Another Question for Christians

[BluePhantom]

I ask this question very sincerely as I am interested in the responses.

Why is it that so many Christians are so hostile in response to critical scholarship?

The purpose of that area of study is essentially to "get to the truth" in the grand scheme of things and it seems to me that if one really wants to know the will of God, to really understand the teachings of Jesus, and make sure they are on the right track, etc, that it would be in their best interests to understand the context in which scripture was written, the cultural influences of the times that certain passages are relating to, a little bit about ancient languages in order to identify misinterpretations, know the history in order to determine which things in Christian faith are supported by the Bible and which things are simply church traditions, etc.

I myself am a man of faith but I do not blindly accept what a priest or pastor or someone tells me. I listen, think, meditate on it, and then research the hell out of it. Usually what I find stands in contrast to what that priest or pastor told me. But, for me, my faith is not challenged...actually my faith is enhanced. Yes my study forces me sometimes to adjust my understanding of God or redefine how I see Jesus, but isn't that what we should all be doing anyhow? Continuously developing our faith and reaching new levels of understanding and communion with God?

Lets just take this example. Let's say somewhere in the Bible it says that you should never eat grapes on Thursday and those who do eat grapes on Thursday are unworthy and should be condemned. So being a good Christian you make sure that you never eat grapes on Thursday and you shun everyone who does and give them the finger every time you see them. But suddenly an earlier manuscript is found and however it happens there is clear evidence that the text was wrong....it says you should ALWAYS eat grapes on Thursday and those who DON'T should be condemned. .Well it seems to me that a Christian would want to know that so they can be good with God, ya know?

So what's the deal? Why all the hostility when someone says, for example, "well we are pretty certain that the Apostle Paul didn't write 1st or 2nd Timothy, Titus, or Ephesians. They were probably written by someone else claiming to be Paul in order to give their ideas more authority"? It seems to me we would want to know that as Christians so we base our beliefs and actions upon an authentic source instead of some jack-ass claiming to be someone he is not.

Seems logical to me.

So help me out. What's the deal?

 

[gtopa1]

I ask this question very sincerely as I am interested in the responses.

Why is it that so many Christians are so hostile in response to critical scholarship?

The purpose of that area of study is essentially to "get to the truth" in the grand scheme of things and it seems to me that if one really wants to know the will of God, to really understand the teachings of Jesus, and make sure they are on the right track, etc, that it would be in their best interests to understand the context in which scripture was written, the cultural influences of the times that certain passages are relating to, a little bit about ancient languages in order to identify misinterpretations, know the history in order to determine which things in Christian faith are supported by the Bible and which things are simply church traditions, etc.

I myself am a man of faith but I do not blindly accept what a priest or pastor or someone tells me. I listen, think, meditate on it, and then research the hell out of it. Usually what I find stands in contrast to what that priest or pastor told me. But, for me, my faith is not challenged...actually my faith is enhanced. Yes my study forces me sometimes to adjust my understanding of God or redefine how I see Jesus, but isn't that what we should all be doing anyhow? Continuously developing our faith and reaching new levels of understanding and communion with God?

Lets just take this example. Let's say somewhere in the Bible it says that you should never eat grapes on Thursday and those who do eat grapes on Thursday are unworthy and should be condemned. So being a good Christian you make sure that you never eat grapes on Thursday and you shun everyone who does and give them the finger every time you see them. But suddenly an earlier manuscript is found and however it happens there is clear evidence that the text was wrong....it says you should ALWAYS eat grapes on Thursday and those who DON'T should be condemned. .Well it seems to me that a Christian would want to know that so they can be good with God, ya know?

So what's the deal? Why all the hostility when someone says, for example, "well we are pretty certain that the Apostle Paul didn't write 1st or 2nd Timothy, Titus, or Ephesians. They were probably written by someone else claiming to be Paul in order to give their ideas more authority"? It seems to me we would want to know that as Christians so we base our beliefs and actions upon an authentic source instead of some jack-ass claiming to be someone he is not.

Seems logical to me.

So help me out. What's the deal?

Dunno. I sure don't. I just look up the issue with the Church or raise it with my local pastor and say things like "that's interesting". One must remember that Biblical Scholarship is not new. It was the Roman Catholic Church that put the bible together and there was much debate at the time...about 400AD.

[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Ezra, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John.

Thus [it has been decided] that the Church beyond the sea may be consulted regarding the confirmation of that canon; also that it be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated. (From Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, translated and published in English as The Sources of Catholic Dogma)

So they are only the Books that the RCC deemed "safe" at the time. There was some weeding out along the way before then and I have read quite a few of the "misses" but they are the official source. I suppose there has always been a lot of debate and even violence associated with what was meaningful or direct and what was ...well..."heretical".

Greg

 

[BluePhantom]

Dunno. I sure don't. I just look up the issue with the Church or raise it with my local pastor and say things like "that's interesting". One must remember that Biblical Scholarship is not new. It was the Roman Catholic Church that put the bible together and there was much debate at the time...about 400AD.

That's correct and there were four qualifications for putting a book into the Bible. 1) It had to be ancient (meaning dating back to the first century AD or earlier). 2) It had to be widely used. In other words it had to be a book that was very common to the people and individual churches, 3) It had to be apostolic...meaning written by an apostle or a close companion of one. (hence the tradition of The Revelation being written by John son of Zebadee instead of John of Patmos [whoever he was]), and 4) it had to be orthodox. That one is the kicker, because there were many books that were widely used at the time that were omitted from the Bible because they didn't agree with the view of the church at the time. Some notable examples would be the Gospel of Thomas, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Gospel of Barnabus, or the Gospel of Peter. The Gospel of Peter is my favorite because it was rejected on the grounds that the Pope disagreed with it and thus it could not be the word of God because God would never have inspired the writing of something the Pope disagreed with. You know...you can't make this shit up.

 

[ninja007]

the Jews didn't accept the Acro whatsoever and for good reason. Many reasons actually. They have some good historical accounts in them but they are not inspired or perfect.

 

[gtopa1]

The Gospel of Peter is my favorite because it was rejected on the grounds that the Pope disagreed with it and thus it could not be the word of God because God would never have inspired the writing of something the Pope disagreed with.

What's in; what's out...I leave that to my betters at that sort of stuff. But if you are referring to it's rejection I strongly suspect that it was on sound grounds.

The gospel is widely thought to date from after Peter's death. Scholars generally agree on a date in the second half of the 2nd century. This is assuming it is the text condemned by Serapion, Bishop of Antioch upon inspection at Rhossus, circa 190. The Rhossus community had already been using it in their liturgy.[5]

Later Western references, which condemn the work, such as Jerome and Decretum Gelasianum, traditionally connected to Pope Gelasius I, are apparently based upon the judgment of Eusebius, not upon a direct knowledge of the text.[6]

I could find nowhere that this Eusebius was ever a Pope. Unless of course I have the wrong one. I am definitely no Church Scholar......

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Eusebius of Caesarea

The only Eusebius who was a Pope only lasted in the job a few months before he was martyred.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Pope St. Eusebius

I am uncertain that in that short time he would have cancelled a Gospel but you never can tell.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

This might be helpful

"he Decretal include a list of works adjudged apocryphal "by Pope Gelasius and seventy most erudite bishops.""......hence the rejection of the supposed work by St Peter had many "erudite" minds behind it. Perhaps the comment "The Gospel of Peter is my favorite because it was rejected on the grounds that the Pope disagreed with it" is one of those urban myth thingies.

Greg

 

[BluePhantom]

The Gospel of Peter is my favorite because it was rejected on the grounds that the Pope disagreed with it and thus it could not be the word of God because God would never have inspired the writing of something the Pope disagreed with.

What's in; what's out...I leave that to my betters at that sort of stuff. But if you are referring to it's rejection I strongly suspect that it was on sound grounds.

The gospel is widely thought to date from after Peter's death. Scholars generally agree on a date in the second half of the 2nd century. This is assuming it is the text condemned by Serapion, Bishop of Antioch upon inspection at Rhossus, circa 190. The Rhossus community had already been using it in their liturgy.[5]

Later Western references, which condemn the work, such as Jerome and Decretum Gelasianum, traditionally connected to Pope Gelasius I, are apparently based upon the judgment of Eusebius, not upon a direct knowledge of the text.[6]

I could find nowhere that this Eusebius was ever a Pope. Unless of course I have the wrong one. I am definitely no Church Scholar......

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Eusebius of Caesarea

The only Eusebius who was a Pope only lasted in the job a few months before he was martyred.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Pope St. Eusebius

I am uncertain that in that short time he would have cancelled a Gospel but you never can tell.

Greg

Oh Jeez....exactly which Pope it was I don't recall. There have been hundreds of them and while my memory is pretty solid I can't bring up "Pope blah, blah, blah" off the top of my head unless he was a pretty significant guy. I am getting pretty tired though. I will look back on my notes tomorrow and provide you with the specifics on which of them rejected the Gospel of Peter....which by the way I agree should not have been included. While it was a very popular book in its day and very widely used; walking, talking crosses, the complete exoneration of Pontius Pilate, as well as some other things make this for me, an interesting book to see how early Christians viewed Jesus but certainly not a source that I would call trustworthy.

 

[Penelope]

I agree with the OP, one must take in consideration the culture and the history when reading it. If one reads Eusebius , Proof and Prep of the Gospel one can learn a lot, also by the early writers who did not make it into the Bible. There are books referred to in the Bible such as Enoch and Jasher, which also should be read, also the Protestants leave out several books in the OT. In the end I read there are 4 gospels to correspond to NEWS , the ones read in the North, East, West and South of the Roman Empire which was huge. The temple was gone and the Jews had spread out all over the land, even before the destruction of Herods temple , so the point of the NT was no need for the temple, but God is everywhere and one can take God everywhere with him and worship him everywhere, and of course to lay down the certain laws of the land, all is ok to eat, no stoning for adultery anymore, and no need to sacrifice sheep as Jesus was the sheep led to the slaughter, the scapegoat so to say.

 

[BluePhantom]

I agree with the OP, one must take in consideration the culture and the history when reading it. If one reads Eusebius , Proof and Prep of the Gospel one can learn a lot, also by the early writers who did not make it into the Bible. There are books referred to in the Bible such as Enoch and Jasher, which also should be read, also the Protestants leave out several books in the OT. In the end I read there are 4 gospels to correspond to NEWS , the ones read in the North, East, West and South of the Roman Empire which was huge. The temple was gone and the Jews had spread out all over the land, even before the destruction of Herods temple , so the point of the NT was no need for the temple, but God is everywhere and one can take God everywhere with him and worship him everywhere, and of course to lay down the certain laws of the land, all is ok to eat, no stoning for adultery anymore, and no need to sacrifice sheep as Jesus was the sheep led to the slaughter, the scapegoat so to say.

Ahhh..."scapegoat". I see what you did there. Good suggestions for people on Eusebius too.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I ask this question very sincerely as I am interested in the responses.

Why is it that so many Christians are so hostile in response to critical scholarship?

So what's the deal? Why all the hostility when someone says, for example, "well we are pretty certain that the Apostle Paul didn't write 1st or 2nd Timothy, Titus, or Ephesians. They were probably written by someone else claiming to be Paul in order to give their ideas more authority"?

probably because such claims are not critical scholarship.....absurd claims from atheist wannabees do not have to be given the same weight as theological scholars......

 

[Hollie]

I ask this question very sincerely as I am interested in the responses.

Why is it that so many Christians are so hostile in response to critical scholarship?

So what's the deal? Why all the hostility when someone says, for example, "well we are pretty certain that the Apostle Paul didn't write 1st or 2nd Timothy, Titus, or Ephesians. They were probably written by someone else claiming to be Paul in order to give their ideas more authority"?

probably because such claims are not critical scholarship.....absurd claims from atheist wannabees do not have to be given the same weight as theological scholars......

Interesting, but not surprising, that you fit the stereotype of the christian who is hostile to the idea of questioning of so-called "scholarship".

 

[BluePhantom]

I ask this question very sincerely as I am interested in the responses.

Why is it that so many Christians are so hostile in response to critical scholarship?

So what's the deal? Why all the hostility when someone says, for example, "well we are pretty certain that the Apostle Paul didn't write 1st or 2nd Timothy, Titus, or Ephesians. They were probably written by someone else claiming to be Paul in order to give their ideas more authority"?

probably because such claims are not critical scholarship.....absurd claims from atheist wannabees do not have to be given the same weight as theological scholars......

Well of course they are critical scholarship. The term "critical scholarship" is a definition used in academia.
Read What is a Critical Scholar - Westar Institute Westar Institute

So what I am hearing you say is that if a Christian sees an orange on a table and calls it an orange, then it's an orange and if a scholar sees an orange on a table, runs tests on it, makes comparisons to other fruits, and concludes it's an orange, then it isn't an orange.

Similarly if a Christian sees an apple on a table and calls it an orange then it's an orange, and if a scholar sees an apple on a table and runs tests on it, makes comparisons against other fruits, and calls it an apple then it's an absurd claim from an atheist wannabe.

Is that what you are saying? If so, how does that make any sense at all?

 

[RandomVariable]

I ask this question very sincerely as I am interested in the responses.

Why is it that so many Christians are so hostile in response to critical scholarship?

The purpose of that area of study is essentially to "get to the truth" in the grand scheme of things and it seems to me that if one really wants to know the will of God, to really understand the teachings of Jesus, and make sure they are on the right track, etc, that it would be in their best interests to understand the context in which scripture was written, the cultural influences of the times that certain passages are relating to, a little bit about ancient languages in order to identify misinterpretations, know the history in order to determine which things in Christian faith are supported by the Bible and which things are simply church traditions, etc.

I myself am a man of faith but I do not blindly accept what a priest or pastor or someone tells me. I listen, think, meditate on it, and then research the hell out of it. Usually what I find stands in contrast to what that priest or pastor told me. But, for me, my faith is not challenged...actually my faith is enhanced. Yes my study forces me sometimes to adjust my understanding of God or redefine how I see Jesus, but isn't that what we should all be doing anyhow? Continuously developing our faith and reaching new levels of understanding and communion with God?

Lets just take this example. Let's say somewhere in the Bible it says that you should never eat grapes on Thursday and those who do eat grapes on Thursday are unworthy and should be condemned. So being a good Christian you make sure that you never eat grapes on Thursday and you shun everyone who does and give them the finger every time you see them. But suddenly an earlier manuscript is found and however it happens there is clear evidence that the text was wrong....it says you should ALWAYS eat grapes on Thursday and those who DON'T should be condemned. .Well it seems to me that a Christian would want to know that so they can be good with God, ya know?

So what's the deal? Why all the hostility when someone says, for example, "well we are pretty certain that the Apostle Paul didn't write 1st or 2nd Timothy, Titus, or Ephesians. They were probably written by someone else claiming to be Paul in order to give their ideas more authority"? It seems to me we would want to know that as Christians so we base our beliefs and actions upon an authentic source instead of some jack-ass claiming to be someone he is not.

Seems logical to me.

So help me out. What's the deal?

You like science. Let's do a little experiment:

Let's say I am completely naive about the bible, religion, or any of that kind of stuff. You say you are a bible scholar so I ask you, "I heard there is a story about some flood in the King James Version of the bible. What can you tell me about that?"

 

[hortysir]

Without a lengthy reply (mostly coz I'm mobile), I trust the Holy Spirit.
It was through His guidance that the Bible was assembled.
And it is through His guidance (much like you mentioned in the OP of reading and meditation) that I understand the Bible *as it pertains to my life*.....and that's how I understand the Bible to be meant. Not for entire groups to translate it the exact same way, but for us to use It to build on our own personal relationship with God and to bring us to Him

 

[BluePhantom]

I ask this question very sincerely as I am interested in the responses.

Why is it that so many Christians are so hostile in response to critical scholarship?

The purpose of that area of study is essentially to "get to the truth" in the grand scheme of things and it seems to me that if one really wants to know the will of God, to really understand the teachings of Jesus, and make sure they are on the right track, etc, that it would be in their best interests to understand the context in which scripture was written, the cultural influences of the times that certain passages are relating to, a little bit about ancient languages in order to identify misinterpretations, know the history in order to determine which things in Christian faith are supported by the Bible and which things are simply church traditions, etc.

I myself am a man of faith but I do not blindly accept what a priest or pastor or someone tells me. I listen, think, meditate on it, and then research the hell out of it. Usually what I find stands in contrast to what that priest or pastor told me. But, for me, my faith is not challenged...actually my faith is enhanced. Yes my study forces me sometimes to adjust my understanding of God or redefine how I see Jesus, but isn't that what we should all be doing anyhow? Continuously developing our faith and reaching new levels of understanding and communion with God?

Lets just take this example. Let's say somewhere in the Bible it says that you should never eat grapes on Thursday and those who do eat grapes on Thursday are unworthy and should be condemned. So being a good Christian you make sure that you never eat grapes on Thursday and you shun everyone who does and give them the finger every time you see them. But suddenly an earlier manuscript is found and however it happens there is clear evidence that the text was wrong....it says you should ALWAYS eat grapes on Thursday and those who DON'T should be condemned. .Well it seems to me that a Christian would want to know that so they can be good with God, ya know?

So what's the deal? Why all the hostility when someone says, for example, "well we are pretty certain that the Apostle Paul didn't write 1st or 2nd Timothy, Titus, or Ephesians. They were probably written by someone else claiming to be Paul in order to give their ideas more authority"? It seems to me we would want to know that as Christians so we base our beliefs and actions upon an authentic source instead of some jack-ass claiming to be someone he is not.

Seems logical to me.

So help me out. What's the deal?

You like science. Let's do a little experiment:

Let's say I am completely naive about the bible, religion, or any of that kind of stuff. You say you are a bible scholar so I ask you, "I heard there is a story about some flood in the King James Version of the bible. What can you tell me about that?"

Well I suppose I would tell you that the pericope about Noah and the flood in the KJV is one of a long line of flood narratives that were common to many cultures at the time and for centuries prior. The account depicted in the KJV, as opposed to say "The Epic of Gilgamesh" or the Sumerian tale of Enki and Enlil, is a bit unique in that it approaches the story from a monotheistic perspective instead of a polytheistic perspective, and that the hero, in this case Noah, is kind of jerk in a way. In previous versions the hero lobbies on behalf of mankind and begs the god or gods not to flood the earth and to give mankind another chance and Noah in contrast just kind of says "oh ok, no worries. Go ahead and wipe them out then."

I would point out that many similarities between all the stories exist, for example the design of the ark in the Bible narrative is the same design as in the story of Enki and Enlil and both landed on a mountain when the waters receded, in both accounts God or the gods promised to never do it again, in both accounts there was a burnt offering that pleased God or the gods, etc. So I would characterize the story of Noah as the Hebrew version of a very ancient flood story that has roots in many different cultures that pre-dated the Israelites by a couple thousand years.

 

[BluePhantom]

Without a lengthy reply (mostly coz I'm mobile), I trust the Holy Spirit.
It was through His guidance that the Bible was assembled.
And it is through His guidance (much like you mentioned in the OP of reading and meditation) that I understand the Bible *as it pertains to my life*.....and that's how I understand the Bible to be meant. Not for entire groups to translate it the exact same way, but for us to use It to build on our own personal relationship with God and to bring us to Him

Ok I can buy that and frankly I agree that each individual should have a relationship with God that is personal and based upon their own understanding. Sometimes I even go so far as to say "based upon what you and God can agree on" But I would also ask "why would someone focus their study on just the traditional interpretations that scholarship and the historical record suggest can sometimes be erroneous?" Why so quick to reject instead of consider, conduct independent research, and draw your own conclusion? Is it just that considering such things are uncomfortable or threatening? Is it scary? Honestly, I don't get it.

 

[RandomVariable]

I ask this question very sincerely as I am interested in the responses.

Why is it that so many Christians are so hostile in response to critical scholarship?

The purpose of that area of study is essentially to "get to the truth" in the grand scheme of things and it seems to me that if one really wants to know the will of God, to really understand the teachings of Jesus, and make sure they are on the right track, etc, that it would be in their best interests to understand the context in which scripture was written, the cultural influences of the times that certain passages are relating to, a little bit about ancient languages in order to identify misinterpretations, know the history in order to determine which things in Christian faith are supported by the Bible and which things are simply church traditions, etc.

I myself am a man of faith but I do not blindly accept what a priest or pastor or someone tells me. I listen, think, meditate on it, and then research the hell out of it. Usually what I find stands in contrast to what that priest or pastor told me. But, for me, my faith is not challenged...actually my faith is enhanced. Yes my study forces me sometimes to adjust my understanding of God or redefine how I see Jesus, but isn't that what we should all be doing anyhow? Continuously developing our faith and reaching new levels of understanding and communion with God?

Lets just take this example. Let's say somewhere in the Bible it says that you should never eat grapes on Thursday and those who do eat grapes on Thursday are unworthy and should be condemned. So being a good Christian you make sure that you never eat grapes on Thursday and you shun everyone who does and give them the finger every time you see them. But suddenly an earlier manuscript is found and however it happens there is clear evidence that the text was wrong....it says you should ALWAYS eat grapes on Thursday and those who DON'T should be condemned. .Well it seems to me that a Christian would want to know that so they can be good with God, ya know?

So what's the deal? Why all the hostility when someone says, for example, "well we are pretty certain that the Apostle Paul didn't write 1st or 2nd Timothy, Titus, or Ephesians. They were probably written by someone else claiming to be Paul in order to give their ideas more authority"? It seems to me we would want to know that as Christians so we base our beliefs and actions upon an authentic source instead of some jack-ass claiming to be someone he is not.

Seems logical to me.

So help me out. What's the deal?

You like science. Let's do a little experiment:

Let's say I am completely naive about the bible, religion, or any of that kind of stuff. You say you are a bible scholar so I ask you, "I heard there is a story about some flood in the King James Version of the bible. What can you tell me about that?"

Well I suppose I would tell you that the pericope about Noah and the flood in the KJV is one of a long line of flood narratives that were common to many cultures at the time and for centuries prior. The account depicted in the KJV, as opposed to say "The Epic of Gilgamesh" or the Sumerian tale of Enki and Enlil, is a bit unique in that it approaches the story from a monotheistic perspective instead of a polytheistic perspective, and that the hero, in this case Noah, is kind of jerk in a way. In previous versions the hero lobbies on behalf of mankind and begs the god or gods not to flood the earth and to give mankind another chance and Noah in contrast just kind of says "oh ok, no worries. Go ahead and wipe them out then."

I would point out that many similarities between all the stories exist, for example the design of the ark in the Bible narrative is the same design as in the story of Enki and Enlil and both landed on a mountain when the waters receded, in both accounts God or the gods promised to never do it again, in both accounts there was a burnt offering that pleased God or the gods, etc. So I would characterize the story of Noah as the Hebrew version of a very ancient flood story that has roots in many different cultures that pre-dated the Israelites by a couple thousand years.

And what you should have done is shoved a KJV bible in my hand and said, "I think it's in there somewhere." and walked away.

 

[BluePhantom]

I ask this question very sincerely as I am interested in the responses.

Why is it that so many Christians are so hostile in response to critical scholarship?

The purpose of that area of study is essentially to "get to the truth" in the grand scheme of things and it seems to me that if one really wants to know the will of God, to really understand the teachings of Jesus, and make sure they are on the right track, etc, that it would be in their best interests to understand the context in which scripture was written, the cultural influences of the times that certain passages are relating to, a little bit about ancient languages in order to identify misinterpretations, know the history in order to determine which things in Christian faith are supported by the Bible and which things are simply church traditions, etc.

I myself am a man of faith but I do not blindly accept what a priest or pastor or someone tells me. I listen, think, meditate on it, and then research the hell out of it. Usually what I find stands in contrast to what that priest or pastor told me. But, for me, my faith is not challenged...actually my faith is enhanced. Yes my study forces me sometimes to adjust my understanding of God or redefine how I see Jesus, but isn't that what we should all be doing anyhow? Continuously developing our faith and reaching new levels of understanding and communion with God?

Lets just take this example. Let's say somewhere in the Bible it says that you should never eat grapes on Thursday and those who do eat grapes on Thursday are unworthy and should be condemned. So being a good Christian you make sure that you never eat grapes on Thursday and you shun everyone who does and give them the finger every time you see them. But suddenly an earlier manuscript is found and however it happens there is clear evidence that the text was wrong....it says you should ALWAYS eat grapes on Thursday and those who DON'T should be condemned. .Well it seems to me that a Christian would want to know that so they can be good with God, ya know?

So what's the deal? Why all the hostility when someone says, for example, "well we are pretty certain that the Apostle Paul didn't write 1st or 2nd Timothy, Titus, or Ephesians. They were probably written by someone else claiming to be Paul in order to give their ideas more authority"? It seems to me we would want to know that as Christians so we base our beliefs and actions upon an authentic source instead of some jack-ass claiming to be someone he is not.

Seems logical to me.

So help me out. What's the deal?

You like science. Let's do a little experiment:

Let's say I am completely naive about the bible, religion, or any of that kind of stuff. You say you are a bible scholar so I ask you, "I heard there is a story about some flood in the King James Version of the bible. What can you tell me about that?"

Well I suppose I would tell you that the pericope about Noah and the flood in the KJV is one of a long line of flood narratives that were common to many cultures at the time and for centuries prior. The account depicted in the KJV, as opposed to say "The Epic of Gilgamesh" or the Sumerian tale of Enki and Enlil, is a bit unique in that it approaches the story from a monotheistic perspective instead of a polytheistic perspective, and that the hero, in this case Noah, is kind of jerk in a way. In previous versions the hero lobbies on behalf of mankind and begs the god or gods not to flood the earth and to give mankind another chance and Noah in contrast just kind of says "oh ok, no worries. Go ahead and wipe them out then."

I would point out that many similarities between all the stories exist, for example the design of the ark in the Bible narrative is the same design as in the story of Enki and Enlil and both landed on a mountain when the waters receded, in both accounts God or the gods promised to never do it again, in both accounts there was a burnt offering that pleased God or the gods, etc. So I would characterize the story of Noah as the Hebrew version of a very ancient flood story that has roots in many different cultures that pre-dated the Israelites by a couple thousand years.

And what you should have done is shoved a KJV bible in my hand and said, "I think it's in there somewhere." and walked away.

But you said "what can you tell me about that?" You specifically asked for my input and what I knew about the subject. I very well might give you a KJV, but if someone asks for my input, they are going to receive it and I will tell them what I know and what I think about it in good faith. What they do with that is up to them.

 

[hortysir]

I can't say that I rely on traditional teachinds as I haven't attended traditional church very often at all.
A good 85-90% of my Christian fiber has been woven between He and I.
Besides my attendance of Baptist, Methodist and Pentecostal churches, I read a pretty broad variety of sources, whenever and wherever I can.
My wife has always been a very strict and legalistic Pentecostal and we've had morethan a few arguments over how I disagree with some of their 'stumbling blocks'

 

[BluePhantom]

I can't say that I rely on traditional teachinds as I haven't attended traditional church very often at all.
A good 85-90% of my Christian fiber has been woven between He and I.
Besides my attendance of Baptist, Methodist and Pentecostal churches, I read a pretty broad variety of sources, whenever and wherever I can.
My wife has always been a very strict and legalistic Pentecostal and we've had morethan a few arguments over how I disagree with some of their 'stumbling blocks'

Oh I can relate to that. My wife is a pretty literal interpreter of scripture and we have had some pretty spicy discussions throughout the years. But she at least considers scholarship. Sometimes, frankly often, she rejects the conclusions but she does read it, look at it, compare it to other ideas, go over the peer reviews, etc. I mean she does her due diligence. Frequently we arrive at different conclusions,and there are a couple topics we have simply learned not to even approach, but that's ok. We respect each other's opinions and one of the reasons why I can respect her's, despite her different conclusions, is that when something new is brought up she doesn't immediately scream "LIES! PIG DOCTRINE FROM ATHEIST LIARS!" She says "Hmmmm....well let me go check that out and I will get back to you".