4
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − [[Biblical criticism]] is any examination of the [[Bible]] for accuracy, authenticity, authorship, dating, or anything else that bears on the Bible's reliability as a [[history|historical]] source against which one might legitimately judge other sources.+ − + − The traditions of the last century or more have divided Biblical criticism into two main areas, called the ''higher'' and the ''lower''. While the ''lower'' criticism (including textual criticism) deals with the provenance of the text and the faithfulness of the present text to the (unhappily) lost originals, the ''higher'' criticism deals with the heart of the Bible itself: whether it is, in fact, historical, and if not, exactly how ought one to read it.+ − + − == Higher criticism ==+ − The ''higher'' or ''historical criticism'' of the [[Bible]] (not the criticism of the Bible ''throughout'' history, but rather the criticism of the Bible ''as'' history) deals with whether the Bible is, or is not, a valid source of history. The German higher critic Johann Gottfried Eichhorn coined the term.<ref name=CathEn>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04491c.htm Biblical criticism (higher)] in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908)</ref>+ − + − Higher criticism asks whether the Bible is consistent with extra-Biblical [[Archaeology|archaeological]] finds and with what is known of the [[language]]s in which it was written. Inevitably higher criticism must face squarely the question of whether Divine inspiration exists or not, and whether supernatural causes or events are admissible or not. These can only be presupposition. For that reason, at least two divergent schools of thought have always existed in higher criticism. Their differences are irreconcilable, because one school believes that anything supernatural is to be rejected out-of-hand, and the other school is not so sure of that. These "non-rationalistic" thinkers tend to divide between [[Protestant]] and [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] schools of thought. Higher criticism ''also'' claims to examine the internal evidence of the Bible and whether certain parts of the Bible are properly consistent with other parts.+ − + − The combined problems detailed above militate against the various schools of thought ever agreeing on common principles or rules of evidence--a situation quite similar to that prevailing in the debate between [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] and [[creation]].+ − + − + − Arguably the first person to use the Bible seriously as a historical document, and to integrate the history it records with other recorded histories, was [[James Ussher]]. His work was so influential that for three and a half centuries most editions of the [[King James Version]] of the Bible carried top-margin dates derived from Ussher's magnum opus, [[The Annals of the World]].+ − + − The Catholic Encyclopedia includes<ref name=CathEn/> an excellent treatment of the full state of higher criticism until 1908. It shows that higher criticism, as such, began earlier than the Enlightenment. The [[Constantine]]-era bishop [[Origen]] holding, for example, that [[Paul]] was not the same man who wrote the Epistle to the [[Hebrews (book)|Hebrews]]. Origen's student [[Dionysius]] held on linguistic grounds that the man calling himself "John" who wrote [[Revelation]] was not the same man as the [[Apostle]] named [[John]]. Higher criticism contemporary to Ussher explored such questions as whether [[Moses]] was the true author of the first five books of the Bible, called the "Books of Moses" in the [[King James Version]].+ − + − Then in the early nineteenth century a group of [[France|French]] and [[Germany|German]] scholars began to test the Bible against other historical documents and [[Archaeology|archaeological]] finds. They drew their inspiration from the [[Rationalism|Rationalist]] school of philosophy and other schools of thought that developed during the [[Enlightenment]] period. But at that point the criticism of the [[Old Testament]] and the [[New Testament]] tended to have vastly different emphases, with Old Testament criticism centering on questions of language and competing historical records, and New Testament criticism directly attacking the Divinity of its Central Character, [[Jesus Christ]], and the authenticities of the various Letters of [[Paul]] and the general epistles of [[John]], [[James]], and others.+ − + − The claims made in the field of [[Assyrian chronology]], and specifically as regards alleged synchronies between [[Assyria]]n rulers and certain kings of the [[Northern Kingdom]], became popular toward the end of the nineteenth century. This is the criticism that informed [[Edwin R. Thiele]]'s thesis that the writers of the Kings and Chronicles books used reign synchronies and lengths that were incomplete.+ − + − + − Modern higher criticism (since 1908) is informed chiefly by the principle of [[atheism]]--the proposition that no such Person or Thing as [[God]] exists. By no coincidence, [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]], one of the most prominent higher critics in the German school, was one of the two major philosophers (the other was [[Immanuel Kant]]) who provided the greatest influences on [[Karl Marx]], the originator of [[Communism]]. The no-God principle received further impetus in more modern times from [[Friedrich Nietzsche]], who famously said that "[[God]] is dead."+ − + − Since then, most higher-critical efforts have been directed at destroying the foundations, not only of the Divinity of Christ, but also of the story of the creation of the world. This is the intellectual environment that allowed the widespread acceptance of the theory of [[evolution]] and all its corollaries, even by churches. Yet not all who reject the original creation story, as stated, are evolutionists. [[Old earth creationism]] takes as its central premise that the Biblical account, while not literal, has an enduring symbolic importance--and that in any case, classical Darwinian evolution cannot adequately explain the "first causes" of the universe or of life.+ − + − In 1994, a group of forthright atheists started the Journal of Higher Criticism<ref name=JHC>[http://www.atheistalliance.org/jhc/index.htm Journal of Higher Criticism] at the Atheist Alliance. Has multiple additional links.</ref> and billed it as "a forthright attempt - in a time of scholarly neo-conservatism - to hark back to the bold historical hypotheses and critical interpretations associated with the great names of F. C. Baur and Tübingen." The phrase "scholarly neo-conservatism" is probably an attempt to link an apparent renewal of belief in [[God]] with a resurgence of ''political'' conservatism in the [[United States]] that culminated in a sharp reversal-of-fortunes of the two major political parties in the Federal Election of 1994. This Journal ceased publication in 2003, but the original site is still an active domain and has a recent (2007) copyright notice.+ − + − + − The ''lower'' or ''textual'' criticism of the [[Bible]] starts with the premise that the Bible ''is'' reliable history. Unhappily, none of the original [[Hebrew]] texts of the [[Old Testament]] remain. (Even the [[Dead Sea scrolls]] do not qualify, though they come close.) The situation with the [[New Testament]] is arguably worse, in that no agreement has been possible as to which of the many manuscripts of various New Testament books is actually original. Hence, textual criticism strives to determine which copies of the Old Testament are the most faithful to the original, and which manuscripts of the New Testament are either original (if such can ever be found) or at least faithful and correct.<ref name=CathEnNT>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04497a.htm Biblical criticism (textual)] in the Catholic Encyclopedia</ref>+ − + − − Again, possibly the first person to undertake any form of textual criticism for a practical reason was [[James Ussher]]. He needed a reliable text to serve as an anchor for a unified treatment of ancient history. Ussher rejected the [[Septuagint]] for various reasons, chief among which was that the Septuagint was a translation into a language foreign to that in which the originals were written, and that the translation was a work by consensus. (Its very name, which translates as ''Interpretation According to the Seventy'', so indicates.) Ussher selected the [[Masoretic Text]], which was an attempt by second-century [[Hebrew]] scholars to reproduce a text in its original language. − − In addition to Ussher, the Royal Commission on Bible Translation, in the reign of King [[James I]] of [[United Kingdom|Great Britain]], had to determine a proper text from which to produce a translation of the Bible into [[English]]. They worked largely from the Masoretic Text, but consulted the Septuagint occasionally when the meaning of the Hebrew was difficult to discern. − − Textual criticism gained new impetus in the nineteenth century with the work of Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. The questions they have raised remain today the subject of great and often bitter controversy. − − − No modern scholar claims to have original texts of Old Testament books. [[Ptolemy II Philadelphus]] had them translated into the [[Greece|Greek]] of his day to produce the famous [[Septuagint]] at the [[Great Library of Alexandria]]. What happened to the originals from which the Seventy Interpreters worked has never been established. Tragically, much of the collections of the Great Library were lost in one or more fires that struck the Library at various times in its history. As a result, the New Testament writers quote the Septuagint, because that was all that was available. − − The Masoretes would later correct that lack with their production of the [[Masoretic Text]]. That text remained for centuries the best extant [[Hebrew]] copy of the Old Testament. However, this text proved quite vulnerable to higher critics who doubted the authenticity or the dating of some of its books. Chief among these was the book of [[Daniel]], which some alleged to have been written after the fact. − − In 1947, in the midst of the War for the Independence of the Republic of [[Israel]], came the discovery, at [[Qumran]], of the [[Dead Sea scrolls]]. These scrolls have largely backed up the Masoretic Text, with rare exception. − − Among the principles that aided the Masoretes (and presumably the [[Essene]] scribes who wrote the Dead Sea scrolls) was the elaborate procedures that the original scribes had used. This included checksumming of each line and the insistence that the making of a single mistake required throwing out the entire scroll and starting over.<ref name=Williams>Williams, Fred, [http://www.bibleevidences.com/transmission.htm Meticulous Care in the Transmission of the Bible], retrieved March 25, 2007</ref> − − − The situation with the New Testament is much less settled, because no checksumming was ever done with any manuscript of any of its books. In 1611, King James' Royal Commission had available to it a [[Majority Text]], which may or may not be the same as the [[Textus Receptus]], of manuscripts of which more copies existed than any others. This largely included the [[Byzantine Text]] family of manuscript copies that, strikingly, seem to agree in every particular with one another. − − But Westcott and Hort pointed out the existence of many more manuscripts, including the [[Codex Alexandrinus]] and the [[Codex Sinaiticus]], that disagree with the Majority Text in many key areas. Among the points of disagreement are: − − * The authenticity of the ''Pericopa Adultura''<ref>{{Bible ref|book=John|chap=8|verses=1-11|version=NIV}}</ref> − * The person of the verb endings used in the Song of the Twenty-four Elders<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=5|verses=9-10|version=KJV}}</ref><ref>{{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=5|verses=9-10|version=NIV}}</ref> − * The true length of the Gospel According to [[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] − − The reception of Westcott and Hort's has varied from cordial to hostile.<ref>[http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Topics/Bible/Bible_Reliability.html The Reliability of the Bible Texts] at FoundationsforFreedom.net</ref> Many Bible defenders roundly condemn New Testament textual criticism, because they see in it the same kind of compromise of the truth that they decry on the part of the ''higher'' critics. This led the writers of the Catholic Encyclopedia, in 1908, to despair of ever having a fully reliable New Testament in the [[Greek]] language of its original authorship. − − == Footnotes == − <references/> − − == Additional References == − − − − − == See Also == − * [[Atheism]] − − == Dual-user Provenance == − This is a dual submission of a work of sole authorship. I am the same person as User:Temlakos on CreationWiki and this article is based on [http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Biblical_criticism&oldid=80038 this version] of the [[CreationWiki]] article, which is entirely my work. − − [[Category:Bible]] − [[Category:Bible study]] − [[Category:Philosophy]]
no edit summary
'''Final Fantasy VII''' is a best selling RPG for the Sony Playstation. Despite being a best seller the game is filled with highly offensive material. For one it features a hockey team named the AVALANCHE who are also a terrorist group. They blow up a coal power plant but justify it by saying they are helping the environment. The game is also filled with profanity especially from Cid and Barrett (who bears a strong resemblence to Mr. T). The game was also critcized harshly because of the sexual liasons of the main character Cloud Strife. He has relations with three girls in the course of the game including a 16 year old Japenese girl named Yuffie.
==Characters==
===Cloud===
The main protagonist of the game. Once a member of the US marines, now heads an eco-terrorist group called Avalanche
===Barrett (aka Mr. T)===
An African-American man who is second in command in Avalanche to Cloud. Has an adopted white daughter named Marlene. Shows love and affection to her, one of the few redeeming qualities of this highly offensive game.
===Tifa===
Cloud's gf from his childhood. Flashbacks show Tifa and Cloud engaging in sexual acts as early as age 12. This part of the game as been highly criticized
===Aeris===
Another one of Cloud's love interests. Cloud steals Aeris' virginity. To be fair though, Cloud does show genuine affection towards her and becomes extremely upset when she is brutally murdered by Sephiroth.
===Cid Jefferson===
=== History of higher criticism ===
Owner of the Jefferson Airplane, an aircraft you can use to fly all over the world. Joins your group after he is offered a night with Yuffie and a 12 pack of Blue.
===Vince the Pince===
A mysterious man who has been locked in the Shinra mansion in Nibelheim for 30 years. He has been crygenically frozen so he still resembes a 27 year old man. Shoots people with his Colt 45.
===Cait Sith===
A puppett controlled by a 40 year old virgin who works in an office in Midgar. Turns out to be a mole for Shinra but later joins the cause of AVALANCHE
===Yuffie Kisagari===
An attractive Japenese teenager. She has a passionate affair with Cloud Strife and also has relations with Cid (she only slept with Cid so the crew would get access to the Jefferson Airplane). She was kidnapped and molested by Don Corleone in Tokyo but was rescued before Corleone could have intercourse with her.]
===Red CXIX===
Cloud's pet dog. A loyal companion with a gentle temperment, Red is probably the most moral individual in the game (sad to say because he is not even human). He shows affection to all he meets especially children.
=== Current state of higher criticism ===
===Sephiroth===
A highly dangerous psychopath with superhuman strength. He is also a leader of a dangerous cult known as Jenova's Witnesses. He is the main antagonist of the game and brutally murders Aeris in the Canadian Rockies.
==Criticisms==
Although from a commercial standpoint Final Fantasy VII was highly successful, it has been criticized by a variety of both liberal and conservative groups including Christian groups, women's groups, and minority groups.
===Christian Criticisms===
Although the game does not mock Christianity or make any references to God or Jesus, the game does violate Christian values. On one hand, Cloud does show genuine affection to his friends and lovers and Barrett is shown to have a good relationship to his daughter but the game is fraught with moral relativism. The protagonists of the game are eco-terrorists who although their cause may be noble, their methods are brutal and repugnant and their actions kill innocent civilians. Although their renounce terror later in the game, this does not excuse their actions. Also sex is trivalized in the game. Instead of being the ultimate act of intimacy between a man and his wife; Cloud has relations with three unmarried young women, one of whom is still a teenager. Although the acts were depicted as consensual, this does not send a good message to young impressionable children and teens.
===Women's Rights Group Criticisms===
== Textual criticism ==
Ironically, many women's rights groups share some of the same complaints as Christian groups. Despite often being at odds with each other, feminists and Christians find some common ground in their opposition to this game. Women's groups find the way sex is trivalized to be highly offensive as well as the fact that the girls in the game are sometimes treated as sex objects by the other characters. The fact that a 16 year old is depicted in sexual acts with an older man (Cloud is 21 years old) has also been harshly criticized.
===Minority Rights Group Criticisms===
Both Japanese and African-American groups have been highly outraged by the stereotypical portrayal of Japenase and African American characters. Barrett is depicted as loud, hot-headed and prone to violence, reinforcing the stereotype of black gang members. Yuffie is portrayed as a nymphomaniac which perpetuates the stereotype that Japanese women are merely the playthings of Western men.
=== History of textual criticism ===
==== The Old Testament ====
==== The New Testament ====