Author |
Message |
Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 3639 Registered: 3-2004
| Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 9:53 am: | |
I am sure I asked this some where, but cannot find it. What I want to know is what Bible texts show quoting/copying from other Bible texts or from other sources. I know that many OT texts are quoted in the NT, but I am talking of the ones the SDAs use to say the Biblical authors copied/plagiarized like EGW. I want to study up on this. Diana |
Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj
Post Number: 154 Registered: 1-2006
| Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 12:35 pm: | |
Diana, If this link works you should be able to click here and read an article on The Gospel and the Spirit of Biblicism by Robert Brinsmead. http://www.quango.net/verdict/index.htm Also, there are a couple books in Borders and Barnes and Noble by Bart D. Ehrman. One is Lost Christianities, and the second is Misquoting Jesus. I found the introduction of Misquoting Jesus absolutely compelling. Since you're interested in this topic, I think you will, too. It's tough sailing here, but I'm one of those people who would rather know about and deal honestly with problems now instead of later. I would also welcome further discussion on this. It is only fair to say that I think many people will be discouraged by reading these books, but for me they were a breath of fresh air, and a chance to seek answers and to deal honestly with some of these questions. I grew up hearing old time SDA evangelists get up in front and boastfully claim "I've examined the foundation of our (SDA) message and it is solid" implying that we could just take his word for it and not study for ourselves. So I'm skeptical about just swallowing stuff without checking it out and giving the Holy Spirit a chance to speak to my heart while I'm reading and studying. On page nine of the introduction of Misquoting Jesus Ehrman mentions an interesting statement his teacher wrote on one of his research papers: "Maybe Mark just made a mistake." He comments on what a breakthrough it was for him--he comments that when he admitted that it could be true, the floodgates just opened. Last time I mentioned this topic on this forum I got hammered, but I'd just like to say that this is exactly the kind of bold reading that the Lord used to lead me out of Adventism. Regardless of these background questions, SDAs will try in vain to claim that they are the heirs of the reformation, not an easy task since they do not accept sola scriptura. Dane, my good friend, wisely cautions me on this topic, and maybe he'll comment again as this thread progresses. Bob |
River Registered user Username: River
Post Number: 756 Registered: 9-2006
| Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 6:19 pm: | |
Hey, could you hold up, I left my sledge hammer down to the barn, I think I was using it drive a fence post or something, don't go away now, be right back. River |
Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 224 Registered: 1-2004
| Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 8:23 pm: | |
Checking the firmness of your foundation can be a really challenging task. I tried it... I hope you have lots of time for study! Jeremiah |
Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj
Post Number: 155 Registered: 1-2006
| Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 9:21 pm: | |
Jeremiah and River Yes, I agree. I think I know a lot less now than I used to! Colleen and others have mentioned how incredibly complex Adventism is, and it's true. For anyone to say what the evangelists claimed is a real stretch. I gave up trying to reconcile Adventist beliefs with Christianity. I have no doubts about leaving Adventism for the gospel, but it was a slow process. Please don't think I'm boasting--I'm actually embarassed about this--but I read about 250 books from the ABCs during the last 30 years, along with countless Adventist Theological Society journals and 1888 Message Study Committee and Firm Foundation stuff, you name it. I gave Adventism an honest "look see" and can tell you that I found serious flaws in the foundation, to put it mildly. I sometimes regret all the time I put into trying to unravel the theological mess of Adventism, but I was so hungry for the gospel that I just kept digging, hopeful that I would soon uncover that final piece of the puzzle that would make it all fit. I finally gave up in despair and just coasted for almost 10 more years before leaving. I am thankful that I left formally while I am still in good enough health to talk to my children and family and co-workers and friends about Adventism, the gospel, etc. I think a lot of us on this forum have similar experiences in that respect. Bob |
Bmorgan Registered user Username: Bmorgan
Post Number: 140 Registered: 7-2000
| Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 9:25 pm: | |
Yes, Bob. My experience with Adventism is similiar to yours. Erma |
Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 5824 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 10:50 pm: | |
I'm right there with you regarding my Adventist experience...but I would not recommend Bart Ehrman as a source of insight regarding the truth about Scripture. While Ehrman began as an evangelical Christian and attended both Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, he got his PhD from Princeton and immersed himself in textual criticism. He lost his faith and today considers himself to be an agnostic. In March of 2006 he debated evangelical theologian William Lane Craig on the campus of College of the Holy Cross on this subject: "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?" Ehrman argued against the resurrection. You can read more about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman Ehrman does not see the Bible as God's inerrant word--or, for that matter, even as God's word, inerrant or not. He does not believe that God inspired and protected His word through the ages, and he is not a credible source for understanding Scripture's reliability. The thing about Scripture is that it must be read from a position of submission to the Lord Jesus. When we are willing to submit to Him, the Holy Spirit, who is the Author of Scripture, will teach us truth and reality through His own words recorded in the Bible. Diana, the gospels and Paul's epistles...especially Romans!...are full of quotes from the Old Testament. Matthew is especially full of them, being written to a Jewish audience who would know the OT references which Jesus was fulfilling before their eyes. The Bible is a closed book. The canon that exists is the full complement of writings that God has preserved for millennia. He chose the authors, and He inspired them (2 Timothy 3:16). God was in charge of the NT writers explaining how the OT was fulfilled by quoting OT passages and explaining their fulfillment. Adventists use the argument that since the Bible writers quoted Scripture from the OT and didn't give references but also did give interpretations, we can't be hard on Ellen for using sources without credit or for giving unique interpretations to Biblical texts. In truth, the Jews KNEW the OT prophecies. Every Jewish male had to memorize portions of the Torah, and their life was spent studying the Scriptures. For the Bible writers to refer to the OT without references was only normal. All Jewish men (most women couldn't read) would have recognized the passages. Even in writing today, we can use literary allusions without giving credit if the allusions are well-known. (For example, when we say "Parting is such sweet sorrow," we don't have to footnote Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" because the phrase is so common, and the source is [or at least used to be!] so well-known.) If you have an NIV Study Bible, Diana, or one with the NIV Study Notes in it, you can check the references to every quote from the OT which is written in the new. The whole point of the NT was to show how Jesus fulfilled and superceded the OT. Colleen |
River Registered user Username: River
Post Number: 759 Registered: 9-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 6:27 am: | |
Bob, Your Quote: “I sometimes regret all the time I put into trying to unravel the theological mess of Adventism,” That statement kind of struck home with me, I sometimes wonder about myself too, it will be five years this summer I have put in trying to unravel the “Adventist mess” and sometimes I wonder what I have accomplished by this thing. What drove me to do this? I still cannot answer that, but whatever it is I submit it to the one with whom I have to do. God can use that Bob and I really believe that, in my case as well as yours. It is my prayer that God will use what we have submitted to him to his glory regardless of the reasons, this prayer is for both you and for me. Colleens quote: While Ehrman began as an evangelical Christian and attended both Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, he got his PhD from Princeton and immersed himself in textual criticism. He lost his faith and today considers himself to be an agnostic. In March of 2006 he debated evangelical theologian William Lane Craig on the campus of College of the Holy Cross on this subject: "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?" Ehrman argued against the resurrection. I would want to caution any Christian who makes reliability of scripture a study in itself not to let Satan use it as a pry bar to wrest the word of God from your hands and from your heart, take careful note of men like Ehrman as an example. Jesus said to one of the churches “Hold fast that thou hast” and that is good advice, Hold fast to your testimony of how God brought you out. Be aware that we have an adversary at all times, stand fast in the word. When in Jesus time of temptation he said “It is written”. There are men who have done untold damage having allowed Satan to wrest the scripture from their hand and from their heart having laid waste their faith and end up denying the Lord. Do I sound like a dumb closed minded hick? Call me what you like, just don’t forget to call me for dinner. Psalms 119:42 So shall I have an answer for him who reproaches me, For I trust in Your word. Psalms 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path. Psalms 119:114 You are my hiding place and my shield; I hope in Your word. Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; Proverbs 3:6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths. Proverbs 3:7 Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the Lord and depart from evil. Proverbs 3:8 It will be health to your flesh, And strength to your bones. Many men have become wise in their own eyes and laid waste their faith. If I Sounds like I am preaching it’s probably because I am. “textual criticism” can become a big word for men of small faith. Does it sound like I found my hammer Bob? I assure you of no such intention. I am just saying to young Christians, be careful. It is easy to fall for the oldest trick in the book “Hath God said?” Genesis 3:1. River |
Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj
Post Number: 156 Registered: 1-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 10:26 am: | |
Colleen and River I agree with your summary of Ehrman and your wise counsel. I would in no way want to diminish the faith of another person. His books are being read by the general public and I assume that we will soon find ourselves in conversations with people who have read or heard about the things he discusses in the books, not unlike the Da Vinci code phenomena. I complement both of you for your thoughtful posts, and the scriptural references you each offered. I often think of Proverbs 3:5,6 in this context as you mentioned. You both made excellent points, very helpful as we consider these challenges. If anyone has had a chance to read Brinsmead's article I would appreciate hearing your comments. There are issues in the scriptures and about the scriptures that are still unresolved in my own thinking. I don't mention this from a position of pride or to argue or to cause grief to others, but it's somewhat of a struggle for me. In a sentence, the best I've been able to come up with is that even with the unresolved issues, God knows the scriptures we hold in our hands, and He will guide us by His Spirit. This is not a trite comment. I really believe it. Bob |
Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1789 Registered: 10-2004
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 12:06 pm: | |
Also, Colleen, the SDAs ignore the fact that no one criticizes EGW for "plagiarizing" Scripture (except for her twisting/changing it)--only for her copying of non-Scriptural books. They have absolutely no argument when they try to use the fact that Biblical writers quoted Biblical writers! Jeremy |
Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 225 Registered: 1-2004
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 12:32 pm: | |
From the Wikipedia article;
"Much of Ehrman's writing has concentrated on various aspects of Walter Bauer's thesis that Christianity was always diversified or at odds with itself. Ehrman is often considered a pioneer in connecting the history of the early church to textual variants within biblical manuscripts and in coining such terms as "Proto-orthodox Christianity." In his writings, Ehrman has turned around textual criticism. From the time of the Church Fathers, it was the heretics (Marcion, for example) that were charged with tampering with the biblical manuscripts. Ehrman theorizes that it was more often the Orthodox that "corrupted" the manuscripts, altering the text to promote particular viewpoints. His scholarly output is extensive. He has authored or contributed to nineteen books." My viewpoint is now that there actually was such a thing as unity in early Christianity and that part of what's wrong with Ehrman's view is his trying to disunify early Christianity. Divide and conquer. I tend to take people like St Irenaeus seriously when they say that the catholic Church throughout the world in their time taught the same gospel and practiced the same things in every place. This viewpoint is re-enforced in my mind when I see the same things being taught and practiced in my church today as way back then. The unity through time and distance is a testimony to Christ having preserved his Church. Jeremiah |
Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 5827 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 4:33 pm: | |
Bob, I just read the Brinsmead article, and I agree with his point that people have made a god out of the Scriptures by seeing them as a static "handbook" or history or instruction manual. Jesus Himself chastised the Pharisees, saying they studied the Scriptures thinking that by them they would possess eternal life, but they testify of Him, and they refused to come to Him (John 5:39-40). I disagree with his conclusions, however. He raised nine questions to challenge “the spirit of biblical absolutism”. His first question is this: “On the even of His departure, why did not Jesus comfort his disciples by telling them that the written text of Holy Scripture would take his place and reveal to them everything they needed to know?” This question is a “straw-man argument”. First, the OT Scriptures which existed then pointed toward Jesus, so clearly He was the realization of all that had previously been written. Second, Jesus told them that the Holy Spirit would come and teach them all things. They themselves and the earliest converts would participate in finishing the Scriptures as God revealed the establishment of the New Covenant. Then, in Hebrews 1:2, the author declares that in the past God spoke through prophets, but “in these last days He has spoken to us through His Son, whom he appointed heir of al things…” Those who actually saw Jesus were the ones equipped to establish the church and preserve Jesus’ teachings. No subsequent generations are equipped to transmit the events and teachings of Jesus’ life. The original apostles were unique in their assignment and witness; they, including Paul, were personally taught by God to carry the gospel to the world. The NT books were written by either these eyewitnesses or by people who worked with them. (The book of Mark, for example, is thought to be Peter’s gospel recorded by Mark.) As Rick Langer explains in his article in the forthcoming May/June Proclamation!, Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. His church is built on the “faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). This faith given to the apostles is recorded in the NT, and without this foundation, there would be no standard for belief and practice. Brinsmead’s argument that in the OT there was tension between the priests and the prophets is just not substantiated in the Biblical text. To be sure, the prophets repeatedly came with warnings the apostate Israelites hated, but the prophets’ warnings were not born out of the cultures’ needs and changes. They were born out of God’s eternal expectations. The prophets’ messages were never “new information”. They always reflected warnings and promises that reflected the covenant promises and conditions God had given the nation through Abraham, Moses, David, and later Jeremiah and Ezekiel as they prophesied the new covenant. Further, the law was always the focus and measure of Israel’s obedience and success. Long before Ezra codified the OT, the Torah gave the command that whenever a new king of Israel took the throne, he was to “write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law…” (Deut. 17:18-19). No, Ezra was not the one who established the consistency of the law. Moreover, God did expect the prophets who wrote books to write His messages. Elijah and Elisha are the only prophets who were not writing prophets. Jeremiah, for example, was specifically instructed to have his scribe write his prophecies on a scroll, and when the angry king burned that scroll, God instructed Jeremiah to write it out again. Ultimately, as Wayne Grudem says in Bible Doctrines p. 36, our conviction that the words of Scripture are God’s words “comes only when the Holy Spirit speaks in and through the words of the Bible to our hearts…” We have to take the Bible’s words of self-authenticity at face value, or we have NO ground of truth. But we don’t have only the Bible’s words about itself; we have the core confessions of the church verifying the NT, and the NT itself verifies and shows the fulfillment of the OT. And the Holy Spirit confirms the truth of Scripture. The Author of the Bible confirms His own words to us when He indwells us. Bob, I recommend that you read the first two chapters in Wayne Grudem’s “Systematic Theology or its condensed version, “Bible Doctrines.” He clearly and sequentially deals with the arguments against Scriptures inerrancy and shows how or experience of knowing Jesus is supported and grounded in God’s words to us in the Bible. Colleen |
Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1065 Registered: 4-2000
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 6:16 pm: | |
Good points, Jeremiah! |
Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj
Post Number: 157 Registered: 1-2006
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 7:03 pm: | |
River I just re-read your post 159, above. Thank you for including me in your prayer. I really appreciated your post. Colleen and Jeremiah Thank you for the fine posts, above. I will read Grudem as you have suggested. The next Proclamation should be very interesting. Thanks again to both of you for your responses. I sincerely appreciate your perspectives on this topic. I have other questions I'd like to ask about the subtle differences in the gospel to the gentiles and the gospel to the jews, but I'm still doing some background reading, and we've already discussed this briefly. My questions center around eternal security, but I need more time. Bob |
|