The Truth Of The Bible.

[Theland]

Only the bible describes the state of the world as we head into the End Times.
Only the bible has verifiable prophecies that can be tested for truth.
Is it not time to take the bible seriously?

[Khandro]

Peter; I read the tale quite recently in the LRB I think but can't find it was part of a review in the philosophy section of a book on ethics. It was I who personalised it introducing a religious aspect & turned it into a question for naomi.

I think the nail rippers recruited Hampshire because he spoke the lingo not because they were shy, I don't have details, but I think it might have been German, which as a philosopher he would probably speak.

[naomi24]

PP, your imagination is getting the better of you again. I know it’s a struggle for you but do try to get a grip on reality.

[Khandro]

I have searched my waste-paper collection box & found the article, it is written in the first person by Thomas Nagel. It's entitled 'Types of Intuition', (London Review of Books, 3 June), but it isn't a book review it's an essay & has nothing particularly to do with religion as I've already said I added that dimension. I see now it can even be read online:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n11/thomas-nagel/types-of-intuition

[piggynose]

canary why did you stop at 300+No´s?

[mibn2cweus]

316 - For God so loved the world...

[vulcan42]

Theland, seeing as how you are reluctant to answer my question at 14:15 yesterday, perhaps you can answer two easier ones. What are the evils deemed good and who decided this was happening?

[Peter Pedant]

Mibbo - to complete John 3 16

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

what is John doing in an intense discussion of ripping out the finger nails of a collabo in 1944 ?

anyway - anyone remember the Credo letter - Elliott - saturday times on the NT and er the Truth of the bible ? Prof Elliott spoke from his throne of text criticism , the NT where did it come from and where did it go to?
and today boys and girls
I have transcribed Rev Angry's riposte ( geddit French - see above)

[Peter Pedant]

the letter in the Times today said: Bible Studies

Dear Sir, Keith Elliott writes about the debate over the exclusive authority of the New Testament (credo letters). Christians believe that canonical scripture was established under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That some books entered the canon 'by the skin of their teeth' is immaterial. "Contradictions and equivocations" so called, only stem from difference people's spiritual experience of the same event. That has an in inclusive and not conradictory ,effect. Biblical textual criticism is largely a matter of opinion which is in a state of constant flux. It is a reasoned academic discipline which examines scripture from what can only describe as a humanistic point of view. Christian faith rests on a different foundation altogether

Prof Elliott is to be applauded for highlighting the sin of quoting the Bible out of context to substantiate perceived problems. To a Christian, the bible holds together in an astonishingly reliable fashion.Peter Robinson Leeds

Bishops hitting each other with their mitres or something
anyway it sums up Theland's view quite well
and I thought you wd be interested

[Peter Pedant]

thx khandro
I am going to have to read it a few times

[Theland]

Thank you Khandro.
Its good to see somebody competent and sharing the work.

[naomi24]

There you go again, Theland. The work. Who appointed you?

[Canary42]

/// canary why did you stop at 300+No´s?///

I finally got the chewing gum off the keyboard ;-D

[Theland]

Naomi read your bible.

[Theland]

Vulcan @ 14:15 :-

[Theland]

Yes I am saying that.

[Theland]

Vulcan - this topsy turvey world has gotten good and evil mixed up.
That is my assertion.

[vulcan42]

Theland , that may be your assertion, it doesn't answer the questions.
You constantly state you will answer any question so answer what is asked not just what you want to say.
Regarding the letter by Keith Elliott, since when has it become a sin to quote the bible?
\\ It is a reasoned academic discipline which examines scripture from what can only describe as a humanistic point of view. Christian faith rests on a different foundation altogether//
I love this bit, it's suggesting Christians aren't human.

[Peter Pedant]

hi vulco - er ys - and no

1. the original is a piece on Saturday ( behind a pay wall and quite long) by Keith Elliott who is a prof of theology ( subdivision Text criticism) . And he gave quite a good go in the article of 'the usual'.
a.John evangelist isnt John letters ( completely different style)
b. some letters by Paul are lost - others are pastoral and different to personal. There is an order of compo - clearly he didnt write all at the same time
c Jude and Timothy are late -
nothing really to write home about

I wd agree - these were written by men ( and not rita skeeta) - We used to pick papyri out of the sand and say - "my god psalm 47 !" - so I fully subscribe to - - written by man, inspired by God

then today - there was a letter from Revd Angry which I copied because 1. it was hot 2. once one has read a one liner - "foo what date den" for the 500th time, a revd angry letter is more interesting. Very keen on divine inspiration.

which I regarded as mainstream theland - big on the Holy Spirit driving the reed ( calamus scriptorius)

and yes Revd Angry did use and the Times did print - - humanistic

Revd Angry is the one who says it is a sin to misquote the bible wit an intent to deceive. I wd agree.
you know: the psalms - there is no God whereas the full quote is
"the fool says there is no God" - school boy or now AB poo-poo.

[Peter Pedant]

oh
Letters precede the gospels - I hadnt really got that. So Pauls letters are nearer to the action than the gospels - if you subscribe to the view that the nearest reporter is more likely to be true adn therefore more worth reading

Mt and Lk knew of mark because they use the events reported but jiggled them around ( Marcan priority ) - so whats new, I think Augustine believed that ( 400 AD)

and he didnt even mention 'Q' - oh my God 'Q' ! so nothing earth shattering

so as you can see the article was very writey writey - scribble scribble O saintly one, another damned long gospel to read ! written by men etc
and not much holy holy la la la la la by angels

revd angry clearly more fundamentalist and didnt like it
sola fide as the Romans would say but Mr Angry wd not like that

[naomi24]

Theland, I've read the bible. Who appointed you?