered part of the bible canon by any one in authority in the Christian community during its first three centuries of existence, then you are wrong.

Feel free to consult my earlier post written on the subject here.

JW

[Tired of the Nonsense]

For debate.

Is there any reasonable way to approach religion and the Bible?

If so, how if not "picking and choosing"

Also.

Is the Bible entirely evil and irrelevant? A complete anachronism?

There are many good things that can be taken from the Bible, obviously. But those things can ultimately be more easily and clearly stated in the golden rule. Why not start with the golden rule, and build a philosophy based on that platform?

[Elijah John]

For debate.

Is there any reasonable way to approach religion and the Bible?

If so, how if not "picking and choosing"

Also.

Is the Bible entirely evil and irrelevant? A complete anachronism?

There are many good things that can be taken from the Bible, obviously. But those things can ultimately be more easily and clearly stated in the golden rule. Why not start with the golden rule, and build a philosophy based on that platform?

Well, the Golden Rule is Biblical. Arguably, it may have had it's origins elsewhere. But the GR is the standard I use to "pick and choose". Keeping and beating of slaves violates the Golden Rule. Loving God and Neighbor do not.

Both Jesus and Hillel stated variations of the GR, and Jesus characterized the GR as the "Law and the Prophets".

Hillel said "all the rest is commentary".

[Zzyzx]

.
EJ, the Ethic of Reciprocity (Golden Rule) is common to many sources / ideologies, some of which likely predate the Bible. Judaism has no copyright on the 'rule' and Christianity has even less claim since it admittedly borrowed the rule from Judaism.

If the GR / ER is the 'message' of the Bible WHY carry the baggage of nearly a million words that are 'just commentary'? The 'fluff' and tall tales seem to detract from and contradict the message . . .