Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 60:
Line 60: + + Line 107:
Line 109: + +
Talk:Essay:Adulteress Story (view source)
Revision as of 21:07, April 8, 2008
, 21:07, April 8, 2008replies
:I am unfamiliar with these other scholars, but Bruce Metzger was one of the most well known conservative biblical scholars of the 20th century. He was certainly no liberal. I do not see how the fact that their interpretation of the origin of the story directly equates to whether they like the story or not - there is no room for personal opinion or likes in sound biblical exegesis. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:49, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:I am unfamiliar with these other scholars, but Bruce Metzger was one of the most well known conservative biblical scholars of the 20th century. He was certainly no liberal. I do not see how the fact that their interpretation of the origin of the story directly equates to whether they like the story or not - there is no room for personal opinion or likes in sound biblical exegesis. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:49, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:: I'm not aware that Bruce Metzger was a [[conservative]], though he may have rejected [[professor values]] of his academic colleagues. His reasoning above does not persuade, as there were many "oral traditions" (like the "Gospel of Thomas") that were properly rejected as not authentic. In the case of the adultress story, the hoaxsters (vandals?) were more clever about it, appending or inserting it into an authentic work. It is analogous to clever vandalism on wikis today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
== What Constitutes Gospel? ==
== What Constitutes Gospel? ==
:::::Another thought is that Aschlafly may be on to something here. If the Bible has these fabrications and additions that were added in later, maybe we need to carefully examine the veracity of much of the Bible.--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 15:41, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Another thought is that Aschlafly may be on to something here. If the Bible has these fabrications and additions that were added in later, maybe we need to carefully examine the veracity of much of the Bible.--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 15:41, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: If that's your view, then you won't be relying on anything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
== Inspired Word of God or Not ==
== Inspired Word of God or Not ==