Christianity changes over time.
So then, what's your beef with Catholicism? They certainly represent changes over time.
I see nothing wrong if God delivered the canon a few centuries later.
But and yet, Christians did just fine without it for a long while. Perhaps God speaks to people without those texts in hand?
God certainly was able to inspire the decisions that lead to the Bible of today.
Why do you say that? You think the books that are included in the Bible were there by God's intentional design? How do you conclude that? There isn't anything in the Bible itself that specifies which books are chosen by God. That's an assumption on your part. There are books that are in the Bible now, that were hotly contested being included. You mean to say, that the way history unfolded, was exactly as God intended it to be? On what basis can you say that?
When you say Bible has flaws, you say it could be better.
No I do not. Just saying something has flaws, is not saying it could be better. But on that note, yes, the Bible could be better, not because of the flaws I'm talking about, but for reasons that it is so easily abused to justify pretty much anything the person wants it to say. In reality, the bible is just the bible. What people do with it is simply a reflection upon themselves.
It could not, in my opinion. I kindly stay with my opinion it could not be better; both spiritually speaking and technically speaking.
I don't think you understand the technical aspects of it, otherwise there would be no debate here.
But again, the bible is about inspiration, not technical flawlessness. It's not a book of science, or the owner's manual for a car. It's neither of those. It's intended to inspire faith, not answers to technical questions.
When you say it contains error you'd need a law or a conveniton which decides whether it's correct or it isn't.
I'm sorry, what? Scholarship is just scholarship and it can examine the texts and make a considerable amount of credible decisions about it. Not sure what laws and conventions have to do with good scholarship.
Nevertheless artists do refer to old fashioned conventions such as a singer's duty to sing in uttermost precise intonation.
I hope you've gotten my point about a singer may sing with "perfect pitch", but in reality, if you are to run that through a spectrum analyzer, which you're familiar with, you will not see a single unwavering signal. It flows naturally up and down around the fundamental pitch. These imprecise tones, makes it believable. Humans cannot sing flawless pitches. They are not tone generators.
It's like in the linked song (post #209). As I interpret it... the lead singer certainly knew about that convention... only to break it on purpose. The song would be wanting if he left out the "incorrect" pitch. So I conclude: the song did not have imperfections. Just to the contrary: the artists just played games with traditional conventions that are sometimes silly rules... That's my 2 cents.
My point is, even if they intended to hit the note perfectly or not, they won't be able to without slight variations around the note they intended to hit, in key or out of key. It'll look like A 440, plus and minus a few cents up and down around it. That what makes it human.
You can call that perfect, and so will I! It's imperfection, is part of it's "perfection", which really only mean, we really like it subjectively. "Perfect" is not an objective standard when it comes to music, or poetry, or literature, or... scripture. It's in the eye of the beholder.
I stay with my opinion: it's the next note that decides if the "clunker" note was a clunker or not. Every clunker could turn out to be perfectly in line with the tune... it all depends on what comes next.
Ok, now I understand what you're talking about. You're talking about if you hit an off-note, something unintentional, how you then as a musician can pull out of that, and make it fit into the song really changes whether that note becomes a fail or a gain. Happy mistakes make for good music. But it takes a skilled musician to intuitively know how to pull that off. Good jazz players, for instance.
Why should a living God be unable to do the same with scripture?
It takes a skilled interpreter to pull off those clunkers in scripture to make it work. But, as with anything subjective, some will hear that attempt to make it fit, to reconcile that sour note with the rest of the score, as clumsy, clunky, ham-handed, and generally not a really skillful musician.
(I am speaking of a lot of the apologetics I hear out there trying to explain away contradictions).
I don't rule out that Catholics can be Christians, though.
I don't rule out that some Evangelicals could also be Christians too.
When you want to trust today's Catholic church when there is an alternative at hand... this would be something you would need to defend before God, as I see it. Did they never invent any extra doctrine, according to you? If they did... so why choose them as the ultimate authority? The decision is up to you.
Why are you making this a decision between Protestant and Catholic Christianity? Why assume either, or any group of Christians as "ultimate authority"? Do you? Do you take your church as the ultimate authority on matters of faith?
All Christian groups invent their own doctrines and rules, some pretty wacky ones too. But as far as I know, according the bible, we are saved by faith, not by one's doctrines and beliefs. "Are you in the right church," is kind of a ridiculous question.
I play the piano, I sing and compose music. We (my friend and me) use Studio One 4! What a coincidence. Yeah, I also try to keep time better! Quantisation is too much work fixing the damage it does...
Cool. Piano has been my main instrument, and now I play flute competently as well. Guitar holds third place for now, until I get practiced up on it as well as the other two. A lot of what I do nowadays is more improvostational, as opposed to what I used to do which was write songs that were scored out for different instruments. I generally record without the metronome on, and just play instruments around that, much more like a live, spontaneous performance feel, "jammin" sometimes.
I once played this inspired piano improv, only to play it back to discover that IQ, or intelligent quantization was on, which takes what you are performing and quantizes it on the fly, laying it out that way on the track. Needless to say, what I heard played back, sounded like what I played was being pressed back through cracks in the sidewalk, all disjointed and erratic. That's when I discovered what that evil little feature does.