Biblical Inerrancy

[pointer]

I would then ask you if it could be proven that the Bible has been interpreted in a multitude of ways, resulting in numerous denominations and rifts amongst Christians. I think that can be proven quite easily.

I don't agree. I think it is easy to show that the Bible has been deliberately misinterpreted in various ways, and one does not need to be an interested party to see that.

the ambiguousness of the Bible

The Bible is not ambiguous at all, when read in toto. It convinces men of their sin, of God's righteousness, and His judgment on them. That is why people have so many problems with it.

[sylvan3]

I would then ask you if it could be proven that the Bible has been interpreted in a multitude of ways, resulting in numerous denominations and rifts amongst Christians. I think that can be proven quite easily.

I don't agree. I think it is easy to show that the Bible has been deliberately misinterpreted in various ways, and one does not need to be an interested party to see that.

the ambiguousness of the Bible

The Bible is not ambiguous at all, when read in toto. It convinces men of their sin, of God's righteousness, and His judgment on them. That is why people have so many problems with it.

I would suggest that the evidence of numerous denominations is indicative of ambiguousness. Of course, that is your right to disagree.

As to your last sentence, many people have problems with something that appears to them to not have evidence to back it up.

[pointer]

I would then ask you if it could be proven that the Bible has been interpreted in a multitude of ways, resulting in numerous denominations and rifts amongst Christians. I think that can be proven quite easily.

I don't agree. I think it is easy to show that the Bible has been deliberately misinterpreted in various ways, and one does not need to be an interested party to see that.

the ambiguousness of the Bible

The Bible is not ambiguous at all, when read in toto. It convinces men of their sin, of God's righteousness, and His judgment on them. That is why people have so many problems with it.

I would suggest that the evidence of numerous denominations is indicative of ambiguousness.

That is a possible explanation. But another is desire to corrupt, which is foretold by the Bible itself. The rise of denominations follows a development curve chronologically, from Catholicism to increasingly Scripturally based theologies, so the ambiguity hypothesis is not very credible.

As to your last sentence, many people have problems with something that appears to them to not have evidence to back it up.

Is that non sequitur? Are you reverting to the Biblical error argument now? As far as I can tell, your comment makes no sense in the context of my last sentence.

Edited July 20, 2006 by pointer

[dakota190]

If the Bible maintained anything that was not true as truthful, it would not be the truth. If ist is suspect at any point, its entire message becomes suspect

This is exactly the reason why I and other athiests have been asking about the Biblical ideas of God being all-knowing, all-seeing, all-good and all-powerful. If it is logically impossible for him to be any/all of these things and still keep with what scripture has said of him, then the message of the Bible is suspect. So far, though, the big hang-up is omnibenevolence: Christians who've responded to those particular threads have been divided on whether or not this term, or one like it, is intended to apply to God at all. Some people have said God is all-good; others have said God is capable of hate. Sorry to chime in - it's just this was a very well-phrased, condensed version of what's been being argued in other threads, but which, I think, had been getting misunderstood a bit.

we already know you and dd, are in error, so why should we worry about what you think of the bible. we certainly don't expect to gain any enlightenment from either of you or the many trolls that bring the same questions here again and again.

we know what you are trying to say, but considering that to most of us, you people are suspect. we are not confused about the bible or what we believe, some do not have as much biblical knowledge as others, therefore they are more easily led into your round about word traps or into needless, worthless, unimportant debates, regarding matters that don't and will not matter in the eternal scheme of things. that is where our focus should be. not wasted on needless debate, with the hopelessly lost. your statements of why you obsessively spend so much time here are suspect to those paying attention to such things. your purpose appears to be for no other reason other than to discourage and attempt to draw away, baby or weak christians from the Lord. when more people realize that, perhaps your days here, being allowed to continue your work, will be short.

i may be counseled for saying these things, but i feel they are long overdue being said. it is time the absolute truth be told.

[EricH]

If the Bible maintained anything that was not true as truthful, it would not be the truth. If ist is suspect at any point, its entire message becomes suspect

This is exactly the reason why I and other athiests have been asking about the Biblical ideas of God being all-knowing, all-seeing, all-good and all-powerful. If it is logically impossible for him to be any/all of these things and still keep with what scripture has said of him, then the message of the Bible is suspect. So far, though, the big hang-up is omnibenevolence: Christians who've responded to those particular threads have been divided on whether or not this term, or one like it, is intended to apply to God at all. Some people have said God is all-good; others have said God is capable of hate. Sorry to chime in - it's just this was a very well-phrased, condensed version of what's been being argued in other threads, but which, I think, had been getting misunderstood a bit.

It has yet to be shown that it is logically impossible for HIm to be all of these things. It may be impossible for you to conceive of Him being that way as a result of how you interperet events in the world, but there is no logical reason God cannot be those things

[emeraldgirl]

I don't agree. I think it is easy to show that the Bible has been deliberately misinterpreted in various ways, and one does not need to be an interested party to see that.

I don't agree. Many sincere, intelligent people wholly believe they have been led of God to come to a certain conclusion on what the Bible "says" about this issue or that issue. They cannot all be right. I know people who sincerely believe from the depths of their soul that (say, for example) woman must be subservient to men, because that is what the Bible says. And I know other people who sincerely believe from the depths of their soul that the Bible teaches "mutual submission". If this was not so, there wouldn't be debates that go on endlessly in Doctrinal Questions (and many other websites besides) about once-saved-always-saved or not, whether birth control is right or wrong, how children must be disciplined, whether salvation requires baptism or not, or works or not, whether predestination is true or free will is, pre-trib, mid-trip or post-trib, etc., etc., etc.

If there is a Satan, I'm sure he enjoys the divisions of the righteous based on interpretations of the Bible. A house divided against itself will fall.

And I can tell you some things that are in error (I'll have to retreive them first), but I'm sure it will not matter. I can tell you what is in error and you will have some "way" to rationalize the error. I doubt I have a list of 30 or more, but why should 30 be some magic number? If there is one error, inerrancy falls flat.

Right off the top of my head, I know the Bible calls a "bat" a "bird". That is not correct, but of course, it is rational to say, "Well, the writers back then didn't know the difference between mammals and other animals; they didn't have a scientific classification. If it flew, it was a bird." Yes, that is rational, I agree. But then one wonders why God created a book at all, since progress changes our understanding of things. Why not have "new" prophets create a revised Bible? Heck, even non-inspired books update things as new understandings come to light.

[emeraldgirl]

Some errors and contridictions in the Bible:

1 Kings 4:26 "And Solomon has 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen."

vs.

2 Chronicles 9:25 "And Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, and 12,000 horsemen...."

(If you don't have a KJV Bible, don't bother looking; this error has been corrected as the translators see fit. (I wonder if they asked God for wisdom first.)They also decided he had 12,000 horSES, not horsMEN.

2 Chronicles 36:9 "Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign..."

vs.

2 Kings 24:8 "Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he began to reign....

Your Bible has fixed this, too, if it's not KJV.

2 Samuel 24:1 Says that God incited David to take a census.

vs.

1 Chonicles 21:1 Says it was Satan that incited David to take a census.

Matt 27:5 says Judas hanged himself

vs.

Acts 1:18 says Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong and his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time..." anyway, WHO is Jesus???

vs.

Exodus 33:11 "And the Lord spake unto Moses face-to-face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."

and

Genesis 32:30 "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for I have seen God face-to-face, and my life is preserved..."

What about moral contradictions?

Exodus 21:12 "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death."

vs.

Matthew 5:39

and

Romans 12:17 "Do not repay any one evil for evil."

Lev. 26:7-8 "You will pursue your enemies and they will fall by the sword before you."

vs.

Luke 6:27,28, 35 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you...But love your enemies, do good to them and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked."

Isaiah 45:7 (KJV) "I make peace and create evil..." (God speaking) The NIV helped this along some, but not much, by retranslating it "I bring prosperity and create disaster..."

How about this picture of God?

Exodus 4:24 "At the lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses and was about to kill him."

This passage comes out of nowhere and makes no sense.

There are many references to mythical creatures in the KJV Bible, but these have been edited by newer translations. (I guess the scholars found it embarrasing to say that unicorns would walk in Babylon...)

Isaiah 34:7 Unicorns

Isaiah 13:21 Satyrs

Numbers 13:32-34 Giants

Jeremiah 8:17 Cockatrices

The contradictions on the Resurrection account are many and this is already getting long, so I'll leave it at this.

[pointer]

I don't agree. I think it is easy to show that the Bible has been deliberately misinterpreted in various ways, and one does not need to be an interested party to see that.

I don't agree. Many sincere, intelligent people wholly believe they have been led of God to come to a certain conclusion on what the Bible "says" about this issue or that issue. They cannot all be right.

One can be very sincere, even quite intelligent, and very wrong. Lots of us have been there. What matters is knowledge, a virtue that must be added to faith.

In the Scripture, God through prophets and apostles, and in Jesus, made His whole will known; and no Christian can sensibly say that the mind of God is fuzzy. What one cannot do is get ambiguity from Scripture on any important point, and those who really know Scripture know that very well indeed. That is why every Protestant denomination has nominated Scripture as its single infallible source, and even the catholics are forced to argue from it far more than they used to.

I know people who sincerely believe from the depths of their soul that (say, for example) woman must be subservient to men, because that is what the Bible says. And I know other people who sincerely believe from the depths of their soul that the Bible teaches "mutual submission".

But sincerity is not enough. What does Scripture actually teach? Does it actually teach contradictory ideas?

If this was not so, there wouldn't be debates that go on endlessly

Most debates go on because most people are not sincere at all, we can be quite certain of that. Life is a battleground between Satan, the father of lies, and his followers, and God and His. People know what is in Scripture far better than they want to. One can see that from the many devious tricks that get pulled in forums. If anyone wants a hint, that's how to find the truth.

Right off the top of my head, I know the Bible calls a "bat" a "bird". That is not correct, but of course, it is rational to say, "Well, the writers back then didn't know the difference between mammals and other animals; they didn't have a scientific classification. If it flew, it was a bird." Yes, that is rational, I agree. But then one wonders why God created a book at all, since progress changes our understanding of things.

How important is is to know that a bat is not a bird? Is that really what we are here for?

Edited July 20, 2006 by pointer

[sylvan3]

The Bible is not ambiguous at all, when read in toto. It convinces men of their sin, of God's righteousness, and His judgment on them. That is why people have so many problems with it.

As to your last sentence, many people have problems with something that appears to them to not have evidence to back it up.

Is that non sequitur? Are you reverting to the Biblical error argument now? As far as I can tell, your comment makes no sense in the context of my last sentence.

Pointer--

In your statement you said that people have problems with the Bible because "it convinces men of their sin..."

I am saying that many people have problems with something that makes claims without evidence. It is not because it convinces men of their sin. I don't see the non sequitur problem that you mention.

Edited July 20, 2006 by sylvan3

[emeraldgirl]

I don't agree. I think it is easy to show that the Bible has been deliberately misinterpreted in various ways, and one does not need to be an interested party to see that.

QUOTE

I don't agree. Many sincere, intelligent people wholly believe they have been led of God to come to a certain conclusion on what the Bible "says" about this issue or that issue. They cannot all be right.

One can be very sincere, even quite intelligent, and very wrong. Lots of us have been there. whistling.gif What matters is knowledge, a virtue that must be added to faith.

But the post I responded to said deliberately misinterpreted! While I believe some or many do this, many are not deliberately misinterpreting anything; they believe they are the ones who have exegeted this correctly and the others are deceived!

What one cannot do is get ambiguity from Scripture on any important point, and those who really know Scripture know that very well indeed.

I'm sorry, pointer, but I totally disagree. Even salvation is debatable from Christ's own words! And how about the important points discussed here and elsewhere - does God send evil spirits, as he supposedly did to Saul? Does he order genecide? Does he tell people it's okay to keep the young virgins for themselves, but kill everyone else? Does he sanction slavery? How about polygamy? Does he create evil?

Most debates go on because most people are not sincere at all

I've seen and been in many debates that have gone on for 20 pages about something like whether God chooses or we choose. It's actually pretty insulting to doubt the sincerity of the "sides" because one of them must be wrong.

How important is is to know that a bat is not a bird? Its that really what we are here for?

I really don't care about the bird/bat thing, but I think it hints at a bigger point. The point, to me, is this: Why would God want or need to depend on something as incredibly fallible and poor as a book if He wants a relationship with us? The idea of a holy book is so profoundly weak - how many here read Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, that - if we could even see them - we could know what was originally written? We can only depend on the Bible as scholars have compiled and translated it. For years, I didn't have a KJV because it's so much more difficult to read than a "modern" version. Yet, we look at a modern version and we are dependant on how the scholars wished to present it. Once, the book of James was one of my favorites, because some of it's practical advice was especially relevant to me at the time. I learned later, though, that Martin Luther was suspicious of the "inspired" nature of James and did not want it in the cannon! It sort of stunned me - here was this very relevant and helpful piece of literature that I believed "God spoke to me" through and now I heard that maybe it wasn't "really" supposed to be part of the Bible!

Even if He did want a book, why a book filled with unrelated, tangential stuff? He could have just made a pamphlet that would include all the necessary essentials and no debatable gobbledegook. I read before that 90% or more of people who call themselves "Christian" have not read the Bible in it's entirety. Why not make a little booklet that even a literature-hater could probably tackle?