Why wrestle when you can just say it makes no sense and move on?
I think you know the answer to that
Interesting time, the Reformation. The Catholic Church already had approved versions of the Bible being printed in common languages. However, they did not approve any which contained poor translations. The disagreement wasnāt over the Bible being translated into common languages, the disagreement was over the standards set for a proper translation. One printer decided to make a larger profit by leaving off books that Martin Luther relegated to the end of the Bibleā¦which is why to this day Protestant Bibles contain fewer books. Then came the idea that people could read and understand the Bible on their own.
Where you are indeed correct in that I should correct myself and any false impressions I may have given is that all Protestants did not make it a practice to ignore scholarly study, because we have many, many Protestants scholars. One of my absolute favorites has been William Barclay; Iāve probably learned more from him about the New Testament than any other commentator. Still, the Reformation did give people (even Catholics) the idea that people could read the Bible and correctly figure it out, all on their own. Studying the Bible is different from reading the Bible. I believe the former is essential for the best understanding.
It is easier to discuss each case separately. Why and how did people come to understand what is Godās will? One example is the disagreement that occurred that resulted in what happened with the Amalekites.
Iām not sure if there is value in that conversation. Previous discussion on the Amalekites had you ignoring what was written in the Bible and saying God wouldnāt command that so it must be mankindās inserted justification for the killing which was never endorsed by God.
I would imagine any atrocity in the Bible that God explicitly takes ownership of you would employ similar logic to absolve God. We see it with The Flood in this thread. An explicit reading of the Bible is wrong in your view.
For example, I would imagine you would use similar logic to dismiss any concerns about the trials of Job. āItās just a story to illustrate a lesson and Jobās historicity is questionableā
Now, I can understand where you are coming from. But it does open the door to everything in the Bible brings questioned. Plus there are consistency in the message problems.
1 Like
So open the doors. The bible was written by many authors over a few thousand years. Of course we can find consistency problems. Exactly what are you expecting from the Bibleā¦and why?
One of the more popular deflection strategies.
1 Like
JayJay
189
Iām supposed to trust the depth of supposed scholarly study when I get hit with a totally idiotic statement that the Apocrypha is not in Protestant Bibles solely because a printer wanted to make a few extra bucks?
Sighā¦
1 Like
Hush young pupil and listen!
JayJay
191
Letās gloss over real doctrinal differences and the fact the Jews didnāt consider the Apocrypha as Hebrew Bible Canon and make it about profit margin.
1 Like
I need to get into this bible lawyer business. If normal people cant read the Bible I bet I could charge $100 an hour to help them. Wait, maybe a mega church? Thats where the profit is
A decision that was not made until well after Christ died. As the books were considered Canon at the time of Christ, Catholic denominations retained them.
JayJay
194
They were never part of the Septuagint, which dates before Christ.
At any rate, I wasnāt highlighting timelines but your shoddy scholarship on a simple matterā¦which puts your credibility on the other matters discussed here in serious doubt.
Yeah, that why US education standards are where they are. Kids are taking your approach.
Yeah, that why US education standards are where they are. Kids are taking your approach.
Oh, dear! The Septuagint!
Psst! I was speaking of Hebrew Canon in Jesusā time (which did contain the six books mentioned) not the Septuagint. The Septuagint was simply the earliest Greek translation of Hebrew Canon, not the translation of what was considered the Hebrew Canon at the time of Jesus.
JayJay
198
Then you the Great Hebrew Scholar would know I trapped you with a mistake.
The books were in the Septuagintā¦they were not in the Hebrew Bible.
Canon.
By the way, Iām not a scholar, never was, never will be. Takes too much time, too much reading, studying, and classes. However, Iāve had fun picking up trivia along the way. By the way, do you have any sense of humor at all? Iām never serious about anything, and you seem so serious about everything (probably the primary reason Iām not a scholar). After Christ died, the Jews dropped a few books from the Hebrew Canon. Over a thousand years later, Protestants also decided these books shouldnāt be Christian Canon, either. Because the books were Canon at the time of Christ, Catholics kept them. Nothing to fight or even snarl overājust fun trivia. Smile.
Since it is held up as divinely inspired by God, I would think it would properly inform us to the nature of God and provide guidance on how we should be living.
Why do you think you and many other people are not finding anything about the nature of God or guidance on how we should be living in the Bible?
