Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think inerrancy is a false doctrine. The article does a rather good job of pointing out any number of contradictions in scripture.
Here's the problem. I've always felt that those who claim scripture is inerrant aren't speaking from a foundation of faith, but rather have a lack of faith. Belief in inerrancy is, in truth, the requirement of proof.
Because if one syllable, one verse, one anything is found to be incorrect, then suddenly it's author is fallible. That's why fundamentalists have to undertake such convoluted arguments to defend some rather obvious contradictions.
A liberal godless culture attacking God and His Word. That's not news. Maybe that's why these "news" magazines all failed. They aren't news. Its just liberal propaganda.
Too many points to summarize. read it and comment.
Personally, I think there are some very good points and some really big boners.
I have been telling bibliolatrists these very same things for years, but it just does not stick.
The list of the NT was finally agreed upon after the work of Saint Athanasius:
The 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367 CE): Athanasius now in the first place enumerates the scriptures of the Old Testament. He then proceeds:
Continuing, I must without hesitation mention the scriptures of the New Testament; they are the following: the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, after them the Acts of the Apostles and the seven so-called catholic epistles of the apostles -- namely, one of James, two of Peter, then three of John and after these one of Jude. In addition there are fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul written in the following order: the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians and then after these the one to the Galatians, following it the one to the Ephesians, thereafter the one to the Philippians and the one to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the Hebrews and then immediately two to Timothy , one to Titus and lastly the one to Philemon. Yet further the Revelation of John
These are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them. In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them...
And there was no printing press until the 1450s!
Somehow modern evangelicals think the apostles and Jesus preached with the New Testament in hand like this guy:
It didn't work that way. Preaching was done fom Oral Tradition and Apostolic Succession.
I think inerrancy is a false doctrine. The article does a rather good job of pointing out any number of contradictions in scripture.
Here's the problem. I've always felt that those who claim scripture is inerrant aren't speaking from a foundation of faith, but rather have a lack of faith. Belief in inerrancy is, in truth, the requirement of proof.
Because if one syllable, one verse, one anything is found to be incorrect, then suddenly it's author is fallible. That's why fundamentalists have to undertake such convoluted arguments to defend some rather obvious contradictions.
Belief in an fallible Bible totally rips out the foundation of Christianity. You are left with two positions:
1. God purposely makes mistakes.
2. God had no direction in the Bible's context, the book is just simply made up by men.
If you believe that the book was only written by men then you have an anything goes version of Christianity since anyone can just go create their own Bible. I believe in inerrancy because I've seen the actual specific words have power and move people spiritually in church services.
Belief in an fallible Bible totally rips out the foundation of Christianity. You are left with two positions:
1. God purposely makes mistakes.
2. God had no direction in the Bible's context, the book is just simply made up by men.
If you believe that the book was only written by men then you have an anything goes version of Christianity since anyone can just go create their own Bible. I believe in inerrancy because I've seen the actual specific words have power and move people spiritually in church services.
The fallacy contained in your argument is that God is the author of the Bible in the first place. The Bible is inspired by God, but not written by God. Otherwise, He should have had a proofreader. Further, the fact that there are 30,000 Christian denominations in the United States, almost all of them Fundamentalist in nature actually argues against your point. For if the word of God were so clearcut and transparent, there would not be so many different denominations, each emphasizing something quite different from the other.
And your argument that words have power is neither here nor there. People have been so moved by words in other books as well, from the Communist Manifesto to a poem by Keats.
Too many points to summarize. read it and comment.
Personally, I think there are some very good points and some really big boners.
Yes, the mistranslation Thing is hotly debated. Just look at the Almah/Bethulah (not the names of Lot's daughters, By the way) debate.
For me it isn't an issue. I fond that the falsity of the Bible is demonstrable (even if arguable) whichever Trans. one uses - even KJV. The least valid one in Real terms and the ONly valid one in (some) Faith terms.
The fallacy contained in your argument is that God is the author of the Bible in the first place. The Bible is inspired by God, but not written by God. Otherwise, He should have had a proofreader. Further, the fact that there are 30,000 Christian denominations in the United States, almost all of them Fundamentalist in nature actually argues against your point. For if the word of God were so clearcut and transparent, there would not be so many different denominations, each emphasizing something quite different from the other.
And your argument that words have power is neither here nor there. People have been so moved by words in other books as well, from the Communist Manifesto to a poem by Keats.
I've never been able to get a grip on this 'Inspired' idea (Dictated, but not read?). It just sounds to me like a crafty get -out. We can rely on the Book as God's truth, but any falsies we find (if they can't be explained, denied or ignored) can be blamed on the man who wrote it. Godfaith wins again!
Belief in an fallible Bible totally rips out the foundation of Christianity. You are left with two positions:
1. God purposely makes mistakes.
2. God had no direction in the Bible's context, the book is just simply made up by men.
If you believe that the book was only written by men then you have an anything goes version of Christianity since anyone can just go create their own Bible. I believe in inerrancy because I've seen the actual specific words have power and move people spiritually in church services.
I agree! That is why these religions are based on Sola Scriptura. If you take away Sola Scriptura they have nothing! They do not believe in the concept of Oral Sacred Tradition, Apostolic Succession, and the magisterium of the Church. Therefore without Sola Scriptura they have NOTHING.
I think the book contains the teachings of God which are infallible. However, the prose is written and interpreted by fallible men. The books did not write themselves and did not choose themselves to be part of the canon of the bible. All of this was done by fallible men.
The cannon of the NT was elected by men under the Magisterium of the Church which is supposed top be infallible. But, the men are fully capable of errors.
Because if one syllable, one verse, one anything is found to be incorrect, then suddenly it's author is fallible.
Dear cpg, might I suggest that that is not correct thinking on this subject?
There are different Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. And through the many many years there were different schools of thought as to how the manuscripts should be translated and/or transmitted even before the time of Christ. Some took out the name IEUE (Yahweh) and replaced it with what some translate as "Lord" or "Lord God," because to them, the Divine Name was too holy to even pronounce. The Massorites added vowel marks. The problem, at least part of the problem with the Hebrew mss. is Israel was often taken into captivity. For instance, Daniel was not originally written in Hebrew. And just like the English language has undergone changes even since the KJV was originally written I believe the ancient Hebrew has also.
The Septuagint, which was in use in the time of Christ, and I believe Christ and His disciples used the Septuagint, is the Greek translation of the Hebrew mss. It was around before the time of Christ and survives today. I believe it is a pretty faithful translation of the Hebrew into Greek by the Greek speaking Jews of their day. But it must be known that it is impossible to PERFECTLY translate directly from the original tongue (Hebrew) into any language including the LXX (Septuagint). And the same goes for translating Greek into English or other languages. We who speak English don't have much of a middle voice at all like the German language does. So the best we can do is to put a symbol next to the word to tells the reader it is a middle voice in the translation.
All of this does not prove God is fallible. It just proves that language is always changing. I wouldn't doubt there are schools of thought that would disagree with me on the above as well.
Quote:
That's why fundamentalists have to undertake such convoluted arguments to defend some rather obvious contradictions.
Could you please give one example of a contradiction the fundamentalists have to defend? Maybe we can deal with that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
