The Bottom-Up approach ignores the data available to the Top-Down approach.
The Top-Down approach ignores the data available to the Bottom-Up approach.
The Bottom-Up approach (mine) looks at very early First Century scriptural data, and extrapolates upward in time into the Second Century.
The Top-Down approach looks at the abundance of 4th and 5th Century data, and extrapolates downward in time into the Third and maybe as far as the late Second Century.
Get it now? The two approaches are different and use different data sets.
I started out this thread very negative towards the Top-Down approach from my 1972 research into the Top-Down approach. But T-Bone has linked me to some better resources than I had in the 1970s, and I have changed my position to accept and appreciate that perspective.
Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses.
I did stand-up comedy for about 5 years. I would sometimes use "throw away lines" to deal with drunk hecklers or rowdy people in the audience. It would give me some leverage over them.
There are other uses for throw away lines. Here it helps me see who is able to focus on the flow of ideas, and who is trying to stop that flow.
I did stand-up comedy for about 5 years. I would sometimes use "throw away lines" to deal with drunk hecklers or rowdy people in the audience. It would give me some leverage over them.
There are other uses for throw away lines. Here it helps me see who is able to focus on the flow of ideas, and who is trying to stop that flow.
Mike, all writing follows structure. Poems follow structure, songs follow structure, novels follow structure, documentaries follow structure...well, I think you get my point. Words simply strung together randomly don't make sense. Notes haphazardly strung together don't constitute music. Boards and nails, pieced together without purpose, don't produce a house. That's why writing practitioners study how works are constructed and consciously strive to build within that framework. Writers in ancient times were certainly aware of this reality. Some might even argue they had a deeper understanding of this than we do today. If, indeed, these writings do follow the ababababa structure, as you call it, why are we to think it's because of a divine intervention and not because of the writers' intentions to purposely construct it this manner?
Mike, all writing follows structure. Poems follow structure, songs follow structure, novels follow structure, documentaries follow structure...well, I think you get my point. Words simply strung together randomly don't make sense. Notes haphazardly strung together don't constitute music. Boards and nails, pieced together without purpose, don't produce a house. That's why writing practitioners study how works are constructed and consciously strive to build within that framework. Writers in ancient times were certainly aware of this reality. Some might even argue they had a deeper understanding of this than we do today. If, indeed, these writings do follow the ababababa structure, as you call it, why are we to think it's because of a divine intervention and not because of the writers' intentions to purposely construct it this manner?
I do not make that assertion at all, ever.
I do not assert that the "abababababa" leads to the thought, or proves that 2 Timothy was written by divine intervention or inspiration.
I start out with the ASSUMPTION that 2 Timothy was given by divine inspiration. That is a major Postulate of mine, here.
Then I look at the contents of the "abababa" structure and I see that both the Author and the writers had it in their minds to carefully protect and preserve what they had written, or were about to write.
The structure and content lead me to believe that the construction of the canon list was on the minds of the writers, and that they acted responsibly and with practicality to protect and preserve the original NT scriptures.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Yes, your point is accepted by me, that the mere structure of "ababababa" does not lead to believing that a document is divinely inspired.
You could have an ancient document with a much more complicated structure, and that STILL wouldn't prove anything about it's divine origins. You are correct, the ancients did know how to write profane literature with structure.
Oddly, Bullinger DOES make the claim that the Book of Job is so intricately structured that it's structure does invite the belief that it is of divine origin. But I believe Bullinger stops short of asserting that Job's structure was proof of it's divine origin. It's just a hint.
The structure and content lead me to believe that the construction of the canon list was on the minds of the writers, and that they acted responsibly and with practicality to protect and preserve the original NT scriptures.
Thats nice. I like to believe in the tooth fairy and unicorns. There's a lot of structure and content on these two topics that has led me to believe in their existance.
You see how that works? No proof needed, let's ignore history and all secular sources on the subject and then I can bend my entire reality to suit what I think is true.
Thats nice. I like to believe in the tooth fairy and unicorns. There's a lot of structure and content on these two topics that has led me to believe in their existance.
You see how that works? No proof needed, let's ignore history and all secular sources on the subject and then I can bend my entire reality to suit what I think is true.
Somewhere we miscommunicated.
I am not ignoring anything in history. I simply see the historical approach to the canon as lacking data for the very earliest centuries. I see the First Century comments by the Biblical writers that do shed light on this period of time.
BOTH views help us.
The secular and historical sources are very skimpy on data earlier than the 3rd century. Are you aware of that?
Does anyone here know why Mike asserted the claim that John the Baptizer was a weirdo?
Is there a music coordinator in the house? I'll even settle for a trusty A/V guy. I just want answers the question about Mike's asserted claim. Answers I won't have to backup on. Answers that can weather a snow storm. Lo Shonta?
Does anyone here know why Mike asserted the claim that John the Baptizer was a weirdo?
Is there a music coordinator in the house? I'll even settle for a trusty A/V guy. I just want answers the question about Mike's asserted claim. Answers I won't have to backup on. Answers that can weather a snow storm. Lo Shonta?
I thought I answered that.
It is to mark those who are not serious about discussing the canon.
Guess what? You marked yourself.
Suppose YOU tell ME why you want to talk about one throw away line, when there are many very meaty and logical lines for you to discuss.
By searching exclusively within God’s Word, avoiding outside secular sources and historical writings,
That's exactly how you start out your research. By AVOIDING secular sources and HISTORICAL writings. Im sure you did that because secular sources and historical writings would prove your postulate to be in extreme error.
It is to mark those who are not serious about discussing the canon.
Guess what? You marked yourself.
Suppose YOU tell ME why you want to talk about one throw away line, when there are many very meaty and logical lines for you to discuss.
Ooooohhhhh. You answered the question? It’s a throw away line? So, you don’t believe he was a weirdo?
You just asserted that claim to mark those who are not serious about pocket change just to throw it away later?
I thought it was an argument in defense of victor’s defecating in the mouth of God. You made a list of Biblical MOGs and their flaws. You inserted victor in this company to excuse his poor leadership and deception.
BUT, it was just a throw away line? Ok. Hey, I didn’t write the book! You said it, that settles it, I believe it.
Ooooohhhhh. You answered the question? It’s a throw away line? So, you don’t believe he was a weirdo?
You just asserted that claim to mark those who are not serious about pocket change just to throw it away later?
I thought it was an argument in defense of victor’s defecating in the mouth of God. You made a list of Biblical MOGs and their flaws. You inserted victor in this company to excuse his poor leadership and deception.
BUT, it was just a throw away line? Ok. Hey, I didn’t write the book! You said it, that settles it, I believe it.
(Cancel my order for that music coordinator.)
I think it was WordWolf who opined I may have been referring to John's diet and homelessness. He was right. It was to that I was referring when I hinted that he was too weird to date your sister.
But I responded to waysider above on more about that appearance of John the Baptist on that list:
HOWEVER, it SORT of fit in with the rest of the people on that list. Do you remember that list?
It seems that for some of the BIG jobs God had to resort to whoever (even wierdos) could get the job done, and done at the right time.
Here is the post that contained the list containing John the Baptist:
On 10/18/2022 at 7:19 PM, So_crates said:
And, by the same token, you must realize there are some things WE will not budge on. ... As for me: ...Do I believe God would have entrusted what you claim was the most important revelation since the bible itself with a man who defined sin and refused to repent? Not God as I understand him in the bible.
My response to So_crates was:
Not God as I understood Him from the Bible, either. …initially
But as I studied the Bible over the decades my understanding of God has changed some.
When I first opened up the Bible in the early 1970s I was 22 years old.By that age I had absorbed churchy and cultural impressions as to what Bible teachers should be like. I envisioned Jesus-like characters could be the only ones God could entrust with big jobs.
That’s how we humans must do it, I figured, when we hire out jobs to people. We want to examine a candidate’s past record, and see that they have been good, and thus predict that in the future they will probably be good for the job.
So this early innocent impression of how things worked in the Bible was a deep expectation, as I started reading the Bible. But soon this expectation was challenged some, as I read in Genesis.I noticed right away that the story of Noah seemed to have some rather odd post-Flood scenes with Noah’s family that had to be censored out of the children’s Sunday School version… I guess. One clear thing is that Noah got drunk.
Reading along the challenges got greater as I read about young Abraham involved in some kind of crazy wife-swapping protection scheme, but was stopped by the pagan Pharoah, who knew better.
Later, Abraham had a child with Hagar, with Sarah’s approval?I also seem to remember him having concubines.The children’s Bible stories never had these parts in them, did they?
It doesn’t stop there. My whole notion of who God could entrust big jobs to was constantly challenged in Genesis. I think we can skip Abraham’s son Isaac, after reading somewhere he had no concubines. But the grandson, Jacob, was a doozy!His name, before God changed it, meant “con artist” and he stole his brother’s birthright…with God’s approval???He also had at least 4 wives, and maybe a concubine.I wonder how Sunday School teachers define “concubine” for the pre-pubescent children?
Past the book of Genesis, the stories still are challenging to me.
I marvel at God’s forgiveness of our future sins.Why doesn’t anyone ever talk about this? Look at all those revelations and miracles He gave to young David, fully foreknowing that in mid-life crisis David would resort to murdering his best friend.
And how did God’s people receive the Psalms of David?Were the relatives of Uriah satisfied with David’s public repenting?Do you think that Bathsheba was David’s first “mistake,” or did he gradually work his way up to having sex with his best friend’s wife? Life experiences tell me it was the latter.
And I did not realize the extent of Solomon’s late-life corruption until recent decades.
What was the time-line of his life like? How deep into his concubines and their idols could he get, and still be able to pen God-breathed scriptures?I don’t know. It just blows my mind that God would give young Solomon all those revelations, but know in His foreknowledge that old Solomon would get totally corrupt… or nearly totally?
Then there is that beautiful prophesy that came to Balaam, who was crookeder than a dog’s hind legs. Why did God entrust such wonderful words to him?
John the Baptist was a real weirdo, yet the greatest prophet?
Peter was pretty impetuous and had a violent temper, and pretty forgetful at times.
Paul was a murdering de-programmer, and God entrusted a lot to him.
I guess God’scriteria for selecting His big job workers is a lot different than the criteria we must use in selecting our Sunday School teachers.
Why is this?Because we can only look at the past actions of a person, and we know nothing of their future actions, and we know nothing of their heart. But God does know a person’s future actions, and He does know their hearts.
I guess God is far more interested in getting His big jobs accomplished, and less interested in conforming to our limited ways of judging candidates for a job.
That's exactly how you start out your research. By AVOIDING secular sources and HISTORICAL writings. Im sure you did that because secular sources and historical writings would prove your postulate to be in extreme error.
That is how I start out my research on the Bottom-Up approach.
I am thankful other people have worked on the Top Down approach.
Your quote of me was from two weeks ago. It was since then that I read some of T-Bones links and changed my position.
I am pretty sure the major mis-communication between you and me on this issue is you have not been reading my responses to other people here.
I am pretty sure the major mis-communication between you and me on this issue is you have not been reading my responses to other people here.
I think it would be more to the point that I have no desire to spend time reading a lot of changed positions every other day. Youve been working on this for nearly 50 years and are still flip flopping positions? Why would I take the time to keep up with that? I change my own mind enough for the both of us.
I think it would be more to the point that I have no desire to spend time reading a lot of changed positions every other day. Youve been working on this for nearly 50 years and are still flip flopping positions? Why would I take the time to keep up with that? I change my own mind enough for the both of us.
No. This one issue of the canon has sat dormant for 40 years.
I was using this thread, and stated so, as a beta testing sight.
I think this was the first big position change I ever declared here.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
199
126
90
153
Popular Days
Oct 17
109
Oct 11
87
Oct 15
69
Oct 10
54
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 199 posts
T-Bone 126 posts
OldSkool 90 posts
Nathan_Jr 153 posts
Popular Days
Oct 17 2022
109 posts
Oct 11 2022
87 posts
Oct 15 2022
69 posts
Oct 10 2022
54 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
I haven't been following this thread but had a peek. This whole thread is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the canon of scripture. But I did note the following, originally posted by our
waysider
Ahhh, those were the days.
waysider
Bake 'em away, toys.
Posted Images
Nathan_Jr
Why do you call John the Baptizer a weirdo?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
No -- you don't get it.
Btw - why was john the Baptizer a weirdo?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I did stand-up comedy for about 5 years. I would sometimes use "throw away lines" to deal with drunk hecklers or rowdy people in the audience. It would give me some leverage over them.
There are other uses for throw away lines. Here it helps me see who is able to focus on the flow of ideas, and who is trying to stop that flow.
Why do you ask?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Why do you call John the Baptizer a weirdo?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Scripture does not interpret itself, nor does it canonize itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Aaron is only pronounced AY-AY-ron when it's spelled ababababa.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
If the canon is ababababa, wouldn't that make it a palindrome? Maybe we've been reading the bible backwards this whole time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I'm confident anyone who wanted to do so, has. OTOH, who would want to?
YIKES!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Not fully, and everywhere, but where it DOES, it gets interesting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, no.
I never said the canon was that.
It is the structure of 2 Timothy that can be described as "abababa."
Then, with this structure in mind, the topic of the canon in 2 Timothy becomes more apparent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Mike, all writing follows structure. Poems follow structure, songs follow structure, novels follow structure, documentaries follow structure...well, I think you get my point. Words simply strung together randomly don't make sense. Notes haphazardly strung together don't constitute music. Boards and nails, pieced together without purpose, don't produce a house. That's why writing practitioners study how works are constructed and consciously strive to build within that framework. Writers in ancient times were certainly aware of this reality. Some might even argue they had a deeper understanding of this than we do today. If, indeed, these writings do follow the ababababa structure, as you call it, why are we to think it's because of a divine intervention and not because of the writers' intentions to purposely construct it this manner?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I do not make that assertion at all, ever.
I do not assert that the "abababababa" leads to the thought, or proves that 2 Timothy was written by divine intervention or inspiration.
I start out with the ASSUMPTION that 2 Timothy was given by divine inspiration. That is a major Postulate of mine, here.
Then I look at the contents of the "abababa" structure and I see that both the Author and the writers had it in their minds to carefully protect and preserve what they had written, or were about to write.
The structure and content lead me to believe that the construction of the canon list was on the minds of the writers, and that they acted responsibly and with practicality to protect and preserve the original NT scriptures.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Yes, your point is accepted by me, that the mere structure of "ababababa" does not lead to believing that a document is divinely inspired.
You could have an ancient document with a much more complicated structure, and that STILL wouldn't prove anything about it's divine origins. You are correct, the ancients did know how to write profane literature with structure.
Edited by MikeOddly, Bullinger DOES make the claim that the Book of Job is so intricately structured that it's structure does invite the belief that it is of divine origin. But I believe Bullinger stops short of asserting that Job's structure was proof of it's divine origin. It's just a hint.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Thats nice. I like to believe in the tooth fairy and unicorns. There's a lot of structure and content on these two topics that has led me to believe in their existance.
You see how that works? No proof needed, let's ignore history and all secular sources on the subject and then I can bend my entire reality to suit what I think is true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Somewhere we miscommunicated.
I am not ignoring anything in history. I simply see the historical approach to the canon as lacking data for the very earliest centuries. I see the First Century comments by the Biblical writers that do shed light on this period of time.
BOTH views help us.
The secular and historical sources are very skimpy on data earlier than the 3rd century. Are you aware of that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Does anyone here know why Mike asserted the claim that John the Baptizer was a weirdo?
Is there a music coordinator in the house? I'll even settle for a trusty A/V guy. I just want answers the question about Mike's asserted claim. Answers I won't have to backup on. Answers that can weather a snow storm. Lo Shonta?
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I thought I answered that.
It is to mark those who are not serious about discussing the canon.
Guess what? You marked yourself.
Suppose YOU tell ME why you want to talk about one throw away line, when there are many very meaty and logical lines for you to discuss.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
That's exactly how you start out your research. By AVOIDING secular sources and HISTORICAL writings. Im sure you did that because secular sources and historical writings would prove your postulate to be in extreme error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Have you ever seen someone get called out for BS and then try to cover their tracks by saying they were only joking?
Why does this remind me of that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The definition of "weirdo" is too loosey-goosey to take seriously.
You all think that I am a weirdo here. LoL
For me to use that term is an obvious departure from serious discussion. It was bait.
HOWEVER, it SORT of fit in with the rest of the people on that list. Do you remember that list?
IT seems that for some of the BIG jobs God had to resort to whoever, even wierdos, could get the job done, and at the right time.
That gives weirdos like me some hope.
And let's face it, devoting one's life to GSC is a bit weird, wouldn't you say?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Ooooohhhhh. You answered the question? It’s a throw away line? So, you don’t believe he was a weirdo?
You just asserted that claim to mark those who are not serious about pocket change just to throw it away later?
I thought it was an argument in defense of victor’s defecating in the mouth of God. You made a list of Biblical MOGs and their flaws. You inserted victor in this company to excuse his poor leadership and deception.
BUT, it was just a throw away line? Ok. Hey, I didn’t write the book! You said it, that settles it, I believe it.
(Cancel my order for that music coordinator.)
Edited by Nathan_JrA$$ pennies
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think it was WordWolf who opined I may have been referring to John's diet and homelessness. He was right. It was to that I was referring when I hinted that he was too weird to date your sister.
But I responded to waysider above on more about that appearance of John the Baptist on that list:
HOWEVER, it SORT of fit in with the rest of the people on that list. Do you remember that list?
It seems that for some of the BIG jobs God had to resort to whoever (even wierdos) could get the job done, and done at the right time.
Here is the post that contained the list containing John the Baptist:
On 10/18/2022 at 7:19 PM, So_crates said:
And, by the same token, you must realize there are some things WE will not budge on. ... As for me: ...Do I believe God would have entrusted what you claim was the most important revelation since the bible itself with a man who defined sin and refused to repent? Not God as I understand him in the bible.
My response to So_crates was:
Not God as I understood Him from the Bible, either. …initially
But as I studied the Bible over the decades my understanding of God has changed some.
When I first opened up the Bible in the early 1970s I was 22 years old. By that age I had absorbed churchy and cultural impressions as to what Bible teachers should be like. I envisioned Jesus-like characters could be the only ones God could entrust with big jobs.
That’s how we humans must do it, I figured, when we hire out jobs to people. We want to examine a candidate’s past record, and see that they have been good, and thus predict that in the future they will probably be good for the job.
So this early innocent impression of how things worked in the Bible was a deep expectation, as I started reading the Bible. But soon this expectation was challenged some, as I read in Genesis. I noticed right away that the story of Noah seemed to have some rather odd post-Flood scenes with Noah’s family that had to be censored out of the children’s Sunday School version… I guess. One clear thing is that Noah got drunk.
Reading along the challenges got greater as I read about young Abraham involved in some kind of crazy wife-swapping protection scheme, but was stopped by the pagan Pharoah, who knew better.
Later, Abraham had a child with Hagar, with Sarah’s approval? I also seem to remember him having concubines. The children’s Bible stories never had these parts in them, did they?
It doesn’t stop there. My whole notion of who God could entrust big jobs to was constantly challenged in Genesis. I think we can skip Abraham’s son Isaac, after reading somewhere he had no concubines. But the grandson, Jacob, was a doozy! His name, before God changed it, meant “con artist” and he stole his brother’s birthright… with God’s approval??? He also had at least 4 wives, and maybe a concubine. I wonder how Sunday School teachers define “concubine” for the pre-pubescent children?
Past the book of Genesis, the stories still are challenging to me.
I marvel at God’s forgiveness of our future sins. Why doesn’t anyone ever talk about this? Look at all those revelations and miracles He gave to young David, fully foreknowing that in mid-life crisis David would resort to murdering his best friend.
And how did God’s people receive the Psalms of David? Were the relatives of Uriah satisfied with David’s public repenting? Do you think that Bathsheba was David’s first “mistake,” or did he gradually work his way up to having sex with his best friend’s wife? Life experiences tell me it was the latter.
And I did not realize the extent of Solomon’s late-life corruption until recent decades.
What was the time-line of his life like? How deep into his concubines and their idols could he get, and still be able to pen God-breathed scriptures? I don’t know. It just blows my mind that God would give young Solomon all those revelations, but know in His foreknowledge that old Solomon would get totally corrupt… or nearly totally?
Then there is that beautiful prophesy that came to Balaam, who was crookeder than a dog’s hind legs. Why did God entrust such wonderful words to him?
John the Baptist was a real weirdo, yet the greatest prophet?
Peter was pretty impetuous and had a violent temper, and pretty forgetful at times.
Paul was a murdering de-programmer, and God entrusted a lot to him.
I guess God’s criteria for selecting His big job workers is a lot different than the criteria we must use in selecting our Sunday School teachers.
Why is this? Because we can only look at the past actions of a person, and we know nothing of their future actions, and we know nothing of their heart. But God does know a person’s future actions, and He does know their hearts.
I guess God is far more interested in getting His big jobs accomplished, and less interested in conforming to our limited ways of judging candidates for a job.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
That is how I start out my research on the Bottom-Up approach.
I am thankful other people have worked on the Top Down approach.
Your quote of me was from two weeks ago. It was since then that I read some of T-Bones links and changed my position.
I am pretty sure the major mis-communication between you and me on this issue is you have not been reading my responses to other people here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I think it would be more to the point that I have no desire to spend time reading a lot of changed positions every other day. Youve been working on this for nearly 50 years and are still flip flopping positions? Why would I take the time to keep up with that? I change my own mind enough for the both of us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No. This one issue of the canon has sat dormant for 40 years.
I was using this thread, and stated so, as a beta testing sight.
I think this was the first big position change I ever declared here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.