My church is hosting a debate on New Testament reliability

[William Wallace]

All the details can be found here and on the linked pages. If any of you are in the Sacramento region you're welcome to attend. I'll be writing about the event at the above link, and I'm sure it'll be worth discussing here.

[rumborak]

Could be interesting if well done.
On a side note, you come across a bit smug in the post, especially with the Jersey Shore part.

rumborak

[Perpetual Change]

Could be interesting if well done.
On a side note, you come across a bit smug in the post, especially with the Jersey Shore part.

rumborak

I lol'd at that.

[Ħ]

Wow...when did everyone start calling it the "text"?  "You can't find it in the text."  "What does the text say?"  "There are few variants in the text."  I've started to notice it more and more...it's kind of become a pet peeve of mine.  Just call it the Bible, Scripture, the word of God, the scriptures, anything but the "text"!  >_<

[Adami]

Wow...when did everyone start calling it the "text"?  "You can't find it in the text."  "What does the text say?"  "There are few variants in the text."  I've started to notice it more and more...it's kind of become a pet peeve of mine.  Just call it the Bible, Scripture, the word of God, the scriptures, anything but the "text"!  >_<

But it, like all written word, is text. May I ask why you have such a problem with it being called that?

[Ħ]

It's sort of got this pretentious connotation about it, like you're an objective hard-nosed scholar who studies the "text".

[Adami]

It's sort of got this pretentious connotation about it, like you're an objective hard-nosed scholar who studies the "text".

Hm, that's a very interesting take on the word text.

[HarlequinForest]

Formal debate is somewhat of a scholarly activity, so it makes sense.

[bosk1]

Cam, can you send me the details?  I know you did once before, but I need you to resend, please.



EDIT:  And as Adami said, I'm not sure what the objection is to the word "text."  The Bible and all its component parts are all texts. 

[Ħ]

Eh it's just a pet peeve...it's sort of become an academic buzz word that people who want to sound smart use way too much.  Might as well use the word Scripture, because that connotes a better understanding of what it is. (but in a secular discourse, I agree that "text" is probably the most fair word to use)

[Perpetual Change]

I think "text" is much more of a nuetral word than "Scripture" or "Word of God." A discussion on the Bible as a "text" is something believers and non-believers can both be a part of. A discussion on the Bible as the "Word of God" seems to be skewed in favor of the believes from the start.

[ack44]

Text is the best band that nobody knows.

[rumborak]

I think "text" is much more of a nuetral word than "Scripture" or "Word of God." A discussion on the Bible as a "text" is something believers and non-believers can both be a part of. A discussion on the Bible as the "Word of God" seems to be skewed in favor of the believes from the start.

This, totally. If you want to engage in any meaningful discussion about the reliability of the documents, you just have to treat them like any other historical text. If you call them "The Word of God", you might as well put a stamp on the front cover saying "reliable" and then go for a beer.

rumborak

[GuineaPig]

Also, it would be a bit strange to call it the "Word of God" when the debate's only about the New Testament.

[Quadrochosis]

I think "text" is much more of a nuetral word than "Scripture" or "Word of God." A discussion on the Bible as a "text" is something believers and non-believers can both be a part of. A discussion on the Bible as the "Word of God" seems to be skewed in favor of the believes from the start.

This, totally. If you want to engage in any meaningful discussion about the reliability of the documents, you just have to treat them like any other historical text. If you call them "The Word of God", you might as well put a stamp on the front cover saying "reliable" and then go for a beer.

rumborak

Too bad you can't drink alcohol if you're a Christian. Unless it's Jesus' blood, then it's OK.

[hefdaddy42]

You can drink alchohol if you're a Christian.  There is no commandment against drinking alchohol, and heck, Jesus drank wine.  No problems there.

BTW, referring to the text as "the text" is not a recent development.  It's always been used.  Not sure what the problem is.

[rumborak]

Jesus drank wine.  No problems there.

And a bit more, if you believe Matthew 11:19

rumborak

[yeshaberto]

sounds cool, WW.  almost tempting to drive up from LA for it

[Perpetual Change]

Jesus drank wine.  No problems there.

And a bit more, if you believe Matthew 11:19

rumborak

I remember in high school my english teacher (possibly inappropriately) reminded me that Jesus actually turned water into wine when everyone had ran out. 

[rumborak]

Oh, there's a distinct freeloading element to Jesus in the NT. They're traveling around, inviting themselves for food and drink, and curse towns who don't see that as a good deal

rumborak

[Ħ]

You can drink alchohol if you're a Christian.  There is no commandment against drinking alchohol, and heck, Jesus drank wine.  No problems there.

BTW, referring to the text as "the text" is not a recent development.  It's always been used.  Not sure what the problem is.

It just has this tone about it that gets under my skin.  I can't place my finger on it.

[hefdaddy42]

You can drink alchohol if you're a Christian.  There is no commandment against drinking alchohol, and heck, Jesus drank wine.  No problems there.

BTW, referring to the text as "the text" is not a recent development.  It's always been used.  Not sure what the problem is.

It just has this tone about it that gets under my skin.  I can't place my finger on it.

I can't either, since there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

[Ħ]

Probably has something to do with the amount of times it's used in a Bible discussion (or any other type of discussion).  Same thing with "context."  Nothing really wrong with either word, but hearing the same word a bigillion times gets kinda annoying.

Don't mind me I'm just trollin'.

[William Wallace]

Could be interesting if well done.
On a side note, you come across a bit smug in the post, especially with the Jersey Shore part.

rumborak

So you'll subscribe because we're like minded?

Speaking of pretentiousness, calling it "the word of God" every other sentence would be rather irritating if I was the reader.

Check your pm, Bosk.

[rumborak]

Could be interesting if well done.
On a side note, you come across a bit smug in the post, especially with the Jersey Shore part.

rumborak

So you'll subscribe because we're like minded?

Zing.

BTW, where is the event held? On "neutral ground", or in the church itself? I mean, you've seen Highlander, right? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGNj1yR9eEY )

rumborak

[William Wallace]

Could be interesting if well done.
On a side note, you come across a bit smug in the post, especially with the Jersey Shore part.

rumborak

So you'll subscribe because we're like minded?

Zing.

BTW, where is the event held? On "neutral ground", or in the church itself? I mean, you've seen Highlander, right? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGNj1yR9eEY )

rumborak

It would be bad ass if somebody showed up dressed like that. Yes, it's at the church. But we'll be on our best behavior. The crowd will be mixed in terms of points of view, and their will be audio and video available.

[William Wallace]

The debate went well. We'll have video available soon. Until then, here's another blog post covering the opening statements made by both debaters.

[rumborak]

Well, seems the usual ground was covered!

WW, what was the composition of the audience? Mostly church members, mostly non-members, or 50/50?

rumborak

[bosk1]

Wanted to go, but it wasn't in the cards.

WW, what was the composition of the audience? Mostly church members, mostly non-members, or 50/50?

rumborak

Other than college students, I can't imagine most of the general public would have been interested enough to attend something like this.  Unless it were at a university (which this one wasn't), I would be surprised if the audience didn't consist overwhelmingly of church members (both members of that church and members of other local churches).

[Nigerius Rex]

Well, seems the usual ground was covered!

WW, what was the composition of the audience? Mostly church members, mostly non-members, or 50/50?

rumborak

From what I hear, only about 10 people from the church's normal congregation showed up and the rest of the audience was neutral or carrions (follower of carrier?). I want to see if carrier or holding with make blog posts about the event.

[William Wallace]

Well, seems the usual ground was covered!

WW, what was the composition of the audience? Mostly church members, mostly non-members, or 50/50?

rumborak

The heretics, as they called themselves, outnumbered members of our congregation 3-to-1 probably. I can guarantee that's the most non-Christians that have ever stepped inside the stuffy moose lodge in its entire history. It was a great night. In fact, I met several people from that atheist group I mentioned I joined a few months ago.

[Vivace]

Also, it would be a bit strange to call it the "Word of God" when the debate's only about the New Testament.

What's strange about that? If the whole Bible is the Word of God and you take a chapter out, isn't that still the Word of God?

[tjanuranus]

The bible is 100 percent true. Not it's not. Rabble rabble. No one thinks any different. End of debate.

[GuineaPig]

Also, it would be a bit strange to call it the "Word of God" when the debate's only about the New Testament.

What's strange about that? If the whole Bible is the Word of God and you take a chapter out, isn't that still the Word of God?

Along the lines of what Rumborak said, putting the stamp of "Word of God" on the text more or less vouchsafes for the whole text's reliability.  And the apologist's argument for reliability by that metric becomes a lot easier if you omit the OT.

[Vivace]

Also, it would be a bit strange to call it the "Word of God" when the debate's only about the New Testament.

What's strange about that? If the whole Bible is the Word of God and you take a chapter out, isn't that still the Word of God?

Along the lines of what Rumborak said, putting the stamp of "Word of God" on the text more or less vouchsafes for the whole text's reliability.  And the apologist's argument for reliability by that metric becomes a lot easier if you omit the OT.

What apologist's argument are you referring to? I have never heard of any apologist, or least a scholarly one, state that without the OT, the bible becomes more reliable. The NT is made complete from the OT. They cannot nor should not be separated. Any educated theology professor can confirm this.