[b-hebrew] Many scholars accept the documentary sources

LM Barre l_barre at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 5 19:40:32 EST 2009


However, the conservative scholar looks for reasonable and logical answers that still maintain the integrity of God's Word.
 
This bias is unacceptable to mainstream scholarship.  One must be objective without importing foreign theological notions.
 
Lloyd Barré
 
 

--- On Wed, 2/4/09, Edward Andrews <edandrews at roadrunner.com> wrote:

From: Edward Andrews <edandrews at roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Many scholars accept the documentary sources
To: l_barre at yahoo.com, "b-Hebrew" <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 11:56 PM





Kevin:
 
Knowledge of what, implications, inferences and circumstantial evidence that really is nothing more than an overactive imagination. 
 
You write: Among Christians it seems to be mainly among conservative evangelicals who hold to the concept of an inerrant Bible that any form of documentary sources are unacceptable.  They do not make up the totality, or even the majority, of conservative Christians and Jews who would consider themselves to be biblical scholars.  
 
Ed: This is the exact thing I am talking about. The majority of nothing equals being in the right. If we were to apply that status, more Christians and Jews in the last 2,000 have accepted inerrancy and Moses as the writer of the Torah. Evidence is what makes the case, not winsome words. If one looks at both side, the conservative scholar offers the better case. When discrepancies come up, it is all to easy for the liberal progressive to go into some spin about JEDP authors and a Redactor. However, the conservative scholar looks for reasonable and logical answers that still maintain the integrity of God's Word.
 
Conservative scholarship took their eye off the ball in the 19th century, seeing liberal scholarship as no serious problem; viewing them as a small nuisance at best. They gave no consideration until the 1970's forward, by that time universities were overrun with liberal scholarship. True enough, they have taken the lead, but it hasn't been for the betterment of anything. What is church attendance today? What is the conversion rate of evangelism today? How many are moving to atheism? Was this the case when conservative scholarship was in the driver's seat?
 
Conservatives have rebounded, but they will not likely recover because of two reasons. 1.) Liberal scholarship refuses to make the same mistake as the conservatives; they are not taking their eye off the ball. 2.) Tabloid sales! If someone writes an article that Jesus was a bastard son and and married a prostitute to father 12 boys that all formed a new Israel based on some new gospel; the sales would be off the charts. But if an article is written on the validity of the resurrection; it will have no such success in sales. The world we live in is tabloid hungry. The liberal progressive scholarship feeds that world and does nothing more than plant atheists and agnostics. Liberal scholarship only gives fuel to the atheist and diminishes the validity and trustworthiness of God's Word all in the name of scholarship and wishful thinking.
 
Edward Andrews
Liberty University



----- Original Message ----- 
From: LM Barre 
To: b-Hebrew 
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Many scholars accept the documentary sources

What is your point? Knowledge is impossible?


Lloyd Barré
http://freewebs.com/lmbarre


--- On Wed, 2/4/09, Edward Andrews <edandrews at roadrunner.com> wrote:

From: Edward Andrews <edandrews at roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Many scholars accept the documentary sources
To: "Kevin Riley" <klriley at alphalink.com.au>, "b-Hebrew" <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 9:11 AM

You wrote: "that depends on how you define. . . ." This is the second
time this idea has been said in the last two posts.

This is a part of the problem. Everyone has their own definition of this or
that. This independent spirit has caused 28,000 varieties of Christianity. But
then again, I guess that depends on how you define Christianity.

I guess that depends on how you define Christianity
I guess that depends on how you define Conservative
I guess that depends on how you define inerrancy
I guess that depends on how you define inspired
I guess that depends on how you define evidence

Edward Andrews
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kevin Riley 
  To: b-Hebrew 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:10 AM
  Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Many scholars accept the documentary sources


  I suspect that depends on how you define "conservative".  I think
you will
  find that there are many who would define themselves as conservative in
  religious terms who would either accept the idea of documentary sources
  [even if not in the classical EDJP form] or have an open mind on the subject
   Among Christians iIt seems to be mainly among conservative evangelicals who
  hold to the concept of an inerrant Bible that any form of documentary
  sources are unacceptable.  They do not make up the totality, or even the
  majority, of conservative Christians and Jews who would consider themselves
  to be biblical scholars.  

  Kevin Riley
   
  -------Original Message------- 
   
  From: Bryant J. Williams III 
  Date: 4/02/2009 5:54:49 PM 
   
  Dear Lloyd, 
   
  Amongst "mainstream" scholars "so-called" it is accepted.
Amongst
  conservative 
  Scholars it is NOT accepted. 
   
  Rev. Bryant J. Williams III 
   
  _______________________________________________
  b-hebrew mailing list
  b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
  http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



      
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


      


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list