|
|
Post by ydoaPs on Dec 1, 2009 19:17:53 GMT
What is it? I've never really gotten an answer.
And please no "because it says it is" jokes.
|
|
naz
Full Member
SYNTHEIST
Posts: 245
|
Post by naz on Dec 1, 2009 20:21:43 GMT
What is it? I've never really gotten an answer. And please no "because it says it is" jokes. What case? there isn't even a good argument. |
|
|
|
Post by ydoaPs on Dec 1, 2009 20:28:42 GMT
What is it? I've never really gotten an answer. And please no "because it says it is" jokes. What case? there isn't even a good argument. Now now, we don't know that. There might be one and neither of us have ran across it. |
|
naz
Full Member
SYNTHEIST
Posts: 245
|
Post by naz on Dec 1, 2009 20:34:08 GMT
What case? there isn't even a good argument. Now now, we don't know that. There might be one and neither of us have ran across it. I have an open mind. But if it were true it would mean that everything science and history tells us about the world is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by ydoaPs on Dec 1, 2009 20:45:26 GMT
Now now, we don't know that. There might be one and neither of us have ran across it. I have an open mind. But if it were true it would mean that everything science and history tells us about the world is wrong. Or you don't know what is metaphor. Or you didn't read the 'contradictions' close enough. Or you only see contradictions because you want them to be there. Or SCIENCE IS WRONG!!!!!!. Or you hate God! Did I miss any? Seriously, though. There has to be a reason why so many people believe that the Bible is inerrant; I just don't know what it is. Do we even have any inerrantists here? |
|
naz
Full Member
SYNTHEIST
Posts: 245
|
Post by naz on Dec 1, 2009 22:27:14 GMT
I have an open mind. But if it were true it would mean that everything science and history tells us about the world is wrong. Or you don't know what is metaphor. Or you didn't read the 'contradictions' close enough. Or you only see contradictions because you want them to be there. Or SCIENCE IS WRONG!!!!!!. Or you hate God! Did I miss any? Seriously, though. There has to be a reason why so many people believe that the Bible is inerrant; I just don't know what it is. Do we even have any inerrantists here? Seems like I am the only Christian posting? I think it is simply a belief that is accepted unquestioningly. |
|
|
|
Post by ydoaPs on Dec 2, 2009 0:28:25 GMT
You're not the only Christian here. There are a bunch, but not many people are posting a lot. Wikipedia says the doctrine of inerrancy is based on(according to Geisler): * the historical accuracy of the Bible * the Bible's claims of its own inerrancy * church history and tradition * one's individual experience with God 1) Historical accuracyIt's known that the Bible isn't always historically accurate. For example: Herod reigned until his death in 4BC. Upon Herod's death, his kingdom was split among his sons. In 6AD, Herod Archelaus(one of King Herod's sons) was deposed and his land thus fell into Roman control. One of Archelaus's replacement was a man by the name Coponius. At the same time as the appointment of Coponius, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6AD. Upon the appointment of Quirinius, since this was the first time the land was under Roman control, it was decreed by Caesar Agustus that there should be a census. This census was the first Roman census of the area. "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him."-Matthew 2:1-2 "And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."- Matthew 2:13-15 "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. ([And] this taxing was first made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child." Luke 2:1-5. Now, there is a problem. Jesus was said by one gospel to be born prior to the death of Herod the Great( 4BC), but another says he was born after the census( which is a direct result of Herod's death) in 6AD. Prior to 6AD, Rome didn't even have the authority to take a census of that area since it was only a client kingdom. They can't both be right, so one of them must be historically inaccurate. We are left with a 10 year discrepancy between gospels. This cannot be a simple case of mistranscription, because one gospel's chronological anchor is a direct result of the other's.2) The Bible's claim to inerrancyCompletely ignoring the fact that this is circular reasoning, I've only seen verses that would apply to the OT and Paul's letters. The NT wasn't written by a group of people collaborating; it didn't start out as a canon, so each text(or author) would have to be attributed inerrancy individually. 3) Church HistoryThe fact is that there were several canons prior to the one we have now(protestant as well as catholic, yes I know they are different). Prior to the invention of the codex, the texts were individual scrolls which could be replaced easily. Canons were regularly updated and changed. Church history is thus against the doctrine of inerrancy. 4) Individual experienceI can't even begin to see how this supports the doctrine. While the doctrine of literal inerrancy is, afaict, an unsupported falsifiable extraordinary claim, one might be able to make a claim of Theological inerrancy. |
|
naz
Full Member
SYNTHEIST
Posts: 245
|
Post by naz on Dec 2, 2009 15:36:29 GMT
You're not the only Christian here. There are a bunch, but not many people are posting a lot. Wikipedia says the doctrine of inerrancy is based on(according to Geisler): * the historical accuracy of the Bible * the Bible's claims of its own inerrancy * church history and tradition * one's individual experience with God I agree item 1 can be dismissed as historical evidence does not support all bible claims and in some cases contradicts them. The bible nowhere makes any claims about itself one way or another. Not sure how church history and tradtion would have any relevance. The last one is the only one I would even consider a valid way to judge bliblical claims. However to leap to inerrancy from that would not be justified, IMO. |
|
soms
New Member
Posts: 16 
|
Post by soms on Dec 2, 2009 17:22:29 GMT
I have an open mind. But if it were true it would mean that everything science and history tells us about the world is wrong. Or you don't know what is metaphor. Or you didn't read the 'contradictions' close enough. Or you only see contradictions because you want them to be there. Or SCIENCE IS WRONG!!!!!!. Or you hate God! Did I miss any? Seriously, though. There has to be a reason why so many people believe that the Bible is inerrant; I just don't know what it is. Do we even have any inerrantists here? actually, i was taught of the bible's inerrancy..as the infallible Word of God and I believe the most common reason was...because the bible says so... most commonly what i see when questioning the discrepancies, is the fear that if one stroke, on letter of it is incorrect, all hell would break loose on currently held doctrine, or what many people base as their "reason for living" etc etc. i am now reading the book you recommended....by bart ehrman. and though i am struggling with the weight of many of its implications...i am also floored by his inference that many pastors have been shown the same information and somehow ignore/choose to ignore/ etc it. i have also seen "explanations" that are at best grasping....and at most avoiding the truth in order to verify held beliefs.... I do not even think any of the verses used to support "because the bible says so" really hold water... |
|
|
|
Post by ydoaPs on Dec 2, 2009 17:26:13 GMT
i am now reading the book you recommended....by bart ehrman. Every book I've read by Ehrman is simply amazing. I want to get his book 'Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet for the New Millennium' when I get some extra cash. |
|
naz
Full Member
SYNTHEIST
Posts: 245
|
Post by naz on Dec 2, 2009 17:46:59 GMT
The statement "the bible is the inerrant word of God" is not scriptural. And I can back that up with scripture!
First off, there is no place in the bible where it speaks of itself as one work. It's not one book with 66 chapters, it's 66 different books strung together by canonical convention. And that is just "our" bible. Other Christian communities have their own canons with more or less books. Each of these communities decided which books were those they felt authoritative and inspired.
Second, the phrase "word of God" is never used by the bible to refer to itself. In every single case it is used it refers to a message from God (and in one case it is used as a title of Jesus himself). In the OT it refers to messages the prophets received:
1Sa 9:27 As they were going down to the outskirts of the city, Samuel said to Saul, "Tell the servant to go on ahead of us." And he went on. "But you stand here awhile, that I may announce to you the word of God."
1Ki 12:22 But the word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God, saying...
1Ch 17:3 But it happened that night that the word of God came to Nathan, saying...
There are also may other references where the phrase "word of the Lord" is used in the same sense. This usage continues in the NT as well:
Luk 3:2 while Annas and Caiaphas were high priests, the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
Is Scripture here saying the bible came to John? I sure don't think so. Nor is all that word of God that came to John even recorded in the bible.
It's recorded that Jesus spoke the word of God:
Luk 5:1 So it was, as the multitude pressed about Him to hear the word of God, that He stood by the Lake of Gennesaret...
Was Jesus just preaching the Jewish Scriptures (the only "bible" that existed then)? I think not. And Scripture tells us that not everything Jesus said was recorded.
In explaining the parable of the Sower Jesus says:
Luk 8:11 "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God."
Was he referring to the Jewish Scriptures? I think not.
The apostles also preached the word of God:
Act 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.
Were they simply preaching the Jewish Scriptures? I think not. They were proclaiming the message of Jesus. Here's more...
Act 6:2 Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.
Were they talking about leaving the bible?
Act 6:7 Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.
did the bible spread?
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them,
did Samaria get the bible?
Act 11:1 Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
did the Gentiles get the bible?
Act 12:24 But the word of God grew and multiplied.
did the bible multiply?
I could go on in this vein but I think I have clearly established that according to Scripture itself the WORD OF GOD does not equal THE BIBLE.
NOW WITH THAT SAID, that does not mean the bible does not contain the word of God because it most certainly does. But that is different than saying the two things are the same thing.
The word of God lives and abides forever:
...the word of God which lives and abides forever...1Pe 1:23
The word of God has existed from the beginning of time:
Jhn 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
All physical visible things came into being by the word of God:
2Pe 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water...
Hbr 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
The Word of God is a living, powerful person:
Hbr 4:12-13 For the word of God [is] living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things [are] naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we [must give] account.
And that Person is Christ:
Rev 19:13 He [was] clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
The Word of God abides in us:
1Jo 2:14 I have written to you, fathers, Because you have known Him [who is] from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, Because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, And you have overcome the wicked one.
The word of God is the fullness of God's message, a mystery that had previously been unknown:
Col 1:24-26 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God, the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints.
The gospel of Jesus Christ was the word of God the apostles preached:
Act 6:2 Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.
Act 6:7 Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them,
Act 11:1 Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
Act 12:24 But the word of God grew and multiplied.
Act 13:5 And when they arrived in Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. They also had John as [their] assistant.
Act 13:7 who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man. This man called for Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God.
Act 13:44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God.
Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.
Act 17:13 But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was preached by Paul at Berea, they came there also and stirred up the crowds.
Act 18:11 And he continued [there] a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
|
|
|
|
Post by dahduh on Dec 2, 2009 18:43:45 GMT
Biblical inerrancy is little more than a test of someone's loyalty to their cult. The best that can be done for them is to show how they have been lied to blatantly, repeatedly, and with the sole purpose of enslaving their intellects.
Is that too harsh?
|
|
|
|
Post by ydoaPs on Dec 2, 2009 19:04:59 GMT
Biblical inerrancy is little more than a test of someone's loyalty to their cult. The best that can be done for them is to show how they have been lied to blatantly, repeatedly, and with the sole purpose of enslaving their intellects. Is that too harsh? Yea, a bit too harsh. I don't quite agree with you either. I think it's largely due to the canons eventually being 'locked in' after the invention of the codex. The doctrine of inerrancy is one of the things, imo, that lead to the Bible being completely out of context in modern Christianity. |
|
naz
Full Member
SYNTHEIST
Posts: 245
|
Post by naz on Dec 2, 2009 20:01:50 GMT
Biblical inerrancy is little more than a test of someone's loyalty to their cult. The best that can be done for them is to show how they have been lied to blatantly, repeatedly, and with the sole purpose of enslaving their intellects. Is that too harsh? I think a lot of beliefs are reinforced through peer pressure. But this is not merely a phenomena that occurs among theists. If people ridicule your beliefs you are more inclined to modify or abandon them. Case in point check out the latest exchange on CARM between Sofaking and souper genyous regarding the possible historical existence of Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by ydoaPs on Dec 2, 2009 20:07:27 GMT
Biblical inerrancy is little more than a test of someone's loyalty to their cult. The best that can be done for them is to show how they have been lied to blatantly, repeatedly, and with the sole purpose of enslaving their intellects. Is that too harsh? I think a lot of beliefs are reinforced through peer pressure. But this is not merely a phenomena that occurs among theists. If people ridicule your beliefs you are more inclined to modify or abandon them. Case in point check out the latest exchange on CARM between Sofaking and souper genyous regarding the possible historical existence of Jesus. link? |
|
