Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[BCP1928]

Hence the necessity of the Magisterium in Catholicism, "scholars", nominally, cannot be trusted in matters of faith and morals.

LOL! He can't trust Magisterium, either. After all, the Church has rejected the objectively and absolutely true and essential or go straight to Hell doctrine of Dispensationalism, which is essentially the same as declaring the entire Bible a lie of Satan.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hence the necessity of the Magisterium in Catholicism, "scholars", nominally, cannot be trusted in matters of faith and morals.

.... at some point, all human beings whether Christian or not should be able to recognize some commonly evident truths regarding what counts as "faith and morals."

The Magisterium has had its place, but......

And that's all I'll say, by ending in a Galilean "but..."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Frankly, I'd have it hauled away.

Wax on, Wax off, Hans!!!!!

 

[Kylie]

In order to begin to discern the nature of each book in the biblical "Library," we have to apply the various insights offered by modern scholars from a range of relevant fields.

When doing so, we'll have to address every book in the Bible as a separate subject of study, discerning (as we may be able) its specific historical era in which it is situated, its cultural and linguistic framework and identifying any relevant evidences for it, its authorial purpose and structure, its transmission, and its possible meaning(s). If we're doing well, we'll realize that this is a large, interdisciplinary endeavor.

And is there any disagreement between these scholars?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And is there any disagreement between these scholars?

Oh sure. I've found a lot of disagreement among them. I mean, it's not like all bible scholars are fundamentalists or even necessarily Christian.

But I tend to read or listen to them regardless of their views on Christianity.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If I get in and it starts it right up, I can drive it away.

If you can start that metaphor, it would be a good plan to clear your yard.

 

[BCP1928]

And is there any disagreement between these scholars?

Of course, just as there would be in a scholarly evaluation of any ancient text.

 

[roman2819]

You do know that citing a work you've pasted in is more than giving the title, right? The author of the adapted work needs to be mentioned, and frankly the phrasing of this makes it seem like what you copied in was someone else's adaptation that you also did [not] cite.

[Plus, this is just theology/apologetics and is WAY off topic. I know things veered a bit astray, but, seriously big block quotes of entirely off topic material.]

[Edit to add "not". Why do I keep reversing part of a sentence by leaving out or adding a negative.]

I guess even the author has to add his name as well, even though didn't want to be too wordy after copy, paste and modify as few words in a passage.

 

[Kylie]

Oh sure. I've found a lot of disagreement among them. I mean, it's not like all bible scholars are fundamentalists or even necessarily Christian.

But I tend to read or listen to them regardless of their views on Christianity.

Do you see that same level of disagreement among other scholars?

For example, is there this level of disagreement among the scientists who study quantum mechanics?

 

[Kylie]

Of course, just as there would be in a scholarly evaluation of any ancient text.

And so you'd think that the sensible thing to do would be to find sources from outside the text in question and see if they can corroborate the claims made in the text, right?

If the text claims so-and-so was the king, then see if you can find other sources, court records, decrees he wrote, coins minted with his face on them.

 

[BCP1928]

And so you'd think that the sensible thing to do would be to find sources from outside the text in question and see if they can corroborate the claims made in the text, right?

Of course, That is a routine part of such scholarship

If the text claims so-and-so was the king, then see if you can find other sources, court records, decrees he wrote, coins minted with his face on them.

Absolutely. The problem is that you are interacting with two different viewpoints in this discussion. On the one hand you have Traditional and Mainline Christians who are willing to at least listen to scholars who approach the texts with little or no theological bias. On the other hand you have Christians for whom such an approach to the Bible is forbidden. In fact a dispassionate approach to the Bible as a collection of ancient texts began in the 19th century as so-called "higher criticism" and the doctrine of literal inerrancy as we are exposed to it in this forum was developed to counter it, and only secondarily turned against science.

 

[AV1611VET]

And so you'd think that the sensible thing to do would be to find sources from outside the text in question and see if they can corroborate the claims made in the text, right?

And do what with them?

For example, do the following extra-Biblical sources convince you that King David lived?

1. the Tel Dan stele
2. the Mesha stele

According to AI Overview:

• The Tel Dan stele is considered the first historical evidence of King David
• However, some say that the archaeological evidence for King David's existence is limited and controversial
• Some scholars have dismissed the historic reliability of the Biblical text surrounding King David

So I ask you again, what would it matter?

For every "corroboration," academia can find a disputation.

Big ... academic ... deal.

So much for your "sensible thing to do."

 

[AV1611VET]

On the one hand you have Traditional and Mainline Christians who are willing to at least listen to scholars who approach the texts with little or no theological bias. On the other hand you have Christians for whom such an approach to the Bible is forbidden.

Let's not just blame Christians for disagreeing.

Academia does its share in making positive statements, followed by negative ones.

(see my post above)

 

[BCP1928]

And do what with them?

For example, do the following extra-Biblical sources convince you that King David lived?

1. the Tel Dan stele
2. the Mesha stele

According to AI Overview:

• The Tel Dan stele is considered the first historical evidence of King David
• However, some say that the archaeological evidence for King David's existence is limited and controversial
• Some scholars have dismissed the historic reliability of the Biblical text surrounding King David

So I ask you again, what would it matter?

It would matter to anyone who is interested in the provenence of the texts.

For every "corroboration," academia can find a disputation.

Big ... academic ... deal.

So much for your "sensible thing to do."

It's not a matter of corroboration of any particular position with regard to the texts. Indeed, if the Bible is truly the word of God it deserves the best scholarship we can bring to bear on it, from all fields--history, archaeology, natural science, literary analysis and so on.

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed, if the Bible is truly the word of God it deserves the best scholarship we can bring to bear on it, from all fields--history, archaeology, natural science, literary analysis and so on.

No comment.

Believe me -- absolutely no comment.

You have NO IDEA what I think of "best scholarship" today.

None.

 

[BCP1928]

Let's not just blame Christians for disagreeing.

Academia does its share in making positive statements, followed by negative ones.

(see my post above)

Of course it does. It's a difficult business as it is with the analysis of any ancient texts.

 

[BCP1928]

No comment.

Believe me -- absolutely no comment.

You have NO IDEA what I think of "best scholarship" today.

None.

I don't care, either.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I guess even the author has to add his name as well, even though didn't want to be too wordy after copy, paste and modify as few words in a passage.

What author is that? They are unidentified in your post.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course it does. It's a difficult business as it is with the analysis of any ancient texts.

Then why did you blame that on Christians?

I do realize all Christians don't share a literal interpretation of the Bible.

But I blame academia for that (mainly, Plato).

Plato sowed the seeds, Satan watered them, and science gives the increase.

 

[BCP1928]

Then why did you blame that on Christians?

I do realize all Christians don't share a literal interpretation of the Bible.

But I blame academia for that (mainly, Plato).

Plato sowed the seeds, Satan watered them, and science gives the increase.

Plato? I don't know about that. I'm a Nominalist, myself. From my point of view one of the worst mistakes early Christian theologians made was to get mixed up with Greek philosophy. But if I wanted to blame a particular Christian for literal inerrancy, it would be John Darby.