Candida Moss has published an article on new discoveries about who translated, and how they translated, the King James Version.
www.thedailybeast.com/bible-loved-by-christian-fundamentalists-written-using-method-they-hate?
Interesting read. Thanks.
The article references an upcoming book by Nicholas Hardy. I'd certainly be interested in a Logos version.
I'm far from being KJVOnly, but the smarmy tone of the article's intro put me off of whatever the contents are.
...the smarmy tone of the article's intro put me off...
Coming from a KJV-only background, the article is very interesting. And I did not find the intro at all insincere or excessive, although I can understand how KJV-Onlyists might.
I'm sorry, but an article about a historical translation sandwiched between the title, "Daily Beast" and an story about Castro's love child simply has no credibility. I simply can't take it seriously or have any confidence of journalistic integrity.
And FWIW, I'm *not* a fundamentalist and I'm an outspoken critic of KJV-onlyism.
Doc, for the reasons you give, I can understand your hesitation. However, the author is Candida Moss, a very highly respected NT scholar at Notre Dame. So while some might still want to disagree with her conclusions, the article and author definitely have credibility.
I could not have put that better. i am not a KJV Only fan and found it simplistic and patronising to BOTH sides on the KJV Only debate. (And for those in the UK it seemed on a level with the Sun and possibly the Express/Mail on a bad news day).
EDIT So the writer is a respected scholar? The kindest thing I can say is that someone must have heavily edited her article and that it is unlikely to improve her reputation.
Just my impression - the article appears to be designed to have a go at those who hold the King James Bible in high regard (not just KJV Only-ists), those who hold to inerrancy or consider themselves 'fundamentalists'. These are 'dirty words' to a certain section of 'scholarship'. I didn't find the article very balanced. By the way, Casaubon was a respected scholar who could read English - he simply could not speak it well. I also understand he met and had a relationship with several KJ Bible translators, not just the one mentioned. The article might also be taken to suggest the apocrypha was part of the King James Bible, but that was for a short period and thank God it was removed as soon as possible. Keep well Paul
It struck me the same way. I just went back and gave it another read based on Jordan's comments about the author's credentials. The article does contain some very interesting material, but there's still something about the tone that feels off to me. I've been trying to figure out why.
I don't know where her intention was, but it seems to me there are at least three directions an article like this could go in. Most obviously, it could be written as straight-up reporting with some balanced commentary on the potential implications of the new discoveries. It could also be written with the KJVOnly community in mind, to provide information and persuasion that might help them come to a more balanced view. Or it could be written to the non-KJVOnly community, to help them understand the issues involved in the KJVOnly debate.
She did none of the three. It seems clear to me that the KJVOnly community is not the target audience. At the same time, a primary focus of the article seems to be criticizing the KJVOnly view. But there's no effort made to explain the issues involved in that particular debate. So it ends up feeling like a self-congratulatory discussion of how "those guys" just don't get it. I trust that's not how she meant it, but that's how it's coming across to me.
I guess I'm the contra again.
I thought it was great to see where the article landed (the Beast!). I always thought Jesus among the tax harvesters (eating, no less!) must have intensionally destroyed his credibility among the religious ones.
And protestants never really came to grips with the inspired writers using a bad translation.
Maybe someone can help me out, because I'm sure I missed something. The KJV NT is said to agree between 70-80% with the previous work of William Tyndale if I remember correctly. The author doesn't even mention him. Doesn't that seem odd given the subject of the article?
However, the author is Candida Moss, a very highly respected NT scholar at Notre Dame. So while some might still want to disagree with her conclusions, the article and author definitely have credibility.
Dr. Moss is no longer at Notre Dame. She is now the Edward Cadbury Professor of Theology at the University of Birmingham, and her personal life recently made the NYT, presumably with her consent. I don't know whether she still professes to be Catholic, as Wikipedia presently holds. Brief research reveals a track record of dissenting from the teachings of the Catholic Church in important ways.
and an story about Castro's love child
Not what I had - I got "Rod Rosenstein on House GOP Impeachment Threat: I Will Not Be Extorted" ...
have any confidence of journalistic integrity.
Checking a variety of sites, it appears that Daily Beast is considered biased towards the left and highly accurate on their facts.
The article might also be taken to suggest the apocrypha was part of the King James Bible, but that was for a short period and thank God it was removed as soon as possible.
There are exceptions such as in America during the Revolution when paper was scarce, but in England the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals was a matter of law. From a KJV site: "The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D."IIRC 1769 is the approximate date that "unofficial" AV editions were dropping the apocrypha.
I would like to weigh in with a personal opinion. I am motivated not only by this thread but others I've read this past year.
The original post, I thought to be off-topic, but potentially germane to Logos. Having read that article, my takeaway was to watch out for new info or works on this issue, preferably in Logos, if not by some other source.
However, the thread ceases to be useful if posters conduct ad hominems on third party entities not related to Logos. At worst, it could expose Logos to legal liability. At best, it turns the forums into something other than it was intended and drives business away.
[Y]
ad hominems
The article might also be taken to suggest the apocrypha was part of the King James Bible, but that was for a short period and thank God it was removed as soon as possible. There are exceptions such as in America during the Revolution when paper was scarce, but in England the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals was a matter of law. From a KJV site: "The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D."IIRC 1769 is the approximate date that "unofficial" AV editions were dropping the apocrypha.
My understanding is different as I think the apocrypha was removed as soon as possible from the King James Bible. Here's a couple of observations from my Logos library resources:
The first Bible in English to exclude the Apocrypha was the Geneva Bible of 1599. The King James Version of 1611 placed it between the Old and New Testaments. In 1615 Archbishop George Abbot forbade the issuance of Bibles without the Apocrypha, but editions of the King James Version from 1630 on often omitted it from the bound copies. The Geneva Bible edition of 1640 was probably the first to be intentionally printed in England without the Apocrypha, followed in 1642 by the King James Version. In 1644 the Long Parliament actually forbade the public reading of these books, and three years later the Westminster Confession of the Presbyterians decreed them to be no part of the canon. The British and Foreign Bible Society in 1827 resolved never to print or circulate copies containing the Apocrypha. Most English Protestant Bibles in the 20th century have omitted the disputed books or have them as a separate volume, except in library editions, in which they are included with the Old and New Testaments.
Source: Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica – Noet Edition (Chicago, IL: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2016) – See “OT Canon”.
...
The first English Bibles to exclude the Apocrypha were the Wycliffe Bible (1382) and some copies of the Geneva Bible of 1560 published at Geneva in 1599. Translators of the 1611 kjv translated the Apocrypha right along with the canonical books. A few years afterwards Archbishop Abbot issued a decree threatening a year’s imprisonment to any Bible printer deleting the Apocrypha. In 1644, Parliament ordered only canonical books to be read aloud in church, which may have contributed to a more lenient atmosphere for printers of Scripture in the following years.
The first Bibles printed in America in English (1782) did not contain the Apocrypha. In 1826, the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued printing Bibles with the Apocrypha altogether. Among contemporary Protestants only the Anglicans make use of the Apocrypha to any degree.
Source: Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Apocrypha, Old and New Testament,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 129.
It's a fascinating history with apparently long hostility towards the apocrypha being included in the canon by dissenters from Anglicanism. God bless. Paul
...the thread ceases to be useful if posters conduct ad hominems on third party entities not related to Logos. At worst, it could expose Logos to legal liability. At best, it turns the forums into something other than it was intended and drives business away.
I respect your opinion, but this thread is about an article of interest to collectors of Logos resources and some surrounding issues. I'm sure no denigration is intended by those who have contributed. To speak or write freely people must have leeway to express how they feel and nothing written here is beyond the 'likes and dislikes' and 'to and fro' of ordinary forum expression. People's comments also don't have to be 'useful' - though sincerity helps! As for it driving business away, I (at least) have bought many resources from Faithlife, recommended by people on this forum and even some with whom I would profoundly disagree. Have a blessed day. Take care Paul
I respect your opinion
I (at least) have bought many resources from Faithlife, recommended by people on this forum and even some with whom I would profoundly disagree.
[Y][:D]
Archbishop Abbot issued a decree threatening a year’s imprisonment to any Bible printer deleting the Apocrypha.
Ad hominem-ing a little, this well might be the reason Logos Bible Software was delayed 400 years.
Archbishop Abbot issued a decree threatening a year’s imprisonment to any Bible printer deleting the Apocrypha. Ad hominem-ing a little, this well might be the reason Logos Bible Software was delayed 400 years.
You mean....anything outside the canon is simply software....! [;)] Keep well Paul
I read several of her articles. They conform to the click-bait quality of the rest of the Beast site.
Among contemporary Protestants only the Anglicans make use of the Apocrypha to any degree.
Lutherans use it almost as much too. As well as most all Christians on earth.
-dan
Among contemporary Protestants only the Anglicans make use of the Apocrypha to any degree. Lutherans use it almost as much too. As well as most all Christians on earth.
Also note that a number of mainline Protestant churches are moving to the Ecumenical canon of the NRSV (and others) which is the Byzantine Orthodox canon.
Also note that a number of mainline Protestant churches are moving to the Ecumenical canon of the NRSV (and others).
Thanks MJ - Its very possible you are right. Perhaps that's a good reason for believers to stay away from those mainline Protestant churches? If they cannot honour the traditional Protestant canon of Scripture, then nothing is sacred to them. Their adoption of an 'ecumenical canon' might be just another sign of 'falling away' in these last days. Keep well Paul
In the tradition of discussion (and I use the NRSV and guess don't honor guy-dom and the Protestant traditions), it's not clear whether the apocrypha was held very high in the 2nd Temple period. It seems to have survived from its presumed Egyptian roots (LXX). Even Ecclesiasticus is a big question mark. They were still arguing over the prophets and writings.
Perhaps that's a good reason for believers to stay away from those mainline Protestant churches? If they cannot honour the traditional Protestant canon of Scripture, then nothing is sacred to them.
Paul, this is exactly the type of comment that is not appropriate in the forums. If I were to respond in kind on behalf of the 1,801,000,000 or so Christian who utilize some form of a larger canon, it would cause an uproar. You need not hide your beliefs, but on the forums you must also respect the beliefs of the other 2,420,000,000 Christians in the world.
Please abide by the following guidelines as you interact on our forums. Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc. Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions. Please treat each other with the love, courtesy, respect, and kindness that you would if you were sitting in your living room together. Please do not use our forums to sell or give away anything or link to anything you’re selling or giving away—including Logos products promote or link to competitors point people to other places that sell Logos-compatible products advertise yourself, your business, your ministry, your website, etc. (a tasteful link in your forum signature is acceptable) post Logos Coupon Codes. If you are aware of a special promotion Logos is running online, you are welcome to link directly to the promotion. Please search before posting. It’s likely that someone has already asked your question. Please help others follow these guidelines. If the problems continue after you’ve given a gentle reminder of these expectations, please click “Report Abuse” under “More” or send an email to forums@logos.com. Thank you for your cooperation. Enjoy discussing and learning about Logos Bible Software.
Please abide by the following guidelines as you interact on our forums.
Thank you for your cooperation. Enjoy discussing and learning about Logos Bible Software.
which is why Lee posted a gentle reminder
I would like to weigh in with a personal opinion. I am motivated not only by this thread but others I've read this past year. The original post, I thought to be off-topic, but potentially germane to Logos. Having read that article, my takeaway was to watch out for new info or works on this issue, preferably in Logos, if not by some other source. However, the thread ceases to be useful if posters conduct ad hominems on third party entities not related to Logos. At worst, it could expose Logos to legal liability. At best, it turns the forums into something other than it was intended and drives business away.
P.S. the term "Protestant" was invented for the Lutherans IIRC - who use the broader canon. I am fond of precision - to a fault.
Doc, for the reasons you give, I can understand your hesitation. However, the author is Candida Moss, a very highly respected NT scholar at Notre Dame.
Hmm. I for one don't know who "very highly respects" Candida Moss as a scholar. However, since you've commented here, I presume you know more about her than I do (very likely). Having read a few of her articles in the past, MY sense is that she's a lot more concerned about religious politics than she is scholarship.
Moss regularly has articles in the Daily Beast, the Huff Post, and other secular, politically oriented sites. Her articles seem primarily designed to elicit strong defensive responses from a couple of specific groups. She does this with an edge, taking shots at the conservative side fairly consistently. If responding to her articles in kind, she might be asked if an Evangelical Christian stole her bike when she was young, or conservative Catholics beat her up and took her lunch money or something. That might capture the tone of the articles I've read.
Having said that, I have generally enjoyed reading the few articles I've come across. I think some consider her mean or petty, but I don't think that is her intent. She seems to have a clear agenda, but I suspect she tries to interject humor that sometimes gets misinterpreted as something more harsh. Regardless, articles like these can show people how they are perceived, even if one disagrees with the basic premise.
Also, the article the OP links to is the least snarky I've read of hers, and I find the crux of it pretty interesting. Not sure how accurate her source is, but I imagine time will tell.
Candida Moss - Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library resource https://www.logos.com/product/50325/ancient-christian-martyrdom-diverse-practices-theologies-and-traditions
We don’t know for certain, what is for sure is Paul quoted some apocryphal works and other NT authors did too indeed Jude goes beyond quoting Enoch which only the Ethiopian Church considers conanonical. Different Christian groups have very different views on scripture and how they are handled.... Going beyond that point is not likely wise.
Perhaps that's a good reason for believers to stay away from those mainline Protestant churches? If they cannot honour the traditional Protestant canon of Scripture, then nothing is sacred to them. Paul, this is exactly the type of comment that is not appropriate in the forums. If I were to respond in kind on behalf of the 1,801,000,000 or so Christian who utilize some form of a larger canon, it would cause an uproar. You need not hide your beliefs, but on the forums you must also respect the beliefs of the other 2,420,000,000 Christians in the world. Please abide by the following guidelines as you interact on our forums. Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc. Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions. Please treat each other with the love, courtesy, respect, and kindness that you would if you were sitting in your living room together. Please do not use our forums to sell or give away anything or link to anything you’re selling or giving away—including Logos products promote or link to competitors point people to other places that sell Logos-compatible products advertise yourself, your business, your ministry, your website, etc. (a tasteful link in your forum signature is acceptable) post Logos Coupon Codes. If you are aware of a special promotion Logos is running online, you are welcome to link directly to the promotion. Please search before posting. It’s likely that someone has already asked your question. Please help others follow these guidelines. If the problems continue after you’ve given a gentle reminder of these expectations, please click “Report Abuse” under “More” or send an email to forums@logos.com. Thank you for your cooperation. Enjoy discussing and learning about Logos Bible Software. which is why Lee posted a gentle reminder I would like to weigh in with a personal opinion. I am motivated not only by this thread but others I've read this past year. The original post, I thought to be off-topic, but potentially germane to Logos. Having read that article, my takeaway was to watch out for new info or works on this issue, preferably in Logos, if not by some other source. However, the thread ceases to be useful if posters conduct ad hominems on third party entities not related to Logos. At worst, it could expose Logos to legal liability. At best, it turns the forums into something other than it was intended and drives business away. P.S. the term "Protestant" was invented for the Lutherans IIRC - who use the broader canon. I am fond of precision - to a fault.
MJ - It's certainly not my intention to cause hurt to anyone and I apologise if my remark took on that tone. I suspect that if I explain where I'm coming from then it is likely that I will compound my mistake and act contrary to your interpretation of forum rules. So I will make no further remarks on the issue of the canon on this thread.
Just as a broader observation - I was expressing a commonly held among many conservative evangelical believers. It would be no surprise people like myself have great difficulty with some of the views (even so called 'scholarly' ones) that have become widely prevalent in the church. It seems that expressing them can also sometimes be a problem. Keep well Paul
Life on the forums mirrors life in the real world. It’s acceptable to say you hold to a wider definition of a topic but if you say you hold to a narrower definition it’s deemed unacceptable to express it.
Just as a broader observation - I was expressing a commonly held among many conservative evangelical believers. It would be no surprise people like myself have great difficulty with some of the views (even so called 'scholarly' ones) that have become widely prevalent in the church. It seems that expressing them can also sometimes be a problem.
I understand why you say that. However, the intent of the Logos guidelines is not to muzzle you in that sense. Rather, it is appropriate to say
"Evangelicals generally believe the use of the ecumenical Bibles dishonours the traditional 'Protestant' canon of Scripture." quotes on Protestant to indicate it is an over-generalization.
vs."Stay away from Mainline Protestant churches that use of ecumenical Bibles dishonours the traditional 'Protestant' canon of Scripture."
The first statement is a statement of fact that explains the evangelical position to those on the forum who are not evangelical. The second says "I know what is right and you better get in line ... and don't try to present a different position because that would be dishonoring the Scripture ... shut up and get in line."
Shall we say it is a matter of humility ... on any issue under dispute there is a chance that it is the writer who is wrong .... whether the probability that it is the writer is wrong is 0.01% or 99.99%.
Just as a broader observation - I was expressing a commonly held among many conservative evangelical believers. It would be no surprise people like myself have great difficulty with some of the views (even so called 'scholarly' ones) that have become widely prevalent in the church. It seems that expressing them can also sometimes be a problem. I understand why you say that. However, the intent of the Logos guidelines is not to muzzle you in that sense. Rather, it is appropriate to say "Evangelicals generally believe the use of the ecumenical Bibles dishonours the traditional 'Protestant' canon of Scripture." quotes on Protestant to indicate it is an over-generalization. vs."Stay away from Mainline Protestant churches that use of ecumenical Bibles dishonours the traditional 'Protestant' canon of Scripture." The first statement is a statement of fact that explains the evangelical position to those on the forum who are not evangelical. The second says "I know what is right and you better get in line ... and don't try to present a different position because that would be dishonoring the Scripture ... shut up and get in line." Shall we say it is a matter of humility ... on any issue under dispute there is a chance that it is the writer who is wrong .... whether the probability that it is the writer is wrong is 0.01% or 99.99%.
MJ - I think you've overstated what I did write. Unfortunately, you may think that I meant far more than I did.
My take on what you have said is essentially that if I express something in neutral terms then its fairly acceptable, but if I state something I actually believe in personal terms then that risks upsetting someone and preferably should not be expressed.
Also, it seems you may believe that it is a question of humility for me to accept that on an issue of faith that I may be wrong so I should avoid being definite about what I believe is true.
Would that be a fair message for me to take home? Keep well Paul
Candida Moss has published an article on new discoveries about who translated, and how they translated, the King James Version. www.thedailybeast.com/bible-loved-by-christian-fundamentalists-written-using-method-they-hate?
I also recall the simple concern that using a translation other than the KJV when reading scripture in church might prove distracting as so many people at the time only had one translation to follow along with during the reading, and of course what they had was the good old KJV. In comparison, the church I've now attended for many years, projects all scripture readings to the congregation via display screens, and it's very common for the speaker to use three, four, or even five different translations of scripture as he/she moves through his/her message.
I had never heard of Candida Moss prior to reading this thread, but regardless of her style or intent, I found the content of the article interesting and look forward to reading responses from the academic community.
True, true- I have read better articles standing in the checkout line at the local grocer, and to that did everyone know OJ Simpson is pregnant again. [:O]
I think folks are getting mixed up, on this thread.
Evangelical? You're supposed to whack the KJVOnly group, since they're both too conservative, and illogical
KJV'ers? You're supposed to question why the thread was introduced; is it attacking the KJV yet again?
Guys? You're supposed to make sure the lady is of course not well read, or wrong in some fashion; choose.
Apocryphers? I don't remember if there's any forum history here, for guidance. New territory to develop.
but if I state something I actually believe in personal terms then that risks upsetting someone and preferably should not be expressed
I don't think that's true.
But if it is, I would find that kind of rule much more offensive than an atheist screaming blasphemies at me.
on an issue of faith that I may be wrong so I should avoid being definite about what I believe is true.
That's one of the best definitions/descriptions of our postmodern culture I've seen in a while. The outcomes of that kind of thinking, if allowed to bloom, will be nightmarish.
But again, I don't *think* that's what MJ is trying to say. I *think* she's simply asking you to be definite in a kind tone of voice. I didn't personally find the tone objectionable, but she clearly did.
Now we've stumbled upon one of the big problems of those forum rules, haven't we?
MJ - I think you've overstated what I did write. Unfortunately, you may think that I meant far more than I did. My take on what you have said is essentially that if I express something in neutral terms then its fairly acceptable, but if I state something I actually believe in personal terms then that risks upsetting someone and preferably should not be expressed. Also, it seems you may believe that it is a question of humility for me to accept that on an issue of faith that I may be wrong so I should avoid being definite about what I believe is true. Would that be a fair message for me to take home? Keep well Paul
Yes, I did exaggerate not because that was what you said but because it was taking what you said to an extreme so that my point was obvious. Yes, you did get exactly the message that I intended although you can say "I believe that" as long as it isn't to say "I'm right; you're wrong and I know where you're going" :-) The guidelines are intended to keep things civil and comfortable for all Logos users, not to muzzle us.
on an issue of faith that I may be wrong so I should avoid being definite about what I believe is true. That's one of the best definitions/descriptions of our postmodern culture I've seen in a while. The outcomes of that kind of thinking, if allowed to bloom, will be nightmarish.
That's one of the best definitions/descriptions of our postmodern culture I've seen in a while.
Doc, I disagree strongly with you. My thought pattern is logic not postmodern. Postmodern is (from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) "That postmodernism is indefinable is a truism. However, it can be described as a set of critical, strategic and rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition, the trace, the simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other concepts such as presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the univocity of meaning."What I am saying is that the only things I know for certain are things derivable via deductive logic from unassailable axioms. Everything else I know is subject to some probability that it is true, some probability that it is false, and some probability that it is unknowable. Given my definition of "God", that God exists is an unassailable axiom. Given Richard Dawkins' definition of "God", he is probably correct that that "god" exists only as a straw-man concept in Dawkins' mind. I am comfortable switching types of logic to match the question at hand. With the exception of deductive logic, this means switching to a probabilistic thought pattern.I am a bit too old to have been strongly influenced by postmodernism - structuralism was the primary model under which I was educated ... with postmodern thought beginning to break into the academic landscape.
I grew up in a Finnish community where one was always courteous to everyone in the community - the day may come when you need their help. Prejudice and judgement might be expressed in the family home but never in public. It allowed Irish Catholics, Finnish Lutheran, Campbellites (formerly Mennonites), and one Mormon family to live in harmony.That is all Logos guidelines are asking us to do.
I didn't personally find the tone objectionable, but she clearly did.
Please don't speak for me as it was Lee who initially expressed concern. Paul's post illustrated why Lee was rightly concerned and as Paul is relatively new to the forums, it seemed appropriate to both support Lee and bring attention to the Guidelines which are rarely found by new members of the forum community. You may rightly say "she found the tone to imply a lack of familiarity with the guidelines".
I, a Catholic, have great sympathy for your view of the canon of the Bible as expressed earlier, even though I disagree with it. In principle, I have no problem with your public expression of your views on the canon of Scripture and would ordinarily be happy to discuss said canon with you, even at great length, but this forum is the wrong forum for that kind of discussion, given the forum guidelines.
Now, if you want to recommend, review, or inquire about resources that FL sells that address the history and composition of the canon of Sacred Scripture, I'm all for doing that in this or other threads in this forum.
I, a Catholic, have great sympathy for your view of the canon of the Bible as expressed earlier, even though I disagree with it. In principle, I have no problem with your public expression of your views on the canon of Scripture and would ordinarily be happy to discuss said canon with you, even at great length, but this forum is the wrong forum for that kind of discussion, given the forum guidelines. Now, if you want to recommend, review, or inquire about resources that FL sells that address the history and composition of the canon of Sacred Scripture, I'm all for doing that in this or other threads in this forum.
I concur.
(Note I expressed concerns about the statements regarding mainline Protestants not canon.)
MJ - I think you've overstated what I did write. Unfortunately, you may think that I meant far more than I did. My take on what you have said is essentially that if I express something in neutral terms then its fairly acceptable, but if I state something I actually believe in personal terms then that risks upsetting someone and preferably should not be expressed. Also, it seems you may believe that it is a question of humility for me to accept that on an issue of faith that I may be wrong so I should avoid being definite about what I believe is true. Would that be a fair message for me to take home? Keep well Paul Yes, I did exaggerate not because that was what you said but because it was taking what you said to an extreme so that my point was obvious. Yes, you did get exactly the message that I intended although you can say "I believe that" as long as it isn't to say "I'm right; you're wrong and I know where you're going" :-) The guidelines are intended to keep things civil and comfortable for all Logos users, not to muzzle us.
Thanks MJ for explaining that for me. I accept your exaggeration of what I said was to clarify the way you saw it - so I have no problem with your choosing to use that approach.
Nevertheless, I'm a little perturbed that you did actually intend to say (in the way I put it) "that it is a question of humility for me to accept that on an issue of faith that I may be wrong so I should avoid being definite about what I believe is true.". If this was simply a matter of courtesy and respecting people - I would have no problem at all. But if your interpretation of the effect of the guidelines is true, then it does have the effect of muzzling. It may not affect you (perhaps because of your beliefs or for other reasons), but it does muzzle me and perhaps people like me.
To be definite about what I believe is a question of being honest of truthful with people. It is not simply a question of courtesy, but an issue of integrity. Another side of this is that if I intentionally conceal or obscure what I think in order to be acceptable to another, am I really respecting the other person?
In writing this, my intention is not to criticize you personally, but simply to address an interpretation of the forum guidelines that may have the effect of restricting honest dialogue. As I'm sure you appreciate, its good to be fairly flexible about guidelines and to be conscious of the unintended effects of an interpretation. I also hope that my comments have not made you feel uncomfortable. I'm happy to leave the issue here. Keep well Paul
To be definite about what I believe is a question of being honest of truthful with people. It is not simply a question of courtesy, but an issue of integrity. Another side of this is that if I intentionally conceal or obscure what I think in order to be acceptable to another, am I really respecting the other person? In writing this, my intention is not to criticize you personally, but simply to address an interpretation of the forum guidelines that may have the effect of restricting honest dialogue. As I'm sure you appreciate, its good to be fairly flexible about guidelines and to be conscious of the unintended effects of an interpretation. I also hope that my comments have not made you feel uncomfortable.
In writing this, my intention is not to criticize you personally, but simply to address an interpretation of the forum guidelines that may have the effect of restricting honest dialogue. As I'm sure you appreciate, its good to be fairly flexible about guidelines and to be conscious of the unintended effects of an interpretation. I also hope that my comments have not made you feel uncomfortable.
I understand your position. What you need to understand is that I truly am a logician and have often been described as thinking in truth-tables, an attribute very useful for my career with computers. So one of the things I am definite on is:
What I am saying is that the only things I know for certain are things derivable via deductive logic from unassailable axioms. Everything else I know is subject to some probability that it is true, some probability that it is false, and some probability that it is unknowable
Obviously, I am very comfortable living with uncertainty in a way many are not. Many would not express it as I do, but imply an openness by a willingness read material on differing views. (Think of the impetus behind the Four Views series.) But when you say "Perhaps that's a good reason for believers to stay away from those mainline Protestant churches?" you imply that mainline Protestants are not believers. That is the kind of certainty that to me crosses the line into hubris. I don't believe that was your intent. I suspect that your intent was more along the lines of "as one who believes strongly in the shorter canon, mainline Protestant churches using an ecumenical Bible would be a reason to avoid them."To which I would have responded: Having the apocrypha bound in their Bible says nothing about the mainline Protestant churches' view of the canonical status of the books. After all German Bibles contained the Letter to the Laodiceans for many centuries after it was deemed noncanonical.
And, if I was feeling like a mischievous devil's advocate, I might mention the denomination of the person behind the Christian lectionary that includes gnostic texts ... but then I'd have to apologize for a sense of humor that perhaps only Denise would understand.
Doc, I disagree strongly with you
Of course you do. When have you not?
But while you are busy asking me not to speak for you, my comment about postmodernism wasn't spoken for you, it was in relation to Paul's definitive comment.
Ain't we havin' fun now?
Stop.
