• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christians: How do you know which books of the bible are "inspired?"

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Respectfully — and you know I do respect you — for most scholars, it’s because there’s no anthropological or historical context for the sources of BoM material, and there’s no historical or theological continuity between the BoM texts and biblical texts. The material simply can’t be authenticated. Further, it doesn’t conform to literary forms consistent with other texts of the same alleged age. Were those problems to be solved, the BoM would be given more serious consideration.

Not saying they’re not real, or authentic, or inspired; just pointing out the scholastic difficulties.
I totally agree with everything you've said except one thing and that's that I believe it totally conforms to literary forms consistent with other texts of the same alleged age. In fact, to me, that's one of its most compelling features. But, like you said, the material can't be authenticated, at least not to most people's standards.

I’d be interested in taking a closer look, if I could lay my hands on a copy.
Well, that wouldn't be hard to arrange. If you want to PM me an address, I can easily put one in the mail. It wouldn't be the first time I've done that for members of RF (they cost next to nothing, so you could consider it a gift). I would promise you as I have promised others in the past that I would not follow up with inquiries as to whether or not you've read it, nor would I proselytize. I think you know me well enough to know you can trust me on that.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I mostly agree with what you said here.
That's why I concluded that the one or two book difference would not affect the texts overall, just as copying errors do not affect the overall message.

I personally believe God has a hand in his works, and the lives of his people, so if the writings in the Bible come from writings originally inspired by him, then he will make sure he preserves his word, whether he has to use his power to move people to act to defend it, or uphold it.

He has done this throughout history, so I believe that's why certain books were removed, certain people played a role in developing the canon, copying and translating, etc.

Even if one or two errors slips in, as long as God sees them as no serious threat, he may well decide to leave them, because 1) they can serve as a means of determining those who genuinely and humbly search for truth - and he can definitely use his spirit to help them, and 2) God allows corruption to take its course, without intervening, but at the same time acting accordingly to maneuver each situation, to the end that his will be done.

I'm confident that despite man's attempts to corrupt and destroy the true writings, God has done his part in making certain they did not succeed.
Hence, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, they testified to this fact. Differences in the Septuagint were not critical to the texts. So I think we can be confident that the same applies to the originals

All these evidences, as well as the ones I mentioned in Post #2, and other posts, is enough to verify the authenticity of the scriptures.
Attacks against it will not cease until, Revelation 16:14-16 is fulfilled.
Wishful thinking.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
There is no “clear evidence” for a date that early, in fact, most reliable evidence points to writing dates between post-70 — 90-95.


Nope. Paul wrote 8. The others are pseudonymous.
Where would that evidence come from? Why is it reliable? Who determines that Paul only wrote eight.

In answering please provide a source that give the reason for arriving at the conclusions.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I totally agree with everything you've said except one thing and that's that I believe it totally conforms to literary forms consistent with other texts of the same alleged age. In fact, to me, that's one of its most compelling features. But, like you said, the material can't be authenticated, at least not to most people's standards.

I’d be interested in taking a closer look, if I could lay my hands on a copy.
Well, that wouldn't be hard to arrange. If you want to PM me an address, I can easily put one in the mail. It wouldn't be the first time I've done that for members of RF (they cost next to nothing, so you could consider it a gift). I would promise you as I have promised others in the past that I would not follow up with inquiries as to whether or not you've read it, nor would I proselytize. I think you know me well enough to know you can trust me on that.[/QUOTE]
Well, you’re definitely more familiar with the texts than I am, and I’m not going be elitist. One of the reasons why I’d like to take a closer look.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Where would that evidence come from? Why is it reliable? Who determines that Paul only wrote eight.

In answering please provide a source that give the reason for arriving at the conclusions.
Do me a favor and bump this tomorrow mid morning, so I get a notification to remind me. I’ll be happy to share, but I won’t have access to my library until tomorrow afternoon.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Is that you or me, or the both of us?
So maybe you don't mind explaining why you wish it not to be so.
Because it applies magical thinking to texts that can be doped out without resorting to such.
Thomas is a fine example. It’s authentic, it shares material with Q and Mark, it’s inspiring in its own right. It simply went undiscovered until after the canon was closed. God had nothing to do with it’s being left out. Mistakes are made; what is “in” or “out” of the canon is rather arbitrary. They’re texts — not magical grimoires. I’m glad we have what we have; I wish we had more.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Because it applies magical thinking to texts that can be doped out without resorting to such.
You know, that's exactly why there is a problem with some books in the Bible, not being given their due. They wish they can discard them by erasing the writers name. They will see. Soon.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You know, that's exactly why there is a problem with some books in the Bible, not being given their due. They wish they can discard them by erasing the writers name. They will see. Soon.
I don’t see that discarding them serves any real purpose.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Facts are facts.

We know they were written after Jesus's death. We do not know if any of the words attributed to him - were actually said by him. Or if he said something close, - did these later people get the meaning wrong because they didn't have the context?

*
You’re technically correct. We dont know with 100% certainty. But to be fair, we can be fairly certain, through comparing multiple attestations in what we believe to be very early sources, that there is a cache of sayings that have a high probability of being authentic. We can also be fairly certain that there are sayings that have an uncertain probability of being authentic. And we can also be fairly certain that there are sayings that are almost certainly not attributable to Jesus.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
You’re technically correct. We dont know with 100% certainty. But to be fair, we can be fairly certain, through comparing multiple attestations in what we believe to be very early sources, that there is a cache of sayings that have a high probability of being authentic. We can also be fairly certain that there are sayings that have an uncertain probability of being authentic.
Agreed.

And we can also be fairly certain that there are sayings that are almost certainly not attributable to Jesus.
Not saying you're wrong, but I'd never really given this much thought. Do you have any examples of sayings that are almost certainly not attributable to Jesus? And what is your reason for concluding that they are not?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Agreed.

Not saying you're wrong, but I'd never really given this much thought. Do you have any examples of sayings that are almost certainly not attributable to Jesus? And what is your reason for concluding that they are not?
Off the top of my head (if I remember correctly), Luke 10:21 appears to be a later interpolation. I can’t pull up the exegesis, but it states that it doesn’t appear on early manuscripts, there no multiple attestation in early source material, and it doesn’t conform to something Jesus would typically say. I believe the reason was that Jesus was not wont to keep secrets. The source said that there was evidence either way, but that the evidence against was a bit weightier, so it was listed as “probably not authentic” — not “almost certainly.”
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
There is no “clear evidence” for a date that early, in fact, most reliable evidence points to writing dates between post-70 — 90-95.


Nope. Paul wrote 8. The others are pseudonymous.
Just a reminder...

Where would that evidence come from? Why is it reliable? Who determines that Paul only wrote eight?

In answering please provide a source that give the reason for arriving at the conclusions.
 
Top