Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A quick Google shows there are scholars on both sides of the authorship debate.
Yes there are. Except those you hold to have no "evidence" to corroborate their viewpoint while linguistic and literary scholars have do.
Quote:
Polycarp and Irenaeus show that II Peter wasn't known in the second century church although I Peter was. ----- The author of II Peter knew the epistle of Jude, I Peter, the synoptic account of the transfiguration, the Johannine appendix wherein Christ predicts the martyrdom of Peter, and a collection of Pauline letters. Finally, there seems to be a literary relationship of II Peter with the Apocalypse of Peter.
Even some of the most conservative scholars recognize the battle about 2nd Peter is over:
Quote:
--textual critic Daniel Wallace (who maintains that Peter was the author) writes that, for most experts, "the issue of authorship is already settled, at least negatively: the apostle Peter did not write this letter" and that "the vast bulk of NT scholars adopts this perspective without much discussion.
If they're scholars, they have evidence to support their viewpoint.
Well, the liberal scholars DO have evidence to support their viewpoint. You haven't posted anything that conservative scholars say--I have--the battle has been lost by conservatives according to Dan Wallace, Professor of OT at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is quick to engage liberals when he has evidence. He doesn't, so he won't.
If you think it is all God-breathed then you must have some wonderment that in Jeremiah, the first scroll he wrote was burned up by a wicked king. God then told Daniel to write a second scroll and ADD words to the first, which He supposedly left out. When Jeremiah was done, God told him to throw it in the sea.
Obviously we have a THIRD Jeremiah scroll which is what you have in the English translations we have. Except, wait!! We have a FOURTH scroll that was discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls that is an abbreviated version of the one in our Bibles. And the one in our Bibles appears to have both edited out what was written in the fourth scroll (which is older) and added significant material. All taking place long after the fourth was written and presumably dating closer to scrolls one and two.
Scholars have concluded that the version in our English Bibles is from a later, edited version of Jeremiah. God wouldn't need to edit His version, and according to your understanding of Him, He wouldn't be changing His mind so frequently.
You've got an incorrect picture of how God uses writings to inspire the community of faith. And the picture you have leads you to many errors about both sin and godliness.
Quote:
Chapter 25:15-38 of the Masoretic text appears as chapter 32 in the Septuagint, 27:1-19 is chapter 34, 33:1-14 is chapter 40, and so on through more than thirty other changes in organization. To explain the problem posed by these variations in the Septuagint version of Jeremiah, proponents of the inerrancy doctrine once attributed the deviations from the Masoretic text to poor translation, but after the discoveries in Cave Four, this "explanation" became hard, if not impossible, to defend. Work on the Septuagint version began in Alexandria around 285 B.C., and the Jeremiah manuscript found at Qumran, like the Isaiah scroll, was dated in the early second century B. C.
Since the Qumran text of Jeremiah was parallel in content and organization to the Septuagint version, here was tangible evidence that at one time, for at least two centuries, a shorter, differently arranged version of the book existed. Hence, variations from the Masoretic text in the Septuagint version of Jeremiah resulted not from careless translation but from a radically different Hebrew text that the translators had before them. More interested in scholarship than the defense of pet theories, Fitzmyer said this about the Cave Four discoveries: Such ancient recensional forms of Old Testament books bear witness to an unsuspected textual diversity that once existed; these texts merit far greater study and attention than they have been accorded till now.
Thus, the differences in the Septuagint are no longer considered the result of a poor or tendentious attempt to translate the Hebrew into the Greek; rather they testify to a different pre-Christian form of the Hebrew text, (Ibid., p. 302, emphasis added).
Because of the damage these facts inflict on the inerrancy doctrine, Bible fundamentalists will, of course, resist the obvious conclusion that they lead to, but until the inerrantists can produce a Masoretic copy of Jeremiah that antedates the Septuagint, they will find it hard to defend their claim that the Bible text we now have is essentially the same as what was written in the "original autographs." The sections missing from the Septuagint and Qumran versions of Jeremiah clearly testify to what Fitzmyer called "a Palestinian reworking of the book."
http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/accurate.htm
Work on getting some scholastic knowledge instead of relying on Sunday School teachers. It will give you a new light on scripture. And either you will have the faith to digest it, or discover that you never had any faith to begin with.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 11-27-2014 at 10:51 AM..
Well, the liberal scholars DO have evidence to support their viewpoint. You haven't posted anything that conservative scholars say--I have--the battle has been lost by conservatives according to Dan Wallace, Professor of OT at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is quick to engage liberals when he has evidence. He doesn't, so he won't.
Let's see if what Dresden claims is true. Here is what Dan Wallace states in his introduction to Second Peter in which he objectively gives both sides of the argument concerning the authorship and authenticity of Second Peter.
Dr. Wallace cites the case against authenticity and then cites the case for authenticity. He then evaluates the objections to authenticity.
Excerpt:
There are a number of considerations which suggest that Peter did, indeed, write this book. Our discussion will begin with the external evidence, then move to a consideration of the internal.
Dr. Michael Sheiser also leans towards the Petrine authorship of Second Peter.
Excerpt:
The result of this survey of various theories leaves us in no doubt that the traditional view which accepts the claim to the epistle to be apostolic is more reasonable than any alternative hypothesis.
Let's see if what Dresden claims is true. Here is what Dan Wallace states in his introduction to Second Peter in which he objectively gives both sides of the argument concerning the authorship and authenticity of Second Peter.
Dr. Wallace cites the case against authenticity and then cites the case for authenticity. He then evaluates the objections to authenticity.
Excerpt:
There are a number of considerations which suggest that Peter did, indeed, write this book. Our discussion will begin with the external evidence, then move to a consideration of the internal.
From the first citation: "From another, the issue of authorship is already settled, at least negatively: the apostle Peter did not write this letter. The vast bulk of NT scholars adopts this second perspective without much discussion." Now, what was it Dresden said again?
From the first citation: "From another, the issue of authorship is already settled, at least negatively: the apostle Peter did not write this letter. The vast bulk of NT scholars adopts this second perspective without much discussion." Now, what was it Dresden said again?
Read the entire content of the article that Dr. Wallace wrote and do not take a quote out of its context. To do so is dishonest and misleading.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
