DECONSTRUCTION - How far is too far?

[CadyandZoe]

Wow. These are some GREAT questions. Thanks for engaging on this subject.

I didn't invent the term. I discovered it.
An internet search brings up tons of results. Especially YouTube.

I asked you what YOU meant by it.

It is called deconstruction because it is about taking apart and re-examining the beliefs we received from the church.

What does it mean to take apart a belief? Why not tell it like it is?

Yes. For me it was the hell doctrine.

What about the hell doctrine? Hell is a Biblical doctrine.

Others have their own "sticking" points. Something doesn't add up.

No, no... not despise, nor dismiss.
I wanted to give you a sense of where I am in my Christian maturity.
Too much information would seem like bragging.
My "yawn" was meant as humor.

Most Christians bristtle at the term "Agnostic".

I wrote:
"I still believe in God, but I have a LOT of questions.
Questions the church doesn't want to hear about."

"I still believe in God" = Theistic
"I have a LOT of questions" = Agnostic

I have a relationship with God.

The church is NOT God. And the Bible is NOT God.
I have a relationship with both, but they are NOT God.

I don't have a problem with God, but I do have problems with both the church and the Bible.

You have a problem with the Bible. So, other than the Bible, where are you getting information about God?

Right. Eat the meat, and spit out the bones.

Biblical inerrancy is a dogmatic presumption.

No, it is either true or it isn't. I believe it is true. If you don't believe the Bible speaks truthfully about the condition of mankind and God's will, then you have nothing to guide you. All you can do is make your own maps. Good luck with that.

It simply isn't true. IMHO

It is true.

I apologize if that is insulting, but plenty has been written on the subject.
Ask any atheist, they'll provide a long list of errors.

I spent many years talking to atheists, I have answered all their questions and objections. What they believed was a contradiction wasn't, in fact, a contradiction.

And honestly, do you know where our Bible came from?
- We don't have the original manuscripts.

Yes, we do. We have the original manuscripts. We can talk about this later if you like.

- We do have fragments of copies of copies of copies...

So what?

- There are vastly differing methods of translation that "guide" the process.
- Even our Bibles (some of) have footnotes providing alternative readings.
- The western/Latin Church that provided us with the Bible had their
own doctrinal biases and politics involved,
- The books in the canon (at least three of them) were voted in or out.
- Which canon is inerrant?

Much more to say about all this. Thanks for your questions.

This topic addresses biblical inerrancy from the view of Bible translation.

Debunking the the Doctrine of Preservation

Quoted from The Berean Patriot article titled, Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101 Source link provided at the bottom of this post. I'll have to split this into several posts to fit the maximum allowed post size...

www.christianityboard.com

Not interested. That is 40 miles of bad road. I choose to waste my time no longer.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

We have the original manuscripts.

I am interested; please explain.

 

[St. SteVen]

I am interested; please explain.

Quotation below taken from this article.
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

Notice the definition says that Textual Criticism is only needed when
the "original (the autograph) is unknown or non-existent". This is where our Bible came from.
We do not have the original manuscripts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What is Textual Criticism?​

Here is an excellent definition of Textual Criticism from Dan Wallace, who is one of the most respected Textual Critics in the world today.

Textual Criticism is:

The study of the copies of a written document whose original (the autograph) is unknown or non-existent, for the primary purpose of determining the exact wording of the original.
Source.

Source link:

The practice of Textual Criticism is not “criticizing the Bible“, it’s trying to recover the Bible’s original text. A “textual critic” is not someone who criticizes the Bible, but someone who tries their best to reconstruct the original text.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise, but we don’t have the original documents that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and other New Testament writers wrote. They were originally written on either papyrus (essentially paper) or possibly parchment (animal skins) which have long since degraded with time and use. However, the originals were copied many, many times. Those copies were copied, which were copied, which were copied, which were…

Well, you get the idea.

 

[St. SteVen]

Not interested. That is 40 miles of bad road. I choose to waste my time no longer.

This actually proves my point. Right on cue. Good work.
If I don't play by your rules, you walk away.
Don't forget to shake the dust off your sandals.

 

[St. SteVen]

CadyandZoe said:
We have the original manuscripts.

I am interested; please explain.

He can't explain honestly.
We do NOT have the original manuscripts. PERIOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The closest thing we have to "original" manuscripts are the Alexandrian texts.
Reason being, that Egypt is such a dry climate that the "copies" (of copies of copies...)
survived best due to the climate conditions.

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

There are three major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism”, and you can consider this a complete Textual Criticism 101 article...

www.bereanpatriot.com

 

[CadyandZoe]

This actually proves my point. Right on cue. Good work.
If I don't play by your rules, you walk away.
Don't forget to shake the dust off your sandals.

Why do you disrespect me this way?

 

[CadyandZoe]

I am interested; please explain.

The original manuscripts are called "the autographs," indicating the documents written in the author's handwriting. As far as I know, we don't have the original autographs. What we have, though, are thousands of copies. And from these copies, scholars are able to reconstruct what the autographs must have read.

And as we would expect, the copies contain various "readings" one from another. These are called "variants." There are thousands of variants, but Biblical scholars have not found a variant that would make a difference with regard to doctrine. For instance, one text might say, "Jesus Christ our Lord." Another text might say, "Our Lord Jesus Christ." This counts as a variant, but the difference in word order makes no difference concerning meaning.

Out of all the variants, only one or two of these variants are studied and debated. Going by memory, I can only recall what Scholars call the "Johannine Comma," found in 1 John 5:7-8. The KJV has gotten it wrong. I believe there is one more, but I can't remember it off the top of my head.

So then, we have only one or two disputed readings out of the thousands of manuscripts and variants. Our Bible is a clear and unambiguous record of the apostles and prophets. And we can trust what the Bible says about the human condition and the will of God.

 

[CadyandZoe]

CadyandZoe said:
We have the original manuscripts.

He can't explain honestly.
We do NOT have the original manuscripts. PERIOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have original manuscripts. What we don't have are autographs.

I get it, you found out that some things you once believed are not actually true. But I suspect that those beliefs were religious believes and not rational beliefs. If deconstructing Christianity is beneficial at all, the process will result in the elimination of religious beliefs in favor of rational beliefs.

What you held were "religious" beliefs. What is a "religious belief"? A religious belief is nothing more but nothing less than a tenet held by those with membership in a particular religion. For one to maintain one's membership in a specific religion, one must affirm the particular set of tenets, which define the religion as a unique "belief system." Religious beliefs are taken "on faith" and are not subject to critical examination. One did not arrive at a religious belief through rational thought, so one will not abandon a religious belief in light of rational thought.

But sometimes religious beliefs don't work in the real world, which causes one to doubt whether the tenet is indeed true. Depending on the belief, this can lead to a crisis of faith. And if apostasy is the result, may it be a rejection of religion, not a rejection of Jesus Christ.

Rational beliefs, on the other hand, are verities that one affirms having examined all the available proofs and evidence. Rational beliefs are subject to critical examination, and those who hold rational beliefs are willing to reexamine a belief upon receipt of new proof and evidence. A Christian tenet obtained by reason and sound argument will stand.

Many of those who grow up in church adopt and hold religious beliefs. Children typically follow the religion of their parents. Nonetheless, according to the New Testament, God puts faith to the test, and in the process, some of our religious beliefs fall by the wayside. In contrast, others are affirmed, becoming rational beliefs.

I caution you against adopting the religious beliefs of the enemies of the gospel. Arguments against a sound Bible are subject to critical examination also. And I have critically examined these questions myself and I am confident that we have a reliable record of the apostles and prophets. That is, I am convinced in my own mind. I don't expect you to accept my word for it.

The closest thing we have to "original" manuscripts are the Alexandrian texts.
Reason being, that Egypt is such a dry climate that the "copies" (of copies of copies...)
survived best due to the climate conditions.

This isn't true. The dryness of the climate accounts for the number of extant manuscripts discovered by Biblical archeologists. It means nothing with regard to authenticity.

Coherence of thought is a better "ruler" with regard to authenticity.

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
This actually proves my point. Right on cue. Good work.
If I don't play by your rules, you walk away.
Don't forget to shake the dust off your sandals.

Why do you disrespect me this way?

Where's the disrespect?
You already wrote that you don't want to waste any more time on me.
Proves my point.

 

[marks]

Like: Who really "wrote" the books of Moses?

Perfect example! The Bible says that Moses wrote the first five books, why do you not believe that?

It seems to me that your "deconstruction" is nothing more than subjecting the Bible to faulty human reasonings to undermine what it teaches.

Much love!

 

[St. SteVen]

Perfect example! The Bible says that Moses wrote the first five books, why do you not believe that?

This is a very controversial subject.
The Bible confirms that Moses wrote the first five books, but there are many questions about this.

It seems to me that your "deconstruction" is nothing more than subjecting the Bible to faulty human reasonings to undermine what it teaches.

Are all "human reasonings" faulty?

Example:
Jesus taught us to love our enemies. This is godly behavior.
What should God do with his enemies then?
Does he hold us to a higher standard than he holds himself to?

 

[marks]

This is a very controversial subject.
The Bible confirms that Moses wrote the first five books, but there are many questions about this.

You acknowledge truth in the former part of your sentence, and deny it in the latter part.

Are all "human reasonings" faulty?

Example:
Jesus taught us to love our enemies. This is godly behavior.
What should God do with his enemies then?
Does he hold us to a higher standard than he holds himself to?

Yes, this is one of your arguments for universalism. This arises from faulty human reasoning. As if you somehow have greater knowledge and understanding, and with it moral superiority over God Himself.

Do you think there is a righteous standard that exists outside of God, that He is to be measured against?

Much love!

 

[St. SteVen]

Do you think there is a righteous standard that exists outside of God, that He is to be measured against?

Would you expect that God would be MORE or LESS righteous than what expects from us?

God expects us to love our enemies. Is it MORE righteous for him to incinerate his own enemies?
Somehow incinerating humans seems wrong. How come?

 

[marks]

Would you expect that God would be MORE or LESS righteous than what expects from us?

God expects us to love our enemies. Is it MORE righteous for him to incinerate his own enemies?
Somehow incinerating humans seems wrong. How come?

It's wrong for you to do. That's how come.

Two men each order the execution of two criminals. One is right to do so, the other is wrong to do so. What is the difference between them?

Much love!

 

[St. SteVen]

It's wrong for you to do. That's how come.

Doesn't that make right and wrong relative?

Two men each order the execution of two criminals. One is right to do so, the other is wrong to do so. What is the difference between them?

Pray tell. Thanks.

 

[marks]

Doesn't that make right and wrong relative?

No, it means there is a standard, and you are not the judge.

Pray tell. Thanks.

One of them IS the judge.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Do you think there is a righteous standard that exists outside of God, that He is to be measured against?

@St. SteVen

 

[face2face]

Example:
Jesus taught us to love our enemies. This is godly behavior.
What should God do with his enemies then?
Does he hold us to a higher standard than he holds himself to?

This is funny - had a chuckle St. SteVen thank you!

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? Romans 9:21

Can you see the irony in your questions?

 

[St. SteVen]

Do you think there is a righteous standard that exists outside of God, that He is to be measured against?

No.
If God is righteous, he should measure up to his own standard. The SAME standard he gave us.
If God's standard for himself differs from the one he gave us, it should be a HIGHER standard, NOT a LOWER standard.
If he doesn't even measure up to the standard he gave us, something is terribly wrong.

 

[face2face]

Example:
Jesus taught us to love our enemies. This is godly behavior.
What should God do with his enemies then?
Does he hold us to a higher standard than he holds himself to?

But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” 1 Sam 16"7

How does that make you feel St SteVen? Knowing no matter how hard you try, or how cleverly you devise perplexing questions, you will never be able to see as He does?

You see, the atheist shrugs this off in unbelief and is happy to say in his heart "there is no God", while others strain their minds upwards to obtain just a single thought of His, still knowing His ways are so much Higher than theirs.

The intent of such questions holds a certain arrogance, that one believes He can be caught out, to be found to be unjust.

It's not a wonder he sits and laughs at our foolishness.

F2F