The moment the guy claimed that scripture “promotes slavery” he threw out his own argument!
Good video, though – definitely the “post-modern mumbo-jumbo” part.
Only of you ignore the worldview of the time and import a modern, Western, linear-binary approach to the text.
There was none – canonization happened from the ground up, it was not decided by a council, only affirmed.
We are --even according to enthusiastic skeptics – at least 98% sure of what the original NT text was, and about the same for the Old. In term of meaning, we are 99.8% sure according to the same skeptics.
That’s only circular if you impose a MSWV onto the text.
Because without knowing the original worldview you are only making subjective guesses at what the meaning is.
No, because you still have to go with what the words mean – you can’t just declare that “no one does good” doesn’t mean that or that “that doesn’t count because it’s Jewish” – you have to address the words of the text, not judge the text as you do.
No, it isn’t – but you still have to stick to the text.
Romans 14 doesn’t change the meaning of Acts 15. It represents a development, but not a contradiction.
That’s true but it’s no reason to bail – one should always stick around to see if there is supporting material presented later (unless of course as with AiG material they start out with blatant lies about the evidence).
Or was deliberately changed – the evidence that the Masoretes did exactly that is pretty solid.
I am not sure where you got that statistic from but I am sure it is wrong. Very few humans dare to claim a nie on perfect understanding of Scripture (Or anything else)
So you allow an ANE view but not a MSWV view?
What makes one more acceptable than the other?
You have yet to convince me that either have any value.
Besides the circular argument is not MSWV it is purely observational. You cannot deny that the HS view is based on 2 Tim 3?
And to Claim that the reason for believing 2 Tim 3 is your nderstanding of 2 Tim 3 is circular, in anyone’s book (except yours and those who think like you)
Would need those editors to be under the influence of the Holy Spirit also.
And here is my big problem with your views.
They are basically cessationist, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit is still at work but you are claiming that only historical (ancient) examples are valid.
If the constant is the Holy Spirit rather than the person, or persons then anyone whos is baptised in, and utilises the holy Spirit is of the same authority.
(I am such a person, but am not seeking to get you recogniition , only to point out your fallacy)
A discussion between Bart Ehrman and a couple of other guys – of the ~2% of passages we aren’t sure about, 80% of those don’t change the meaning in the slightest (I’ve seen it put higher, but stuck with the one source).
Of course. Unless you can show that the original writer(s) and audience(s) held a MSWV, forcing one onto the text is guaranteed to get things wrong.
You constantly use a MSWV (modified by post-modernistic solipsism) to read scripture, so it seems you have convinced yourself of its value.
LOL
By claiming “observational” you just went with a MSWV, because your use of “observational” relies on a linear, binary understanding of the world.
It rests on II Peter 1 as well, plus a multitude of passages in the Prophets.
I made no such claim. Here’s what I wrote:
Specifically, you do not understand how the word “true”, that you employ in your #2, fits into the worldview of the time – “true” as in “trustworthy” – or that under the worldview of the time your #3 and #4 are actually correct. “Scripture” was not a set of books found on some list, it was a category of writing that at the time could (still) be added to, and so when the church canonized II Timothy, it became a member of that category and thus the reflexive description applied.
You have to force a MSWV on the text to see circular reasoning there.
No – the Holy Spirit does not give courses in history, culture, or linguistics, which means that those lacking the appropriate knowledge aren’t going to “bring forth treasure” as well as those who are.
Your statement shows binary thinking again, when things aren’t binary.
The OT proves that such education is neither there or required. TheHoly Spirit gives the nececasary information as Scripture itself procllaims.
Next box please?
I have no idea what an MSWV entails.
You are cessationist. (My box for you) as well as… (better not, some Moderator might be watching) Lets just say you put rather alot of store in human knowledge and learning.
The whole poiint of the Gospel is that it is simple. Anyone can understand it. and anyone can witness or proclaim it. (There are too many Scriptural examples to even try and cite.)
Really? Where does the text say that?
The writers of the OT were nearly all highly educated (for their time); the exceptions are among the minor prophets and some of the Psalms.
Besides which Jesus praised learning.
You and YECers – don’t even understand what worldview you’re operating in.
I would have to search to get the author right (I have one annoying citation that says “there’s a book written back at this time” without giving other info), but one mid-1600’s writer argued, based on the differences between Genesis 1 and 2 among other exegetical considerations, that humanity was appreciably older than Adam and Eve. Memory is not getting farther than Isaac de la for the author’s name. It’s interesting as an example of speculation on the topic based on exegesis without the impetus of modern science.
Perhaps Isaac La Peyrère? As I recall he also used Paul’s letters to support his view, not just Genesis.
Those are extremely valuable! It’s why I’ve never had a problem with an “old Earth”: Hebrew scholars as early as the eighth century saw vast amount of time in Genesis 1, which tells me that a truly ancient Earth is not contrary to scripture –
though some of the speculation was rather fanciful, especially the strain that came up with the Creation being a trillion years old before the Earth was made.