The curse of blogging
Just read Andrew Keen's blog and excerpt from his book "the cult of the amateur." In it he argues that the Internet and blogging enable anyone to express their views which are accepted as gospel truth uncritically. In other words we are quickly coming to a place where things which are published are not checked out and therefore massive distortions are picked up and believed my masses of people. [I reckon half of what you read in Newspapers is made up as well] I've been on the receiving end of lies.
But it may mean that eventually no document may be regarded as trustworthy. That's why the Bible is SO critical today and we are in big trouble if we do not read it and know and practice its contents. It is the only reliable thing we have that tells us about God. Without it we are lost!!
I think that eventually people will look for a safe haven and turn back to Scripture.
posted by Paul Reid at 9:54 AM
2 Comments:
‘But it may mean that eventually no document may be regarded as trustworthy. That's why the Bible is SO critical today and we are in big trouble if we do not read it and know and practice its contents. It is the only reliable thing we have that tells us about God’.
It’s interesting to note the development of the Bible, and how the Bible Canon was developed. Wiki gives a good description here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_Biblical_canon
Of course, the Bible referred to above has these variances;
Included by Roman Catholics and Orthodox, but excluded by Jews and Protestants:
Tobit
Judith
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom (of Solomon)
Ben Sira
Baruch, includes Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah)
Additions to Daniel
Additions to Esther
Included by Orthodox (Synod of Jerusalem):
1 Esdras (see Esdras for other names)
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees (in appendix but not canonical)
Prayer of Manasseh
Psalm 151
Included by Russian and Ethiopian Orthodox:
2 Esdras
Included by Ethiopian Orthodox:
Jubilees
Enoch
1–3 Meqabyan
Clearly what constitutes the ‘Word of God’ is subject to human opinion. The New Testament Canon is described by Wiki here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon
To quote
The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.[1]
Council of Trent was around 1540-1560AD.
One of the arguments that Muslims use against Christians is the variation in the canon of scripture – both Old Testament, and New Testament. Of course, the canon of the Bible that I read is the ‘correct’ canon – isn’t it.
If you’re looking to appeal to a trustworthy document, I think you would not be on solid ground appealing to the canon of scripture.
If we then move on to the interpretation of the canon of scripture, followed by translations, then we have traditions and practice. Mmmmm – trustworthy?
7:15 PM
I think you are right on here....if we do not know the Word, then anyone can tell us anything and we can easily be deceived.
12:36 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home