Donât textbooks evoke authority without claiming to?
Got to say this is a most amazing thread. 535 posts?! Arguing over what is IMO minutiae. Why is this?
1 Like
I agree. Sort of like watching the waves at the beach. Oddly transfixing.
2 Likes
Ahh, but to some it is the core of their faith. If the bible is not what they claim then their whole modus operandi for quoting and proofs goes out the window, big time.
Richard
Not me. Calculus exists with or without the textbook, but guess how we learn about it.
Dale
Not the record though. 
This one is rather large:
A.Suarezâs Treatment on a Popeâs Formulation for Original Sinâs Transmission!
Okay, so why are you so adamant that the text be perfect?
Richard
Why are you so adamant itâs not?
It is an authoritative textbook (/equipment user instruction manual for humans) in its entirety, and to set ourselves above it is hubristic.
Â
Â
Dale
Because it clearly is not.
And there is nothing hubristic about that. It is just a fact. And no âharmonisingâ will change it. There are basic scientific errors and some contradictions in observed facts.
And then we have the disputes over which passages are meant to be real, and which are meant to be allegorical. If allegorical then the factual reality becomes less important.
And unfortunately the text does not specify which is which.
So your âperfectionâ becomes impossible in real terms.
Richard
So says you. I am willing to accept that there are things that I do not yet understand.
Dale
Well i read a comment up there saying that we cant know if John fabricated some stories. So my question is if it is not inspired could John have fabricated the resurrection?
Paul says that if there is no resurrection then we are the most to be pitied. Plus, of course, the resurrection is one of the few things all the Gospels agree on.
Johnâs Gospel is not chronological in formation. He joins words with actions to make theological points. His âfabricationâ would therefor be his usage rather than the actual facts or even words that he quotes Chances are Jesus said those things, or near enough, but not necessarily in the settings or circumstances that John records.
And this is the whole point of a âGospelâ it is theology, not history, or even some sort of journalism. The point is the words and the theology, not the details or the precise history. They might paraphrase, or remember inaccurately the exact words, but what they give is the basis of our faith. They are not trying to deceive, but the are trying to evangelise. They have purpose and agendas and a message which is more important than precision or perfection of detail.
Richard
None of that means that any of it is not true or not inspired.
What is your definition of âInspiredâ?
Richard
I started a different thread about inspiration, if you really want to get into that topic: Speaking of the inspired word of God
1 Like
First you have to decide which canon you want to follow. The books in the Apocrypha were considered canonical in the Roman Catholic Church but were never considered canonical in the Hebrew Bible. King James instructed the translators to follow the Bishopâs Bible as closely as possible so they included the Apocrypha in a section between the OT and NT. That doesnât make them canonical for Protestants.
From:
I have been reading âThe Biblical Canonâ by Lee Martin McDonald and it is his position that the notion of a closed canon was not known in the earth church. The Jewish canon wasnât closed until late 2nd Century.
Thank you for your post.
I prefer the NT canon of the Church of the East. I am indifferent as to the inclusion of the apocrypha.
The point that I was making is similar to yours: we each have to assess the options and make a decision of which canon to use.
The resurrection is attested by numerous sources.
If there had been no resurrection, the story of Jesus would have died in the first century.
Iâm somewhat surprised this is still going. A lot of traction here.
1 Like
Or a lot of wheel spinning. Depends on your perspective. 
4 Likes