The Christian concept of God, along with the concept of immortal soul, has its origin in Greek idealism rather than in the OT.
In Thimeus (360 B.C.) Platon made his breakthrough statement that the universe is intelligible only in mathematical expressions, and thus prepared the way for Kepler, Galilei, Newton and Einstein.
He also found in the mathematical intelligibility of the universe, the Logos, the evidence that God exists. We never did better. The philosophers saw God as a perfect, transcendental Being, beyond the universe, space and time. They went deeper and further then the Hebrews.
The main obstacle in propagating this view of God was the Greek mythology. The incompatibility of the Greek mythos with the logos monotheism lead to the martyrdom of Socrates and the exile of many others.
In the first century, Philo of Alexandria pointed to the the OT as the monotheistic mythos the Greeks lacked. (When I say mythos I don't mean a lie, but a sacred history that provides the matrix for religious and social norms). The Greeks despised the Jews as bigoted and barbarians but they needed their sacred history. When Paul and John showed up one generation later with the gospel, they made clear that the OT no longer belonged to the Jews but has to be reinterpreted in Jesus as the universal story of human redemption.
Now, it would be naïve to expect the Church fathers and the apologists to build their doctrine of God on a text proof reading of the Bible. Christianity is a synthesis of Jews sacred history and the tehistic rationalism of the Greeks. The concept of Trinity comes from the latter. The translations, the interpolations and the final edition(s) of the Bible are part of the process.

There is nothing new about 1 John 5: 7-8

Isn't there a better source for the trinity in Matt. 28: 19
"baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"?

Moreover, the Gospel of John is replete with Christ's reference to His Father and to sending the Comfortor.

There is always room for doubt but much more for faith.

The problem SDA's face is basing the entire end time on Dan 8:14 and thus their entire ethos. Tom

Christianity claims to rely on the Bible and the Bible only. However, little recognition is given to the interweavings of myth from Jewish, Greek and pagan sources. Christianity has evolved, changed, and adapted from other cultures. Makes one wonder how much a first century Christian would recognize in the beliefs espoused today. Periodically, throughout history there has been a desire to return to the "primitive" beliefs of the early church. But is it possible to truly evaulate their beliefs and practices, or even adopt them today?
Who wishes to return to the customs of slavery, or even disputed misogny according to first century founders? A religion that cannot be adapted and function in the world as it is, simply becomes an archaic relic of the past.

Is it even possible to live and follow a book written two millennia ago? No one does; he only picks and chooses what he wishes to follow and ignores the rest. Is this not so? For example: Adventists claim to follow the fourth commandment in the OT as valid today. Does anyone also follow the instructions that were also given on HOW it should be observed? I rest my case.

Elaine

You always make a good case. Please don't rest--there is more to come!

Please read John chapter 4. I think the sum of which is that worship and ethos change with time. The creative act and the redemptive act of God do not. My need is a great as Adam's.
My hope is built upon the same assurance as Adam's. Where to worship, when to worship, how to worship: change. Whom to worship does not. Tom

Tom: You saw the light concerning Dan 8:14. How about seeing the light on Is 7:14. If you asked a rabbi, he will tell you that the whole Christian ethos is founded on a very flawed interpretation of an equally flawed translation.

I understand people who renounce SDA. (I would rather have them grow inside it, but this is me). I don't understand people who trade SDA for mainstream superstition. "As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him".

The concept of trinity was not based on Mat 28:19 or the gospel of John. It's the vice versa. The evolution of the NT text reflects the replacing of early Christian-Judaism by the Christian-Hellenistic paradigm of Paul and John.

Even the concept of atonement was missing when Peter first proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah in chapter Acts 3. Jesus was to them God's suffering servant in Isaiah 53, but he was definitively not the lamb God.

Trinity was Christianity's answer to the Greek theological dilemma (Acts 17:23). Because God is infinite, only God understands God. Now, the Gospel of John had this answer: If Jesus is God, He knows God. If he is human he can be known by humans.

Nevertheless, the later generations noticed the flaw in the logos-incarnation dynamics: how could a limited human being "see" the infinite God in Jesus. The logical answer was a third member of the godhead. The Spirit gives testimony about Jesus inside you. It's a triangle and the Greeks loved triangles.

This is not our evangelical rethoric. But may I also suggest that the early church had very little in common (if at all), with American evangelicals?

The most fundamental concept of Christianity, the Trinity, was never mentioned until many years after Christ was resurrected. Mark, the earliest Gospel written about 70 AD, and regarded as the most reliable, presents Jesus as a normal man in every respect.

It was not until after Jesus' death that his followers decided that he had been divine; but it did not happen immediately, not being finalized until the fourth century. The idea of the Incarnation was a gradual, complex process. JESUS HIMSELF CERTAINLY NEVER CLAIMED TO BE GOD. He was called "the Son of God" by a voice at his baptism. Jesus called himself "the Son of Man."

Neither did Peter claim that Jesus of Nazareth was God. He "was a Man, commended to you by God....when he was among you."

There were no detailed theories about the crucifixion as an atonement for some "original sin" of Adam; this theology did not emerge until the fourth century and was only important in the West, and not in the Eastern branch.

Paul, also, never called Jesus "God" not did he believe that Jesus had been the incarnation of God himself.

How much more, perhaps, of Christian belief is extra-biblical?

Anonymous I have less in common with American evangelicals that the early church. I don't understand you point in Dan. 7:14. How do you read it? I don't see any conflict with the concept of a triune God. I am a sinner and I found my Savior in the Gospel and Epistles. I found nothing in Plato et al.
Maybe a drinking homosexual orgy. Just because I differ with some doctrinal positions of the SDA Church and others doesn't mean that I am mad at anyone.

I don't know what the Greeks loved except strong drink, young men, and war. Yes a Greek did solve the triangle--at least the right triangle. a squared plus b squared equals c squared.
by golly a trinity!

You will have to come up with something a lot better than the Greeks to change my worship of a triune God including the Jesus Christ proclained by the apostles, particularly John and Paul. Amen. Tom

Tom: It is Is 7:1 14; Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.One could build a stronger case for the millerite exegesis of Dan 8:14 then for Matthew's interpretation of Is 7:14.
I don't to challenge the triune God concept. I am challenging the the common belief that it is based on a text proof reading of the Bible a la Amazing Facts.
The argument against Arius came from Athanasius: if Jesus is not God we commit idolatry worshiping him. Makes sense. Now you have to accept that the one substance three hypostasis language comes from the Greeks.
We both know that the term platonic love was coined to indicate a sublimated form of boy-love. But the stoics made the best of Plato and preached moderate drinking, non-violence and even the immorality of slavery (Zeno 300 B.C.). They believed in Logos, the divine order of the universe as the basis of rational ethics. Unlike stoics, the epicureans believed that the universe was an accident and life had no meaning.
Paul told the Stoics that they worshiped the same God as he did.Acts 17:23. He appeals alternatively to rabbinic tradition and stoic ethics when giving moral injunctions in his letter.
I am not against trinity. I believe trinity is a dynamical concept indicating how Father, Son and the Spirit work for our salvation. I don't think it reveals the metaphysical nature of God. This is beyond comprehension.
I believe that Christianity is an on going process. I don't think we should go back to the early first century Christianity which was non trinitarian and works oriented. I don't believe the Reformation took the Church back to Paul. I don't believe that American restorationism was a restoration of first century faith and I don't believe that Paul cared to much about the Sabbath and kosher eating,
I believe that we should continue to grow without forsaking our Christian-Protestant-Adventist roots but not being enchained in iron and bronze chains like the Babylonian tree of Dan 4. IOW come out of Babylon and grow.

Elaine: Paul wrote before Mark and the Gospel of John is dated around 100 A.D. There's no question that both Paul and John believed that Jesus was God. The forth century theological debate was rather about the semantics of the Church testimony then about its substance.
It seems to me that people in the both camps of the controversy a very reluctant to accept that Christianity is a synthesis between Jewish messianic beliefs and Hellenisms. The belief of the Jerusalem Church about Jesus was not very far from Islam. We see the Hellenistic synthesis either as something bad (the great apostasy), or as a de-legitimizations of Christianity. What is wrong with change?

Talking about the Greeks (homosexuals, warlike drunkards).

In the book of Esther, the historian rabbi tells us (after approvingly nodding toward the impeachment of an independent queen), how Mordecai acted as political pimp of his niece for a sexually obsessed, drunkard, mad dictator, and eventually lead his people in an anti-anti-semitic pogrom ( and we all know how broadly anti-antisemitism may be defined. The only divine inspiration in the whole book seems to be the omission of the name of God.

Herodotus tells us how 300 well disciplined Spartans who never bowed slavishly before their king (though they followed him to death), humiliated "the great king" of the Book of Esther at Thermopile. Now, the movie 300 may be a fiction, but I love that line: "We are defending the future against tyranny and mysticism. We are fighting for the reign of reason and democracy".

Sorry, but I can't help loving it.

Anonymous you have a lot to offer except your identity.
What are you afraid of? You suggested Isa. 7:14 and I misread it as Dan 7:14 which is a parallel of Phil. 5: 5-11. What you think is important is only only important to me as it is consistent with Scripture. Paul attempted to bring the Gospel to the Greeks. John attempted to rescue the Gospel from the Gnostics. Both where children of their times. Never-the-less both acknowledged Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior as do I.

Everything else to this old man is vain. Tom

I am afraid Sancta Simplicitas.Remember Hus?

Anonymous: On what Scripture are you basing the belief of both Paul and John that Jesus was God? Please be more specific--text please. Or, is it just your unique interpretation?

Elaine: I am not going to offer a text proof argument. Not that I couldn't find one. I assume that what worked for Luther and Calvin would work for me too. But I would rather ask you to consider Paul and John as part of a process.

1.Peter : Jesus the Messiah, the suffering servant in Is 53, the heir of David's throne
2.James, as the brother of the ascended (human) high priest, becomes the rightful leder of the Church
3.The Church expecting Jesus to reestablish the kingdom of Israel
4.Paul preaching his new gospel: Christ the end of the law. The cross as atonement.
5.The logic of Paul's atonement involves God being fully manifested in Jesus
6.Paul does not explicitely state that Jesus is God but his theology of atonement implies the concept.
7.Mark is being circulated without any reference to Jeus' deity.
8.Matthew and Luke completing Mark as regard the virgin birth (moving Jesus toward deity)
9.Luke's last supper story interpolated with a statement about atonement for sins.
10.John's Gospel written to complete the synoptics with a version according to Paul's theology of atonement and free grace. He is quite explicit about the deity of Jesus.
11.The Judeo-Christian wing separated mainly because like muslims and the JW they believed that worsipping Jesus with the mainstream church was idolatry (as Jesus was not God)
12.In the fourth century Athanasius prooved that the gentile Church had always proclaimed Jesus as God by the act of worshippimg Him. That Christians worshipped Jesus already in the first century is demonstrated by Plinius' letter to emperor Trajan.
13.We don't like it, but the very ascendence of sunday worship in the second century is due to the worship of Jesus (IOW he was their God)
14.Pagans saw Jesus as the Christian deity. Christias had to resort to the concept of dual (later triune God) to reconcile this with their claim of monotheism.

If you look at #4,5,6 and 10 you can see that Paul and John were the turning point in the process. They also offered the biblical material needed by the trinitarian church fathers in the fourth century. I admit that Peter and Mark would have been repulsed by the concept of trinity. I also admit that Pul and John were not as explicit as Athanasius. But they initiated the change.

Anonymous

Sounds you don't mind if your ideas get burned but not your sustentation. How does one accept a pay check from a source you are fighting to destroy? Are you deluding souls from the freedom you seem to express outside the compound?

What ever happened to "Here I stand. I can do no other!" Tom

To anyone interested, I have a 22 page footnoted article/speech given by one of my former Greek profs. at RTS. Chuck Hill,PhD.,Cambridge who sent it to me last year regarding "Misquoting Jesus". It is from a "more conservative" evaluation.

Title- "The Copier is Down-Or
How Can You Get a Reliable Text from Unreliable Scribes?"

Due to the length if interested my email is ptravis338@bellsouth.I will send a copy of the pdf file.

Regards

That is...ptravis338@bellsouth.net

Anonymous:

No one is contesting that Christ is not the Son of God, and that God is his father, as he said.

Is there a difference between a king and his son who is a prince? That's the way the NT depicted him, but NOT God; which is why the Jews have considered Christians of blasphemy by claiming both the Son and God to be the same.

Isaiah's prophecy of a child to be born of a virgin was terribly wrested from its original purpose to give the writers' an agenda from the Hebrew Bible that Jesus was the fulfillment of their prophecies. That has long ago been shown not to be a prophecy of Jesus, but to someone then who would nine months later give birth. When others use the Bible this way today to twist and distort Scripture, Adventists, particularly, call it a foul. Are we a pot calling the kettle black? Adventists, of all people who began their beliefs on a very literal interpretation of Scripture, have been content to misuse it themselves for their own doctrinal positions.

Pat, yes, I'm familiar with the apologist's review of "Misquoting Jesus" and have read some of them. I have yet to see anyone here refute the specific points he made. Yes, their explanation may differ, but it seems to me that he has aptly demonstrated his thesis.

Elaine,
I have had two and 1/2 years of Greek and written two Exegetical papers "defending" the choice of variants if present in the pericope. What I know is that I Am NOT a "textual critic"!

This book to the lay reader is about like a book on "sexual intimacy" presented to a kindergarden class. One simply does not possess the emotional, mental/educational tools to properly evaluate the thesis or know when the writer concedes to hyperbole. It usually only creates confusion.The book is best read by other critics or at minimum those who have had the experience of dealing with variants and the textual tradition.

Ehrman in 1997 in another book said this, "The vast majority of all changes found in our New Testament manuscripts are careless mistakes that are easily recognized and corrected."

Barbara Aland of Aland & Aland, I dare say for example would take issue with his emphasis on the degree of "free" texts.

Enough "soundbite" for me...Dr. Hill makes good points as well that avoid hyperbole perhaps. You may choose to read it.

Bruce Waltke, who was on the NIV translation committee,told us as his M.Div. students at RTS that any good new translation is 99% safe to build faith and practice on.

I believe that! Excuse my Naivete!

Thanks for this review Elaine. I haven't read Misquoting Jesus yet, but I definitely will after this provocative exchange!

I have been listening to Professor Ehrman through The Great Courses--a course on the historical context of the New Testament. I've greatly enjoyed it and found Professor Ehrman to be very balanced--he's clear about when he's offering a personal opinion and when he's reflecting the majority of mainstream scholarship. I also think I remember reading somewhere that he was raised a literalist, and it wasn't until he started studying translation history and the nuances of how we got what we consider holy scripture today that he changed his perspective.

As to Isa.7:14, Richard Pratt PhD.Harvard and my OT prof.explained it like this.

" When the passages are examined, it is clear that New Testament writers were committed to the original meaning but felt free to use these verses to clarify the ultimate meaning and application. In the case of Isa. 7:14, the original audience as well as the prophet understood the virgin to be Isaiah's wife and the child, his son. This in no way detracts from the fulfillment realized in Mary and Jesus Christ. What it does is make the Scripture relevant to the original audience and show that the ultimate meaning in the birth of the "true and final" Savior. What Isaiah would have understood was that his prophecy was inspired, normative, but, not exhaustive. This understanding is entirely consistent with how we interpret all Scripture ... or at least how we should."

Why then not Dan.8:14? Because the NT writers did not so apply it to NT times.

Daneen,

I have also listened to Ehrman's CDs through the Teaching Co, in fact, I have hundreds of hours of their lectures, many on the Bible and world religions. Also, with several of Ehrman's books in my library, and the conversation with him in a recent Biblical Archelogical Review with three colleagues of various religious persuasuions, he freely told of his background as a fundamentalist, but gradually studied in the original languages and became convinced that he could no longer accept the Bible as literal because no one can be certain, without original manuscripts, what was really intended and what has been added or changed. Nearly all Bible scholars, regardless of their personal faith, recognize that he is correct on this. What one does with it is personal, but denial of the facts is not being honest, IMO.

There have here been numerous mentions of "proof texting", so I will post on this topic.

Satan would have called Jesus an "exclusivist proof texter" in the wilderness after Jesus "proof texted" Satan three times quickly and consecutively (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). Does anyone against "proof texting" want to join Satan in his pity party? After all he was bested by Christ with so called "proof texting".

Let's join Christ in His war against Satan using His methods instead of attacking Amazing Facts and others who imitate Christ (1 Peter 2:21; 1 John 2:6) and are making headway "against principalities, against powers, against spiritual wickedness in high places" with "the sword of the Spirit." (Eph. 6:12, 17)

We should affirm proof texting and exclusivity as substantiated "precept on precept, line upon line" (Isaiah 28:10). According to Christ, this is the only way to discern and resist evil. Therefore let us cease maligning "proof texting", its adherents, and give each other a fighting chance in this world.

Elaine,

Your last comment simply is hyperbole Elaine.

"no one can be certain, without original manuscripts, what was really intended and what has been added or changed. Nearly all Bible scholars, regardless of their personal faith, recognize that he is correct on this. What one does with it is personal, but denial of the facts is not being honest, IMO."

Some yes…nearly all …no. This is but a continual discussion that takes place in liberal and conservative theology.
Perhaps your problem is with "literal" and your meaning without consideration of literary genre. But nearly all scholars definitely do not see the textual apparatus as unreliable for sound scriptural exegesis.

Try Aland/Aland book, “The Text of the New Testament” as a sample witness of major scholars.

"When we compare the variations found in the New
Testament manuscripts they appear to be quite innocuous, especially since an extensive manuscript tradition provides a means of control and correction".p.291.

You are correct however, that one can do what one sees fit with information .
What is interesting to me is the "silence" from Loma Linda Religion associates with Spectrum on this issue. Are there no defenders of the textual apparatus there? Have any written major articles or publications on the issue?

Elaine and Pat: To what extent can we have any confidence that the witnesses of Christ's resurrection can be believed to have described a real honest to goodness actual in the flesh event, rather than being only an evolved, synthesized mutation of wishful thinking as now determined by Bart and others in the know? thanks.

Gerhard,

If you don't believe the scriptural witness you can't.

Perhaps many want a "Christianity" without Christ or the scriptures...or one in which their "filter" is the only valid one of who Christ is. Seems to be an Oxymoron to me.

That's why for me if the "witness" is wrong we of all people are to be pitied.

A most intriguing conversation. Thanks Elaine. While not able to converse on this erudite level, (will keep reading!) some thoughts emerge nonetheless.

Of the many EGW comments which energize me, the one where she comments that there came a time in history when the knowledge of God was almost lost upon the earth, perhaps frightens me -- and enlightens me -- most. And I imagine how this must have made God feel; it had all started out so good, and now most had little clue who He even was. (Note; I operate from within an “SDA-raised” paradigm) The problem then, for God, is how to get to knowledge, from nearly nothing.

The very nature of this transition lent to a constant tension between respect for prior revelation, and the clear need to move ahead and grow. Each painstaking step forward from nearly nothing, necessitated an apparent abandoning, maybe even seeming denial, of that “knowledge” -- that “truth” -- which came before. And given our human differences, some gravitate more to the “step” forward, some find solace and comfort in the steps of those who have come before us.

From every call to stand in the “faith” loomed an heresy (for me, heresy merely means a deviation from prevailing thought…) with the allure of new truth, but restrained by a call to stand fast. And in this maelstrom of thought progress, lurked a God who clearly wants growth and enlightenment, yet must also realize such comes with false turns, deviant paths, dead ends.

Yet, the path from knowledge nearly lost, to the depth of glory that is the reality of our God, is itself nearly limitless. And within that “Spectrum” lies the abundance of perception and experience that is ours; we of the human race. Surly, none better to guide that transition than our Lord Himself.

And within that transition from nearly nothing, to the vast glories of God Himself, we find represented an array of voices; from those who fearlessly trek into the unknown “next step”, to those who find solace and great meaning in the constructs of the voices of “fathers” whose respected journey has gone before. In this thread, these perspectives might be seen in the voices of my friends Elaine, and of Pat. And of the one who finds it necessary to call himself “Anonymous”. God’s family all. Each voice distinct, valuable, and necessary. (In my more fevered imaginings, the SDA church looms big enough to embrace all these voices -- and journeys to God. I’m thinking that’s what Alex seeks to build here…)

For precisely one thing may be certain about any articulation about the true God; it is incomplete and imperfect, and it awaits further revision. Which should not intimidate or weary us in the least; for it is a glorious process which will delight, and intrigue, and invigorate us for an eternity. Any image we create of almighty God must immediately be destroyed; for it is inadequate. And another constructed in it’s place; only to see the blessed cycle repeat. Endlessly. It is an enigma which will enthrall us for eternity. (Brennan Manning speaks powerfully of this cycle…)

That this very dynamic of transition and growth would be amply evident in our own sacred scriptures should be a source of encouragement and hope; not a cause for strife or disagreement. We may, in fact should, nobly and confidently embrace both the past visions of our fathers, while at the same time honoring them by not simply standing where they stood. For to do so would be to dishonor both the journey, and the God of the journey. God is bigger that the vision of our Fathers, and bigger than our own.

Are there visionaries among you? and literalists too? Thank God: for neither fully realizes itself without the other. For no “view” of God cannot benefit from the perspective of another who is different -- yet equally a part of the discovery process. My fear is that our very convictions about God inherently embrace limitations on God. To let God be God is our calling. That He calls us to the discovery process is a stunning invitation.

For me, who loves the discovery as much as any, this seems an appropriate time of year to remind ourselves of a few basic realities. He is; He loves; therefore we matter. He is with us, and He calls us to live in awareness of this great reality.
So let us be baffled by the wideness of His embrace;
let us be warmed by the reality that He loves the one beside us as He loves us;
let us live like we already are redeemed and saved…
...for we are.

Bob, your comments indicate that we should be open to new discoveries and only when we allow ourselves to be receptive to what is new can we expect to grow. Readers who only view the Bible as a literal and historical accurate account are limiting themselves; something that from the time of the Hebrew Bible, it was never viewed as such. How many know that an exclusively literal interpretation of the Bible is a recent development? According to Karen Armstrong ("The Bible," 2007,) "Not until the nineteenth century, did people look upon the first chapter of Genesis as a factual account of the origins of life. Previously, both Jews and Christians relished highly allegorical and inventive exegesis, insisting that a wholly literal reading of the Bible was neither possible nor desirable."

So the literal reading of the Bible is of recent origin; yet people have found it to be a most important book not written for that purpose. Have our modern expectations been unreasonable and far different than for most of the Bible's history?

Elaine, please correct me if I'm mistaken regarding my impressions:

First, the Bible consists of a diverse collection of ancient literature composed by authors many of whom used pre-existing oral and written traditions.

Second, Bart Ehrman's book deals with the textual history of the NT manuscripts. His primary concern is in regard to the integrity of textual transmission more than the faithfulness of translation to another language.

Some bloggers out there may still remember A. Graham Maxwell's little book, "Can We Trust the Bible?" His subject was the textual transmission of Scriptures.

There was also the late F. F. Bruce of Manchester who was best known for his "New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981. (First published in 1943 as "Are the New Testament Documents Reliable?")

http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm

In a footnote to one of his earliest published lectures, FFB wrote:

Thus Professor W. F. Albright says of the Old Testament: “Our documentary sources for the history of Israel from the late thirteenth to the early fourth century B.C. [i.e., from Moses to the Chronicler] are, in general, remarkably reliable” (From the Stone Age to Christianity, 1940, p. 208); and again, “There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament tradition” (Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 1941, p. 176). Similarly, with regard to the New Testament, we have Sir F. G. Kenyan’s statement, “Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (The Bible and Archaeology, 1940, p. 289). These are non-theological assessments, based on external evidence.

- F. F. Bruce, M.A., “What Do We Mean By Biblical Inspiration?” Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 78 (1946): 120-139.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jtvi/inspiration_bruce.pdf

Des Ford was a student of Professor Bruce.

How and why is Bart Ehrman's conclusion different from the above?

Joselito, I particularly noted the dates of the books and articles to which you referred. This was before the Dead Sea Scrolls or Nag Hamadi findings.

The Hebrew scriptures were orally recalled and not committed to writing until approximately 500 B.C. The statement: "There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament tradition” (Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 1941) lacks contemporary substantiation. Karen Armstrong, no mean biblical scholar, has stated (and I've read other authorities who agree from The Biblical Archeological Review) "Israeli archaeologists, who have been excavating the region since 1967, have found no evidence to corrorobate this story (of Sinai and the Israelites wanderings): THERE IS NO SIGN OF FOREIGN INVASION OR MASS DESTRUCTION, AND NOTHING TO INDICATE A LARGE-SCALE CHANGE OF POPULATION. The scholarly consensus is that the story of the Exodus is not historical."

If we are to accept, factually, the Exodus story with several hundred thousand families who lived in this area of 40 years, how is it possible that no evidence whatsoever has been found to verify that story?

Neither is there any evidence of the Israelites being slaves in Egypt. No one accepts Homer or Herodotus as giving historical accounts. Just so, the biblical authors included legends about divine figures and mythological elements attempting to explain the meaning of what had happened. Those narrtives are MORE than history. Many authors wrote their perspectives and later, they were woven into a single account which has led to contradiction, often within a single chapter. This is evident in the manner that the biblical writers radically revised the texts they inherited.

Even throughout the Hebrew Bible there was continual worship of other gods and monotheism was not accepted until much later than Sinai.

There has been an exalted view of the Bible that every word was written by God which was never a claim originally. Because Christians inherited and adopted it from the Jews, we should recognize and defer to their history of how it came about and acknowledge that, for the most part, they never exalted it as historically correct, but served a much higher purpose.

"Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Erhman focuses on the NT's textual history, instead of the Old. In either case, it's the integrity of the transmission of Bible manuscripts, the NT in particular, rather than the historicity of the events recorded therein, that is under close scrutiny. Accounting for the existence of variant manuscripts due to scribal "error" or deliberate emendation, I believe, is the subject of Erhman's book.

However, let me grant that Elaine has put her finger on the significance of Erhman's essay in connection with our understanding of divine inspiration, whether or not we agree with his conclusion.

I haven't read the "Misquoting Jesus" book, but IMO one of the more enlightening and thorough reviews I've seen of it is by P. J. Williams, a Lecturer at Aberdeen. Williams' summary:

"... the book's purposes are (a) to introduce laypeople to New Testmant textual criticism and (b) to disprove the divine inspiration of the New Testament."

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2005/12/review-of-bart-e...

We may want to explore the nature of divine inspiration further. Meanwhile, let's continue our review of Ehrman's account in regard to textual transmission.

Here's one from P. J. Williams of Aberdeen:

"2. Uncertain analysis of variants. It is hard to begin to discuss treatment of variants within this book without referring to Ehrman's more technical discussions of the same variants. This would involve basically reviewing much of Ehrman's scholarly work. Rather I will here raise broader issues about how one decides between variants: first, it must be remembered that for many variants Ehrman discusses he does not dispute that modern Bible translations are based on the earliest available form of the text. For all the other cases, i.e. where the text that Ehrman claims is original differs from that behind modern Bible translations, it would be possible to find a number of top textual scholars who agreed with and a number who disagreed with Ehrman's analysis. We may therefore ask how many of Ehrman's analyses need to be right for his portrait of New Testament transmission to be right. What if only 75%, or even 50% or 25% were correct? Actually, for Ehrman's overall analysis to be right he needs a very high proportion of his analyses of variants to be right. For many of the types of changes he gives but a few examples, and these are the 'best' examples. If he is wrong just a few times then a 'type of change' may be almost non-existent."

PS: Bart Ehrman's academic/professional credential is very impressive to the say the least. Bruce M. Metzger, who passed on to his rest at age 93 on Feb 2007, was Ehrman's mentor at Princeton. I know at least one SDA textual critic, my mission college MA thesis adviser, who also studied under Metzger.

Joselito,

I am sure you recognize the Aland's also. The Nestle-Aland Greek text i.e.Amoung other co-contributers the last is the "Greek New Testament".4th ed.United Bible Societies.
While not doubting he is a good scholar with opinions... that does not make him the "final source." He is not listed on the other Greek New Testament "Big Gun" contributers I have seen.

The Aland/Aland Book cited above is a "common" source for Greek students for the study of textual apparatus development.

Pat

I am a layman, no scholar, but I try to comment
Bob Rigsby's statement:
"Any image we create of almighty God must immediately be destroyed; for it is inadequate."
In John 17:3 Jesus said...that they may know you, the only true God... How can you say that any image of God we create in our mind must be detroyed? To know God is to know his properties and charchter: That is truth, righteousness, love, mercy, omnipotence, omniscience, he is a spirit, he is the redeemer, and the creator of all things etc., i.e. everything that is GOOD. This must be our image of God. That is the only kind of knowledge we need, and only image we need. But it is not only the right of a Christian to create that image, but it is a solemn responsibility to do that to learn to know him.
All other kinds of speculations about God is worthless.
I will also quote Elaine's interesting observation:
"According to Karen Armstrong ("The Bible," 2007,) "Not until the nineteenth century, did people look upon the first chapter of Genesis as a factual account of the origins of life. Previously, both Jews and Christians relished highly allegorical and inventive exegesis, insisting that a wholly literal reading of the Bible was neither possible nor desirable."
So the literal reading of the Bible is of recent origin; yet people have found it to be a most important book not written for that purpose. Have our modern expectations been unreasonable and far different than for most of the Bible's history?"
I am an SDA, and was taught that the creation story was a literal and correct historic account and therefor totally incompatible with modern natural science.
SDAs today deny any beleif in verbal inspiration. But in praxis most SDAs treat various texts according to literalism and verbal inspiration, especially the first 10 chapers of the Bible. SDAs still beleive in verbal inspiration i spite of their denial.
I beleive our dear church still have along way to go until we are able to address the world with the good news in a way that can be understood by modern man.

Anonymous

Jesus identifying Himself as the Son of God was not only blaspheny to the Jews it was treason to the Romans. From Julius Ceasar forward the Ceasars were hailed as the Sons of God!

We call Jesus Christ the King of Kings and Lord of Lords from Paul onward see Phil 2: 5-11.

I have never been on the road to Damascus nor have I walked on water on the Sea of Galilea. But I have no doubt as to where my salvation lies. I still think Alexander Pope was correct in his Second Essay: "Presume not God to scan--the proper study of manking is man." Tom

) find the topic very inreresting and stimulating, and I found some oddities : What, Thomas Zwemann, the Greek loved strong drinks, young men, and war ? Well, wine was water - diluted in a special jug for mixing; Platons Symposion displays just one or two or three partial aspects of Greek culture - see Orpheus and Euridike, see the whole Homer , for example Andromaches farewell to husband Hector, see Peleus criticising the Spartans in Euripides "Andromache"; te Marathon and the Thermopylae battle is well documented - only cheating about the number of warriors on both sides and omitting the auxliliary Greek troups from Thebae.

And Pat Trevers, I had four years of Greek, six classes the week (Yet I had Sabbaths off) - but I did not dare to write any exegetical or apologetical paper after two and a half years, and not even now.

Maybe one should study Sophokles "Antigone" about humanity, eros, the nature of mankind - - ; somebody should study Philo Alexandrinus - - and share his insights with us. (The scientific Greek edition costs about US $ 1400.-, a little much money for my budget )

And one should know Jeromes letter to Pope Damasum, who ordered the Vulgata, sharing his difficulties with the beloved (wrong) texts of the Vetus latinae : Periculum opus, sed periculosa praesumptio - - : The Vetus latinae were so to say the KJV of contemporary Roman Christians then.

In humility we shoud be aware of the very partial sight available for us and be open for new true knowledge.

Gerhard

Beyond spelling my name wrong--I didn't find you had learned a thing about the Greeks in four years of study. Just try Google and Plato and read. Or just read the life of Alexander the Great whose teacher was Aristole if you don't believe that Alexander drank something stronger than war, that he didn't have his own young man as a lover, and that he did love war. I rest my case a la Elaine. Tom

gerhard,

perhaps you misunderstood me. That exegetical paper was a part of my seminary training... not for publication. I perhaps, not like some, recognize my limitations.

pat

gerhard,

I/m no better than you on spelling and/or proof reading. Certainly Alexander didn't drink war. But he didn't drown himself in water either. Tom

I am not a biblical scholar by a long shot but I did still want to comment on the book. I've read most if not all of his books and I thought this one was one of his weaker ones, not because I can argue his methodologies or conclusions but just because I thought it was kind of a mole hole into a mountain. It would have been better as a short article rather than a full length book. He gave some examples that I thought were interesting but, if I remember right, even he seems to suggest that most of it is reasonably accurately copied. I do understand that if you are more fundamentalist, the very idea that the Bible isn't perfect is earth-shattering but for me it was kind of a yawn. If it is important to you to think that every verse has some sort of special and vital meaning and if you misunderstand it you threaten your eternal salvation then you really should read the book but reasonably accurate is, well, reasonably good. It does speak to the question of "Is this a document written by God, written by humans about God, or some of both?" He certainly makes the first option harder to believe but I think many Christians, if they actually read their Bibles, have reached a similar conclusion already.

I did really enjoy reading his faith story though. I've always wondered, after hearing him interviewed and reading his other books (and watching his NT Teaching Co series), what he personally DID with all that info and it was helpful to know. On the other hand, his book on apocalyptic Jesus was really a blessing for me because it explained so much that had been unanswered for me before.

As an archeological aside, I read an editorial awhile ago in which a Jewish archeologist was taken to task by a Rabbi for suggesting that evidence does not support a straightforward OT Biblical history. The argument was political pointing out that casting doubt on the Biblical record casts doubt on the legitimacy of the Jewish claim to the land. Talk about pressure! Archeologists have managed to lay very low somehow and not get drawn into the culture wars like biologists but me thinks their day is coming!

Elaine,
Craig Evans has written a rebuttal to the recent off-the-wall books and films about Jesus, titled "Fabricating Jesus; How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels". He includes Bart Ehrman's book, "Misquoting Jesus". Basically, Evans attributes Ehrman's conclusions to "rigid ideas about the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture".

Evans points out that moderate scholarship has known about these mistakes for over a century but "Bible scholars are not defecting in droves". The Christian declaration that was circulated for the first ten to fifteen years after the resurrection was given without any written, what we call New Testament Scriptures; "nevertheless, the church grew fast and furious, without benefit of a New Testament or the Gospels (inerrant or otherwise". He states, "The witness of (Old Testament) Scripture was very important to the early Christian movement, of course. Throughout his sermon Peter appeals to Scripture. Almost every New Testament writer does. But the proofs adduced from Scripture are clearly subordinate to the message itself, which is the miracle of Easter."

Evans calls Ehrman's reasoning in parts of his book faulty and misleading, fueled by Ehrman's struggle with faith; concludes that Ehrman had, from the get-go, "mistaken expectations of the nature and function of Scripture, mistaken expectations that he was taught as a young, impressionable fundamentalist Christian".

This critique resonates with me because SDA stand on Scripture is fundamentalist, with a weak denial of "verbal inspiration". Most Bible studies are conducted by way of quotes that jump all over the place, ending with some prescribed conclusion. It is, therefore, down right dangerous to read a book like Ehrman's if you think the Bible doesn't contain any mistakes, having been protected by the very hand of God. Should we retrain our expectations of what the Bible was meant to be? Is there room for human errors in the Word of God? What constitutes relaying of God's Word - the meticulous attention to words, transported across linguistic and cultural boundaries, or the experiences behind the words.

I think the tendency for a layman who reads a book like "Misquoting" is to come away with the idea that one can just throw up your hands and say, "who knows, it's just all so uncertain."

I will repeat an earlier quote from Aland & Aland,
"When we compare the variations found in the New Testament manuscripts they appear to be quite innocuous, especially since an extensive manuscript tradition provides a means of control and correction".p.291.

Dr. Hill maintains, "The NT textual tradition in its entirety indisputably contains a large number of variations. By far, most of these- as Ehrman freely admits 'are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing the scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us.' Most even of the intentional changes are relatively harmless stylistic changes, or harmonizations Some do appear to have been doctrinally motivated- though,I think, not nearly as many as Ehrman alleges- but these are almost always easily detectable.Yet relatively few materially affect the sense of the passage; even fewer are of any theological significance, and none places any Christian doctrine in jeopardy."

Let each be convinced in his own mind but I believe Dr. Waltke was correct in saying that any quality new translation wil be safe for faith and practice at least 99% of the time.

Hardly scandalous and overwhelming. Interesting that any but those who believe in mechanical inspiration in the first place would be so overwhelmed. Most conservative scholars believe in "organic inspiration" and I suggest most/many of these come to Dr. Hill's above conclusion that within the textual apparatus the "original" can be found...though not in any one document. That has been a "conservative" position for close to 100 years.

Hi Elaine:

Discussions of this topic always intrigue me. But there is an irony which serves to keep my skepticism (healthy skepticism I hope!) alive.

We are told that transmission over time is suspect; that understanding and meaning evolve over time; that supporters of a stream of thought always have a bias; that any system which succeeds must have done so because it had a preexisting agenda… So the accumulation of the text remains forever tainted and suspect; the authors were somehow incapable of saying what they meant, or meaning what they said; or, their followers were deeply suspect in inserting their own meanings -- through either incompetence, agenda bias, or carelessness.

Well then.

We broach the topic of Christ’s divinity -- and are told we may safely ignore it. Why? because the doctrine was not held at the time precisely as it was some few hundreds of years later?? Pardon me, but isn’t that exactly the sort of thing we would EXPECT to see happening as each mind and each generation seeks to build on what has gone on before? That a doctrine of such audacity and novelty actually WOULD take time to develop -- given the enormity of it’s implications?

How can the critic demand having it both ways? That time has honed their understandings, yet has not ennobled mine?

So, with the Trinity. Why, given that it’s complete elucidation didn’t find full voice till many many years later, surly it must be rejected as the desperate manipulations of a people struggling to retain their relevance. Really? Why not suggest that a doctrine of such depth and importance DESERVED that sort of time to be gotten right?

If time really does disturb and dilute and distort original meanings, why does not that same distortion occur in the minds of the skeptics and critics themselves? How have they become exempt? If minds really are self-serving at their core, does that also apply to the mind of the skeptic and critic?

Truth is, if I discovered that there really were no Hebrew slaves wandering for 40 years, I could deal with it. But for me anyway, the Christ story is a bit different. If I’ve been wrong about His identity, I’ve got a huge amount of work to do. Now, is my current understanding of Christ where that understanding is going to be 10,000 years from now? I certainly hope not. In fact, I may not even be using the same language; having long since discerned the taint of human transmissions.

Enough reason to retain a bit of healthy skepticism right?? I see your skepticism, Elaine, as healthy.

Seems to me that there is story, and there is meaning. Comfort levels vary as meaning is wrested from story, with story (in the eyes of some) carelessly discarded. I’ve “grown” to know both you, and Pat, and know that you both have respect for story AND for meaning. Maybe even reverence.

Yet you see it so differently.

Am I to guess as to which of you does NOT look “through a glass darkly”?

How cool is that...

Elaine, Tom:
I am not trying to demonstrate that Jesus was not the son of God. What I am trying to do is to show that the belief is based on 300 years of refelction on the testimony of the Church, and not on this or that scripture in the Bible. And yes, the new trend has been initiated, (though not fully concluded), by Paul and John, and was deeply informed by helenistic thought.
The SDA pioneers knew that Crosier's sanctuary with Jesus acting as an extension of the Levitical priesthood on one side, and Jesus=God on the other, don't go together. The also knew that rejecting Sunday observance meant rejecting the Nicea package as a whole. Even more, the EGW Great Contraversy saga in heaven is very nontrinitarian to say the least.
We returned to trinity by the same process of growing into maturity the postapostolic Church experienced before Niceea. I am not rying to destroy SDA. I don't practice double talk but I believe that my Church as a whole is practicing a sort of doublethink. We simply went back to Niceea but never answered ( or even asked) how we reconcile the “de facto” canonicity of EGW, sanctuary, and Sabbath, to trinity. We look down at Uriah Smith but the old professor knew better. The theological shift in 1888 needed some epxlanation.
When you read Orwells' essey about politics and the English language you see exactly the problem of our theological language in the post 1888 era. If destroying this thought-fogging language means tearing down something istitutionolized, so be it. u

Anonymous

Thank you for your clarification. I don't know SDA history well enough to contest your version. I do know that E.G. White used Uriah Smith when ever it suited her ends.

1888 was simply a power play. E.G. White thought the G.C. was running ahead of her. So she had to back the insurgents.

"In verity" sounds so positive, deep, and uncontestable.

If one follows that thought to its logical conclusion is demolishes all of the post 1844 of the Whites et al. The Angel was carrying the Everlasting Gospel from A.D. 33 forward not 1844 or 1888 forward.

The Three Angels' messages valid A.D. 33 not A.D. 1844.

Tom

P.S. Anonymous I think you should have referenced Walter Rhea rather than Huss.

I find agreement with all those who have described Ehrman's dilemma when, raised as a fundamentalist Christian, he became a student of Greek and Hebrew and much more.

Who can deny, based on recent religious surveys, that the majority of Christians are fundamentalists? That probably includes the majority of Adventists as well. Don't fundamentalists view the Bible far differently than the Hebrews (who, by the way wrote nearly all the Bible) who never accepted it for factual history, but a much larger allegorical meaning?
That principle is used by the majority of preachers in the pulpit when they choose a scripture and then interpret it into modern, and very different circumstances? Former slaves in the U.S. used the Exodus constantly in there sermons (Martin Luther King?) as a symbol of freedom that they longed for.

Faith should be, if Hebrews 11 is believed, independent of evidence; so my question is: why do so many want it both ways--to be both factually correct, and to have far deeper symbolic meaning? Whether the Resurrection was a supernatural physical manifestation, the symbolic meaning extends much further to a believer. The hope for life after death did not originate with Christianity, although it was not originally part of the Jewish belief, and the Easter symbolizes the universal hope for life beyond the grave. But, and this should not be forgotten: it is ONLY by faith that one hopes for life after death, as there as not a soul reading this who has witnessed where the soul goes after death. Yes, we read of such events in the Bible, but we also read of extraordinary events in all ancient contemporary literature, reflecting their perspectives. No culture, be it Hebrew or Christian, or Greek, lives in isolation, unaffected by each.

I found Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" a fascinating read.

I discovered that the Christian religion, which claims to value truth, and that the SDA denomination, specifically, have deliberately and consistently failed to educate their own people about the origins of the Books they base their beliefs on.

This led me to do similar research - with similar results - into the origins of the OT.

How an organization can simultaneously claim to keep the commandment which states "Thou shalt not bear a false witness against thy neighbor" while at the same time consistently bearing a false witness about the origin of The Bible leads to an interesting study of the human psychology and organizational dynamics.

It is to their shame that the SDA church does not publish a series of Sabbath School lessons and Adventist Review articles on this information. Deliberately keeping the membership ignorant is wrong.

/Bevin

Hi all ...

I really don't know what all the fuss is about with this book. Having purchased it and read it I am able to fill in the review with the following comments.

Ehrmen confesses to, at one stage, being a believer in the verbal inspiration of Scripture ... not-with-standing that he was using a "text" that was a translation from previous translations and manuscripts from several centuries after the event.

His realisation that verbal inspiration was impossible for the KJV, NRV and any other translated text led him on his search for understanding.

To those who would suggest that, as result of his (Ehrman's) work they can now be more secure in their skepticism of Scripture, he twice makes an extremely encouraging and faith affirming comment within his work.

Neither of these statements were alluded to in the review presented above, thus allowing the review to contain a certain "spin" that would encourage skeptics in their disbelief.

Ehrman states, (p10) after making the observation, "there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament". He continues by stating that "MOST OF THESE DIFFERENCES ARE COMPLETELY IMMATERIAL AND INSIGNIFICANT."

And again on page 207, "To be sure, of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, MOST OF THEM ARE COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT, IMMATERIAL, OF NO REAL IMPORTANCE FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN SHOWING THAT SCRIBES COULD NOT SPELL OR KEEP FOCUSED ANY BETTER THAN THE REST OF US".

The question that begs to be asked follows from his statement on p210, "Even so - despite imponderable difficulties - we do have manuscripts of every book of the New Testament ..."

The question is then, how is it that we have the text of Scripture (66 books in all) so well preserved through the centuries? Why is it that no other text has been so well preserved over the same period of time? Surely there must be an element of providential preservation over the content and themes if not the very words, especially when one considers the many attempts of some to destroy the Word!

These questions Ehrman does not address. Rather he allows his skepticism arising from the minutiae to disallow his faith in the Infinite.

Elaine,

thank you so much for introducing the book; I instantly have ordered it at Amazon.

Tom Zwemer,

I beg your pardon for spelling your name wrong. But, what do you think we did ten to welve hours a week for four years with Greek ? Well, reading and translating Xenophon, Homer, Herodot, Platon (Symposion, Politeia )Aischylos, Sophokles, Euripides.
- - - - And just now I have ordered - also via Amazon (Germany)
Aischylos to read more about monologues without semantics or grammar to find an approach to "glossolalia" (until now I preferW.E. Richardsons interpretation).

Inbetween : I have I Cor 13 : 9 with its parallels in Job 26, 14 in mind and the promise for the future in verse 10 (in contrast ot Platons negative view of no future in his epistemology in the parable of the cave)

To reiterate: Ehrman's book focuses on the NT only.

Currently, I am enjoying James Kugel's "How to Read the Bible," which is devoted to the Hebrew Bible (BTW, he is STILL an Orthodox Jew!). But he refuses, and cannot ignore the overwhelming evidence from archaeology and manuscripts discovered during the last hundred years; PLUS the multiple anachronisms exhibiting that the WRITTEN texts are of much more recent origins than the actual events described.

It is ONLY 690 pages, so I have only finished the first few chapters but is is more intriguing as I progress. His statement of faith is based on other than the literality of the Bible stories: something we too often we refuse to acknowledge. The Bible was NEVER intended to be an accurate historical record, which is the way moderns approach it. The ancient Hebrews TOLD and retold and interpreted these stories for millennia before ever permanently writing them (no earlier than 1000 B.C., and possibly later). The facts were of much less importance to them than the focus on their glorious history, just as Homer in his description of Greek history which was never intended to be a "true and accurate account." Why do we not learn to read and interpret the Bible as the earliest people did? What did it mean to them? What a novel approach!

Ehrman recounts his personal experience with the study of the Bible and textual criticism. He summarizes the history of textual criticism, from Erasmus to the present.

L. Michael White's book "From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith" gives a distinctive and exceptional introduction to the New Testament.

It cannot be mentioned too often that the Gospels as we now have them are not direct or firsthand biographies of Jesus. Unfortunately, that is how they are usually read and interpreted. E.g., while the Gospels contain many accounts of Jesus' miracles; Paul, the NT earliest writer, says nothing at all about them, but does seem to know a few of Jesus' sayings.

This book has several charts: one of the Gospels and Paul, shows their common origins or which ones are independent. Adolf Harnack wrote at the turn of the 20th century: "It was Paul who delivered the Christian religion from Judaism...[He] transformed it into a universal religion and laid the ground for the great church."

When Paul's life and missionary activities are studied, there are two sources: Luke-Acts and Paul's. They are divergent in many ways, beginning with the dramatic "Damascus road story told by Luke. While Paul's account has no blinding light, but only a simple statement that God had set him apart to reveal his son, so that he might proclaim him among the Gentiles. Other differences: Acts does not mention Paul's going away into Arabia and then returning to Damascus. Also, Paul quite adamantly says that he did not confer with anyone in Jerusalem until after three years, and then stayed there for only two weeks. Acts tells of five visits to Jerusalem by Paul, but Paul only mentions three visits. It has been noted that the frequent visits to Jerusalem by Paul was to make it appear that he had a closer contact with the Jerusalem church.

As a reult of careful study of these, NT scholars have concluded that one must reconstruct Paul's career by starting with the letters themselves, and then correlate the events described in Acts when and where they seem to fit.

Why and how were books chosen for the NT canon? More were rejected than included, as there were so many in circulation, having the names of the apostles, or well-known Bible characters; had they been included, we would have a NT equal to the size of the Old. Even the book of Enoch, quoted in Jude, comes in two volumes and describes stories in Genesis. This book may have influenced Milton and even EGW.

Christians proudly proclaim the Bible as the "Word of God," but with little knowledge of its compilation and that it is neither inerrant nor infallible. It contains principles of living and a way of life that Christians should follow. More than that, can be Bibliolatry.