Most copies of biblical texts did not exist as written word, but were memorized orally. The ability to memorize entire works orally is not something that exists today, but has existed for centuries, and was the primary medium of exchange for writing before the Middle Ages.
Thus in the early church few priests had scriptures. They may have had a page or too of a single book, or an abbreviated list of scriptures. Bishops would have had more complete manuscripts, and indeed most of the manuscripts we have are from sees.
The four gospels had four separate purposes. The first three were written to give a synopsis of Jesus’ life. The fourth, John’s, was written as a theological argument.
Matthew was written to appeal to the Jews, particularly Jewish scholars, containing a genealogy and several references to LXX that Christ was the Messiah.
Mark was written based off St. Peter’s sermons. St. Mark traveled with St. Peter. It is the shortest, and omits many details. This is because it was meant for live ‘evangelical’ use.
St. Luke wrote his gospel before he wrote Acts of the Apostles. The two books are meant to be a concise historical narrative of the early church, and was primarily written for gentiles and the audience of future, who lacked understanding of Jewish customs and how the Church was born.
John is very different from the other four books. It is thematic, and was written to describe the divine nature of Christ. It was also written much later than the others, when the Church was now quite large. Theological matters were gradually becoming more important than simple evangelism, esp. in Greece.
With an understanding of the historical context, it is obvious to see that one gospel would have been insufficient to grow the Church in the way it did. If, for example, only Matthew existed, one could argue that Christianity would not have grown outside of Jewish spheres. Likewise if Matthew had never been written, the religion would have likely failed to continue after the apostles deaths anywhere, as former Jews abroad were the anchor for early churches and Christian communities. The lack of John would have led to a fracturing of Christian theology, and the religion would have eventually reduced to localized forms of paganism.
The bible is not infallible, but I don’t understand how it being a collection of works rather than a single book precludes it from being divinely inspired. Perhaps you can explain your logic. It is a fallacy to conclude that the bible is the only important work in Christianity. It is elevated for its importance, given the economies mentioned previously, and not to the detriment of other apostolic works which corroborate its interpretation, and neither to the consensus of tradition which has existed for nearly two thousand years.
There are components of the bible that are infallible, but the text itself is not infallible. You have a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of the bible.
The age of the (observable) universe is ipso facto observable, however that doesn’t preclude the possibility that the universe was created old in the first place. After all, it would be impossible for humans to live in a universe that appears young. That question is not falsifiable and so is not in the realm of scientific discussion.
Theologically, there have been saints and bishops throughout history who have argued for both young earth and old earth hypotheses. The consensus is that it is not an important question.
Oral tradition is not about being ‘better or worse at memorizing’. Humans can memorize well, and if they develop that skill they can use it. Certain skills that were common in the past, like hunting, are not common today, and vice versa. That doesn’t mean the skill doesn’t exist. The existence and preservability of oral tradition is well-known, and you rejecting that again shows deep ignorance of the subject.
It seems your judgement is based on the flawed idea that the bible somehow created the Church, but it’s in fact the Church that created the bible, and as all things the Church creates, being made of humans, has the mark of human flaws. The idea that a flawed bible somehow invalidates the Church has no logical basis.
The age of the (observable) universe is ipso facto observable, however that doesn’t preclude the possibility that the universe was created old in the first place.
It does if there is no evidence the universe was created old.
To argue otherwise is a Russel's teapot argument, and as such can be discarded out of hand.
After all, it would be impossible for humans to live in a universe that appears young.
Why?
If you are accepting that the laws of physics would prevent human life in such a universe, why then would the laws of physics be ignored when convenient for your explanation?
This is a god of the gaps argument.
If you are content to have such a small and meager god, feel free to believe in young earth creationism.
The [theological] consensus is that it is not an important question.
And yet the scientific consensus is that the earth is old.
You can verify their findings yourself, no faith required. That's the beauty of science.
The existence and preservability of oral tradition is well-known
Yes, its very well known as the least reliable method of passing knowledge from one generation to the next.
Oral histories can change dramatically even within a single generation.
but it’s in fact the Church that created the bible, and as all things the Church creates, being made of humans, has the mark of human flaws.
So then you agree with me that its nonsense to use the flawed human creation that is the bible as a refutation of an old earth.
Most copies of biblical texts did not exist as written word, but were memorized orally. The ability to memorize entire works orally is not something that exists today, but has existed for centuries, and was the primary medium of exchange for writing before the Middle Ages.
Thus in the early church few priests had scriptures. They may have had a page or too of a single book, or an abbreviated list of scriptures. Bishops would have had more complete manuscripts, and indeed most of the manuscripts we have are from sees.
The four gospels had four separate purposes. The first three were written to give a synopsis of Jesus’ life. The fourth, John’s, was written as a theological argument.
Matthew was written to appeal to the Jews, particularly Jewish scholars, containing a genealogy and several references to LXX that Christ was the Messiah.
Mark was written based off St. Peter’s sermons. St. Mark traveled with St. Peter. It is the shortest, and omits many details. This is because it was meant for live ‘evangelical’ use.
St. Luke wrote his gospel before he wrote Acts of the Apostles. The two books are meant to be a concise historical narrative of the early church, and was primarily written for gentiles and the audience of future, who lacked understanding of Jewish customs and how the Church was born.
John is very different from the other four books. It is thematic, and was written to describe the divine nature of Christ. It was also written much later than the others, when the Church was now quite large. Theological matters were gradually becoming more important than simple evangelism, esp. in Greece.
With an understanding of the historical context, it is obvious to see that one gospel would have been insufficient to grow the Church in the way it did. If, for example, only Matthew existed, one could argue that Christianity would not have grown outside of Jewish spheres. Likewise if Matthew had never been written, the religion would have likely failed to continue after the apostles deaths anywhere, as former Jews abroad were the anchor for early churches and Christian communities. The lack of John would have led to a fracturing of Christian theology, and the religion would have eventually reduced to localized forms of paganism.
The bible is not infallible, but I don’t understand how it being a collection of works rather than a single book precludes it from being divinely inspired. Perhaps you can explain your logic. It is a fallacy to conclude that the bible is the only important work in Christianity. It is elevated for its importance, given the economies mentioned previously, and not to the detriment of other apostolic works which corroborate its interpretation, and neither to the consensus of tradition which has existed for nearly two thousand years.
Because oral history is known for its unfailing accuracy.
Oh wait, exactly the opposite.
This is just bullshit.
There is no evidence that humans today are any better or worse at memorizing than humans 2000 years ago.
It doesn't stop it from being divinely inspired.
It does however directly prevent it from being the infallible word of God. The belief entailed in transliteration.
It is very much a flawed human work, and as such contains human flaws and errors.
To use it to contradict observable material facts is arrogance and denial of reality.
There are components of the bible that are infallible, but the text itself is not infallible. You have a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of the bible.
The age of the (observable) universe is ipso facto observable, however that doesn’t preclude the possibility that the universe was created old in the first place. After all, it would be impossible for humans to live in a universe that appears young. That question is not falsifiable and so is not in the realm of scientific discussion.
Theologically, there have been saints and bishops throughout history who have argued for both young earth and old earth hypotheses. The consensus is that it is not an important question.
Oral tradition is not about being ‘better or worse at memorizing’. Humans can memorize well, and if they develop that skill they can use it. Certain skills that were common in the past, like hunting, are not common today, and vice versa. That doesn’t mean the skill doesn’t exist. The existence and preservability of oral tradition is well-known, and you rejecting that again shows deep ignorance of the subject.
It seems your judgement is based on the flawed idea that the bible somehow created the Church, but it’s in fact the Church that created the bible, and as all things the Church creates, being made of humans, has the mark of human flaws. The idea that a flawed bible somehow invalidates the Church has no logical basis.
It does if there is no evidence the universe was created old.
To argue otherwise is a Russel's teapot argument, and as such can be discarded out of hand.
Why?
If you are accepting that the laws of physics would prevent human life in such a universe, why then would the laws of physics be ignored when convenient for your explanation?
This is a god of the gaps argument.
If you are content to have such a small and meager god, feel free to believe in young earth creationism.
And yet the scientific consensus is that the earth is old.
You can verify their findings yourself, no faith required. That's the beauty of science.
Yes, its very well known as the least reliable method of passing knowledge from one generation to the next.
Oral histories can change dramatically even within a single generation.
So then you agree with me that its nonsense to use the flawed human creation that is the bible as a refutation of an old earth.