Evidence for God from Science

Hi everyone, longtime lurker first time poster here. I stumbled across this site early last year and I really love it - it really helped me gain insight into some of the nagging questions I'd had and has both educated me and strengthened my faith.

Earlier I was reading some stuff on Peter (stuff for a Baroque art history class) and I stumbled across Wikipedia's page of Peter's epistles, only to find that it mentioned that a majority of scholars do not believe 2 Peter was actually written by Peter; Wikipedia quotes D.A. Carson & Douglas J. Moo as saying "most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed, for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Peter)

Now this was very surprising to me considering I had never heard this before....I'd heard about other NT books being disputed and whatnot, but with those there was always 'wiggle room'. The language to describe this, however, seems more definitive than anything I've ever read or heard. The entry also mentions that it had a bumpy road to being accepted into the canon. I do believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, so guess what I'm wondering is, for lack of a better term, what this means...I am NOT about to suddenly dismiss the Bible or anything, but the fact that so many scholars are pretty dead set that it is not by Peter makes me think. Does anyone know more background info about 2 Peter and how it eventually got accepted into the canon? Thanks in advance for any replies!

Prisca712 wrote:Hi everyone, longtime lurker first time poster here. I stumbled across this site early last year and I really love it - it really helped me gain insight into some of the nagging questions I'd had and has both educated me and strengthened my faith.

Earlier I was reading some stuff on Peter (stuff for a Baroque art history class) and I stumbled across Wikipedia's page of Peter's epistles, only to find that it mentioned that a majority of scholars do not believe 2 Peter was actually written by Peter; Wikipedia quotes D.A. Carson & Douglas J. Moo as saying "most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed, for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Peter)

Now this was very surprising to me considering I had never heard this before....I'd heard about other NT books being disputed and whatnot, but with those there was always 'wiggle room'. The language to describe this, however, seems more definitive than anything I've ever read or heard. The entry also mentions that it had a bumpy road to being accepted into the canon. I do believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, so guess what I'm wondering is, for lack of a better term, what this means...I am NOT about to suddenly dismiss the Bible or anything, but the fact that so many scholars are pretty dead set that it is not by Peter makes me think. Does anyone know more background info about 2 Peter and how it eventually got accepted into the canon? Thanks in advance for any replies!

Here try this link:

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/2Pet.htm

The writer brings out many points worth noting.

Also know to be human is to err. Just because you have a PhD does not make you free from being human. PhD's have a tendacy to disprove themselves often...

I would add another note to consider in the debate - where does each of the scholars theologically stand?

Finally, I would not go ripping the Books of Peter, Jude, and James out of your bible! I suggest also reading the early Church Fathers too as what they had to say is also quite interesting.
-
-
-

Thanks for the link BW, I am ignorant of some of the arguments that seem to pop up regulary so it is hard to keep up.

You're spot on about the Phd. As a friend of mine was fond of saying: "You can educate an idiot but all you can get from that is an educated idiot.

Prisca 712, Welcome to the board and thanks for a good post, I did learn something from it.

Hi everyone,

B.W. - Thanks for the link, it did present a lot of compelling points...(I didn't have a chance to read thru it in detail - had to finish that art history reading that started all this - but what I saw definitely gave some food for thought).

Ooo, good question about the theological foundation of each scholar - that's something I need to look into. I've realized that it can be very significant; one time I was looking around online & I saw a reference to a book that, although I can't remember the subject or details, was definitely something that made me raise my eyebrows. I did a little digging and realized that the authors were hardcore minimalists, and that even some of their ideas were seen as bordering on the radical. So yeah, I've realized that this can significantly colour their views.

As far as the ripping out of books like Peter, Jude, etc., to borrow a phrase from Paul, certainly not! As I mentioned in my first point, this was not going to make me just throw out/ignore these parts of the Bible - IMO that would be a huge copout. The past year to year and a half has involved a LOT of discovery and digging deep for me. I'm not going to lie, sometimes it has been HARD - when you're suddenly confronted with something that you've never heard and suddenly have these doubts cropping up, it can be a bit freaky. However, I've pressed on and dug deep/done research/etc. and found sites like this that have really help educated me. I can honestly say that the moments of doubt have been some of my greatest learning experiences. So I'm trying to approach this the same way - not as an excuse to start cherry-picking parts of the Bible, but as an ultimately rewarding opportunity to learn something that may enrich my understanding of the Bible & its background.

Wow...that was pretty longwinded. This is why I'm the chatterbox of my family.

Cross.eyed - Haha, nice quote. There have been some really, um...interesting theories that I've seen, like Luke-Acts possibly being written by a female and espousing Priscilla as a possible author of Hebrews, which I have NEVER heard before! The thing is, IRL my name is Priscilla (hence the screen name), so that sorta makes me want to make a shirt that says "It's true - *I* wrote Hebrews!!" just for grins. That could just be study-induced sleep deprivation/randomness talking though. Thanks for the warm welcome! I'm glad that you learned from my post!

Prisca712, You are welcome and it was my pleasure. I will look forward to reading more from you.