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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can you be more specific? Can you cite an example of modern biblical criticism so we might be able to discuss it?Just curious as to how many, if any, have an opinion as to its credibility. Is it considered a threat to, or offering insight into our most basic held beliefs?
Can you be more specific? Can you cite an example of modern biblical criticism so we might be able to discuss it?
It's good at that.Basically it the use of the 'historical critical method' in presenting probable findings of what can and can not be considered historical as it relates the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.
It depends - do you want the bible to be an ancient collection of semi-historical folk tales and prose, or do you want it to be the perfect and literal truth dictated directly from god's mouth?
I think that there is nothing at all wrong with the historical critical method when placing the Bible under scrutiny. It should be encouraged when used in good faith. And, confirmation bias should be avoided at all cost. Every claim in the Bible should be scrutinized and tested, as the Bible is really just a book of claims written 3rd hand by people who didn't actually witness the events written about.Basically it the use of the 'historical critical method' in presenting probable findings of what can and can not be considered historical as it relates the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.
Credulity, pretty low. Insights, could be, if you want to really research that content. Read away, but your skepticism radar on high.Just curious as to how many, if any, have an opinion as to its credibility. Is it considered a threat to, or offering insight into our most basic held beliefs?
Credulity, pretty low. Insights, could be, if you want to really research that content. Read away, but your skepticism radar on high.
Generally, yes.Would you have more confidence in an apologist as opposed to a critical reading?
"It's" credibility? (singular?) See Methods and Perspectives.Just curious as to how many, if any, have an opinion as to its credibility.
Not by me.Is it considered a threat to, or offering insight into our most basic held beliefs?
Basically it the use of the 'historical critical method' in presenting probable findings of what can and can not be considered historical as it relates the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.
"It's" credibility? (singular?)
Would you consider say the Jesus Seminar
If the research is honest and unbiased then I am all for it.
I think there must always be a certain presupposition.
How and why might that be the case?The textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible could very well be a help for Christians to understanding Hebrew Scripture before reading it with Christian interpretation.