Contradictions Give Bible "ring Of Truth"

[R. S. Martin]

I'll post this in the Lion's Den so the Christians will dare to respond. On my forums we're having a somewhat one-sided conversation about contradictions in the Bible. Someone made a rather novel statement (something I never heard before) so I asked a question about it several days ago and he is not responding to it even though he has been online every day; this person tends to response right away to things that interest him. I'll post it here to see if anyone can clarify.

 

He said:

 

Frankly, I would be amazed, and worried, if there were no contradictions in the text. It was written by men, in a specific culture, at a specific time in history. The contradictions, I think, give the Bible 'the ring of Truth'

 

My response:

 

That's an interesting take on it. I was raised with the teaching that everything that is in the Bible is true and that there can be nothing false that is in the Bible. In other words, if it's in the Bible it has to be true. If the Bible said "Pride goeth before a fall," if someone fell according to our understanding of what constituted a spiritual fall, then it was understood that that person must have been proud.

 

Lust of the flesh, lust of the eye, and the pride of life--those were the things we were warned against in every sermon. We were given to understand that anyone who drove a car subscribed to the pride of life to some extent. Driver's license was forbidden in our faith community; we used horse and buggy transportation to remain separate from the world. This was one means used to deny the lust of the flesh and pride of life. (You can see more about my background in the Stories section in A Bit About Me.)

 

I have a question. If you think the contradictions give the Bible a "ring of Truth," what do you make of the teaching that many Christians hold about the Bible being the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God? They think God inspired humans to write the Bible in such a way that, even though they did not understand what they were writing, later science would prove it to be correct. I understand you to confess that it did not work out this way and that science and the Bible do not necessarily agree. However, creationists and ID people go to great lengths to prove that the Bible is scientifically, historically, and geologically accurate.

 

I think they have to do this because of the teaching that God inspired the Bible and God cannot have inspired an errant Bible. I take it you don't buy into this. But you profess the Bible to have a ring of truth. In what way do you think the Bible is true if it contains contradictions? In my mind, contradiction equals error of logic which translates into untruth or falsehood, no matter whether sacred or secular matters.

 

I was a Christian for fifty years and have a number of years of formal training in theology so I think I know something on the matter. What you say agrees sort of with what my professors say but mostly I find it confusing. And confusing is what Christianity has mostly been for me. It makes claims that confuse me because in my mind the logic does not hang together. Jesus said to use the talents one is given. He harshly condemned the man who hid his talent. I understand this to mean that, since I am given a sharp intellect, it is my responsibility to develop and use this intellect to critique the Bible and theology for accuracy, and to apply theology to life appropriately and consistently.

 

But there are too many inconsistencies between theology and logic to allow me to do this. This forced my deconversion. I had to choose between lying and deconverting. And believe me, the social costs were so high that lying would have been the easier choice had I not cared about personal integrity and peace of conscience. I have to live with myself 24 hours a day. Socials happen several times a year. I chose deconversion come what may. Somehow, the price went up after the decision was made but I don't regret my decision. But now you say that the very inconsistencies that forced my deconversion are the ring of truth itself??? Can you explain? Thank you. END OF RESPONSE

 

Seems he can't explain because he has not posted a thing. Can anyone here, Christian or otherwise, give it a stab? Maybe exChristians who used to be pastors have some idea as to why he didn't bother responding. He didn't even give me the courtesy of explaining that he can't answer my question. What is wrong with my question to begin with? It's sincere as all get-out. I think I proved my sincerity by explaining why I am asking it in the first place. I proved that there is more than one reason that I'm asking. How can I be clearer or more sincere? Don't sincere questions deserve at least the courtesy of acknowledgement of having been heard?

 

This is the way Christians normally treat my questions. The only ones who don't are professors who are paid and obligated to answer my questions. And they can be considered a captive audience. Even sojourner, who has been highly applauded on these forums, disappeared from pm conversation when the topic got intense. Any ideas on any of these topics anybody?

[sojourner]

Hi Ruby

 

Honestly I lived the first 20 years of my christian walk barely reading or studying the bible. I lived off of what men told me was in the bible. I had not near the respect for it that most of you did. In fact that is probably part of the communication problem. I never was where you are till now in questioning and researching.

 

I was told that if you saw contradiction the thing to do was to believe both were true but we just are not able to understand how unless God revealed the answer to the quandry. This was part of having faith. I never dug for myself and hence why now you see me dealing with all the stuff I never took the time to look into for myself, like the brutality in the ot.

 

If I seem to avoid things its only because this is a new place for me, Im just now braving the choppy waters myself to deal with all this stuff.

 

I am slowly coming to conclusions on my own now.

 

This is the first time I have ever heard the statement this person said, it has never been something I would have thought so cant speak for them.

 

sojourner

[Ouroboros]

If a contradictory book proves that the source is divine, then most every book ever written has to be considered divine, like the Quran, or all the Holy Books from every religion.

 

At the same time the question arise: does this mean that a book without contradiction is from the Devil?

 

It's hard to accept this argument, since the Bible also claim that God is order, then it should follow that the Devil constructing non-contradictory books would be the ordered God.

 

This is the reason why fundamentalism has been on the rise for many years. To many it would mean loss of faith if they had to accept the Bible to contain contradictions. God can't create contradictions, he's after all supposed to be perfect.

[R. S. Martin]

Hi Ruby

 

Honestly I lived the first 20 years of my christian walk barely reading or studying the bible. I lived off of what men told me was in the bible. I had not near the respect for it that most of you did. In fact that is probably part of the communication problem. I never was where you are till now in questioning and researching.

 

I guess I cannot imagine what it's like not being seriously curious about everything. I am extremely curious what that would be like. The closest I can come is a living death. A zombie existence. I don't understand that.

 

I was told that if you saw contradiction the thing to do was to believe both were true but we just are not able to understand how unless God revealed the answer to the quandry. This was part of having faith.

 

Hmmm. I wonder if this is what my one professor tried to tell me, and what some of the theologians are saying. It simply makes no sense to me. Like I say above, it seems like a zombie existence. I tried shutting off my brain for twenty years in order to endure life and it brought me only a living death. Like people here say, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. And Jesus condemned the man who buried his talent. I wish I had been able to make the connection twenty years earlier....

[R. S. Martin]

If a contradictory book proves that the source is divine, then most every book ever written has to be considered divine, like the Quran, or all the Holy Books from every religion.

 

At the same time the question arise: does this mean that a book without contradiction is from the Devil?

 

It's hard to accept this argument, since the Bible also claim that God is order, then it should follow that the Devil constructing non-contradictory books would be the ordered God.

 

This is the reason why fundamentalism has been on the rise for many years. To many it would mean loss of faith if they had to accept the Bible to contain contradictions. God can't create contradictions, he's after all supposed to be perfect.

 

These two posts have really given me a lot to think. It's so confusing, yet so clear. I can't figure out why any rational human being would just accept stuff on authority. I can understand why they had to make the Bible make sense one way or another PROVIDING they accepted the presupposition of God's existence.

 

But why did anyone accept THAT without evidence???

[lemon]

According to what I've been told, it is better for the bible to have "different accounts" of the same incident (or contradictions if you will) or opponents would have accused original writers of collaborating to make the bible appear divinely inspired. But, a contradiction implies that someone was mistaken, not inspired. Ahaziah could not have been 22 and 42 when he began to reign...could he?

[white_raven23]

Frankly, I would be amazed, and worried, if there were no contradictions in the text. It was written by men, in a specific culture, at a specific time in history. The contradictions, I think, give the Bible 'the ring of Truth'

 

This is a cop out. This same guy, next week in a different thread will say the bible was divinely inspired, or that it's an accurate history.

 

Talk about having your cake and eating it too! The bible is perfectly accurate and needs to be taken literally when it comes to god and some "rules", or charmingly inaccurate when contradictory rules or concepts the given christian just doesn't happen to agree with pop up. Like the rule about walking a proscribed distance from the city to take a shit = charming, quaint, outdated, just some cultural history in an age where poo contamination is not as big a concern thanks to modern plumbing. Thing is....it was a RULE. There's no verse after this one indicating an omnicient god stating that this procedure is only necessary until a certain time period.

[Thurisaz]

Exactly WR. "Da babble is perfectly true of course, unless we need it to be wrong to claim that this proves it true". Uh huh. Would some morontheist please tell me where exactly I'm supposed to dump my brain into?

 

Aaaah, this is what the morontheists see as the "strength" of their book'o'bullshit, that it can accomodate everything (with whatever fundaMENTAL gymnastics). Too bad that, just like their babblical cretinism when they try to attack science, "accomodates everything" = "totally fucking meaningless"

[Kratos]

I cannot say what another person meant, but my guess would be that the small contradictions show that it was not written at one time with an effort to show perfect agreement. It could be akin to when the police separate possible suspects to a crime. They know that if these are all just witnesses and bystanders, their stories will vary somewhat because different people will see and remember details differently. However, if they all remember and tell the exact same story and even use the same langueage, there is a good chance that they know each other and got their stories straight before the police talked to them.

 

I can tell you as a Christian that inspiration from God is not like channeling where God speaks through you word for word or some kind of automatic writing where the one penning God's word is not involved in the process. As I tried to explain in the thread on the carnal mind over in the Coliseum, the spirit is seen as different from the soul which is different from the body. God is a Spirit and reveals His Word in our spirit, but it is not in words. It is more of an impression that you get or a flash of light by which we see. It is not easy to explain. But, if we are quick enough, we can capture that light and convert it to a few words so it can be retained. Otherwise, it is gone and we missed it. That part of converting it to words and then relaying those words to others is the work of our soul which is a part of our personality.

 

My point is that the flash of light or inspiration or vision is in the spirit and is from God, but the way we explain or express what we received from God is through the tool or vessel of our human personality and will contain aspects of who we are and our culture.

 

I believe that all of Paul's epistles contain the word of God as do the epistles of John and the epistles of Peter. But, you can hear Paul and John and Peter in them. When God spoke the same word to each apostle, the way they expressed it through their own soul must be different if he indeed used men. Paul's style of writing and educated background and connection to the Law as a Pharisee was reflected in the way that he wrote what God had revealed. Peter's more blue collar fisherman life caused his writing to be more down to earth and plain. etc

 

I hope this helps.

 

Kratos

[R. S. Martin]

According to what I've been told, it is better for the bible to have "different accounts" of the same incident (or contradictions if you will) or opponents would have accused original writers of collaborating to make the bible appear divinely inspired. But, a contradiction implies that someone was mistaken, not inspired. Ahaziah could not have been 22 and 42 when he began to reign...could he?

 

This fits the picture. It's consistent with the infallible, divinely inspired, inerrant doctrine.

 

However, methinks I smell a conspiracy among fundies. Phew! No one individual farmer preacher could have thunk this one up by his own lone self as he plowed the back forty on a Saturday afternoon before his preaching. However, there are fundies with PhDs, and have been for nearly two centuries (they were known by other names in 1800), who do a lot of thinking and talking and writing. These are the brains that feed the masses and so far as I can figure out they are our real enemies. That sophisticated idea must come out of the combined efforts of perhaps generations of conservative Christians to prove that the Bible IS true, infallible, inerrant, and defnitiely inspired.

 

I dunno. That's just my take on it. And my rant. But what you say does fit the picture and I like when the pieces all fit together. Thanks a LOT!

[R. S. Martin]

I read all the posts now and perhaps I need to expand a bit on how I think the logic goes. Kratos, based on what I read earlier this evening on the history of dualistic philosophy, in light of lemon's post, I think your post may be helpful. It supports what lemon says. However, what you describe is a purely psychological process also known today as intuition. However, in the 1800s it was believed by some to be God connecting one's material body and the intellect. It seems you have adopted that theory. The process as you describe it is identical to my own experience in expressing what is inside of me, both as a Christian and since. It is your prerogative to believe that it is god; I know that it isn't.

 

Here is lemon's post:

 

According to what I've been told, it is better for the bible to have "different accounts" of the same incident (or contradictions if you will) or opponents would have accused original writers of collaborating to make the bible appear divinely inspired. But, a contradiction implies that someone was mistaken, not inspired. Ahaziah could not have been 22 and 42 when he began to reign...could he?

 

In other words, it is absolutely imperative that the Bible is made out to be infallible, inerrant, and inspired by God. However, so I think the logic goes, if it all fitted together too well (with no inconsistencies), then opponents would charge that the authors "got their stories straight before the police talked to them," as Kratos puts it. To prevent that from happening, God in his infinite wisdom so inspired his sacred writers to incorporate internal errors. That would convince opponents that there was no secret collaboration and the truth of the Bible would stand. So would it's inerrant status on important faith matters, and its status of being inspired by God.

 

However, as I am writing, I am reminded of something that knocks the foundation out from under my earlier hypothesis. Maybe it wasn't educated theologians who came up with this idea after all. I keep reading on these forums that the Bible is supposed to have been written over the course of about 1,500 years. According to the Bible, not even Methusela lived a thousand years, let alone 1,500. There could not have been any secret collaboration for opponents to charge them of. Even if the fundies believe the Bible was all written by one generation, their opponents don't. So that's a retarded argument no matter what I said earlier. Either that, or I'm still missing something major.

[Dhampir]

I was told that if you saw contradiction the thing to do was to believe both were true but we just are not able to understand how unless God revealed the answer to the quandry. This was part of having faith. I never dug for myself and hence why now you see me dealing with all the stuff I never took the time to look into for myself, like the brutality in the ot.

Hmm... If it's contradictory, that means that either one part, or both parts (or all parts) are wrong. No two ways about it, excuse the pun. Either, the texts in question are contradictory, and therefore false, or, it is merely a perceived contradiction that we, even those of us with so-called 'spirit eyes' are incapable of understanding as wholly true.

 

Here's the conundrum though: If god wants us to understand and follow the bible, then a contradiction, even in 'minor' areas would be a catastrophic impediment to that understanding. HOWEVER, if the inspired word of god presents an apparent contradiction, it doesn't matter if it really isn't, because we are incapable of seeing past that, and we're STILL screwed because of that. You have to follow one or the other (side of the contradiction), because you can't do both! And not doing both would be wrong.

 

So which is it? Are we screwed, or are we screwed?

[Kratos]

RS,

 

If you start with the assumption that God did not inspire what was written in the Bible, then you will hear others saying that educated men purposely put in errors to make it appear inspired. This does not make sense to me. As you said, the Bible was written by 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years. I do not think it would be humanly possible to have done such a project without a thousand times more contradictions than we see.

 

I remember reading the Three Muskateers that was only written a few hundred years ago and noticing how much the language and way of thinking no longer made sense in our current day. The Bible which is 10 times as old flows much more sensibly even in our modern day.

 

My point was not that educated men added contradictions to make it appear inspired or that God put in contradictions to add validity. My point was that when someone writes in their own words what they heard from another, their personality comes through in the way that it is expressed. And, if 40 people from different periods of time that stretch 1500 years all hear the same thing from the same source and each tell in their own words what they heard, it is a miracle of God that there is any continuity at all.

 

Kratos

[R. S. Martin]

RS,

 

If you start with the assumption that God did not inspire what was written in the Bible,

 

I did not start with that assumption. Are you by any chance Marti from my forums? You sound a lot like him.

 

then you will hear others saying that educated men purposely put in errors to make it appear inspired.

 

This is not what I heard. What Iheard was that God made them do it.

 

As you said, the Bible was written by 40 different authors

 

No, I did not say how many authors because I wasn't sure. Please don't put words in my mouth. It's all in front of you in black and white. There is no excuse for you to misquote so blatantly.

 

And, if 40 people from different periods of time that stretch 1500 years all hear the same thing from the same source and each tell in their own words what they heard, it is a miracle of God that there is any continuity at all.

 

Or perhaps it is one of the Seven Wonders of the World that fundies manage to make sense of their Book of Myths, that they manage to twist and reinterpret it to suit their own fancy no matter what fancy they happen to hold at the moment.

[Kratos]

I meant no harm. YOur last paragraph before mine acknowledged the 1500 years it took to write the Bible. I just added the point that I believe you were making that since no one person lived 1500 years then it had to take several authors. Sorry for the misquote. I usually just converse on forums and do not respond like I am in court.

[Ouroboros]

I cannot say what another person meant, but my guess would be that the small contradictions show that it was not written at one time with an effort to show perfect agreement.

So why not include the other gospels too, the ones with even more contradictions? Why pick the 4 that were the closest to fit the belief instead of picking them all to show how "human" the source was? Doesn't the contradictions tell you that you can't really trust the details? So was it one, two, or more women that went to the tomb? It's strange that the *most* important part of the salvation of humanity in this universe was written down by a few smucks that couldn't remember exactly what happened? Should this give a great reason to wonder if the stories really are history but rather just half-made-up or even completely-made-up stories? You do understand that the first and strongest reason why the other gospels that exist were not picked out for the canon was not because they were proven to be false, but that they were not agreed upon to fit what they believed to be true, 250 years after the fact. God is great... especially when he screw up his once in a life-time-of-a-universe event to save a few souls from eternal tourment. (Which I know you really don't believe in anyway, but still, it's a point...)

 

It could be akin to when the police separate possible suspects to a crime. They know that if these are all just witnesses and bystanders, their stories will vary somewhat because different people will see and remember details differently. However, if they all remember and tell the exact same story and even use the same langueage, there is a good chance that they know each other and got their stories straight before the police talked to them.

Sure, I agree on that. The difference is that this story isn't about some event that might be important to the people involved, but rather unimportant for the rest of the 6 billions people on the Earth, but this is the story that portrays God salvation for mankind. If God has powers, he surely did not prove to have much in this case. And if the stories a different in small aspects that's fine to me, but to mess up important parts like how many saw Jesus, when they saw him, where they saw him etc, or just the simple part of where the disciples were. Or some simple things like where certain cities were located and how you would get from one to the other. I mean, I can still recollect my child hood neigborhood. Sure I'd get a few details wrong, but I wouldn't put Kumla next to Karlstad, and Sundsvall between Upsala and Stockholm. Not even 10 years after I left Sweden, and I'm lousy with geography too! Even the names of the discples are confused, and that was supposedly written by the disciples themselves! It's like me making up names on my best friends!

 

I can tell you as a Christian that inspiration from God is not like channeling where God speaks through you word for word or some kind of automatic writing where the one penning God's word is not involved in the process.

Okay, and that would make Christianity to a less of a dictating, all-encompassing, only-true salvation religion, but only make the Bible to yet another human view on God. It can't be claimed to be the ONLY true document of what/who/where God is if we can say it's only humans emotional responses to what God tells them. It opens up the possibility that the Vesta was inspired by God too, and you can't and shouldn't deny that since you really don't know if it was or wasn't.

 

I find it very interesting that on one hand the Bible should be considered the ONLY document with God's true words, and the story about the only true way of salvation, and yet when confronted about it's inconsistencies suddenly it becomes only a book of descriptive language of what GOD is. It's promoted to the highest authority one second, and the next it's just one book amongst all the others. It's very dishonest in my opinion.

 

As I tried to explain in the thread on the carnal mind over in the Coliseum, the spirit is seen as different from the soul which is different from the body. God is a Spirit and reveals His Word in our spirit, but it is not in words. It is more of an impression that you get or a flash of light by which we see. It is not easy to explain. But, if we are quick enough, we can capture that light and convert it to a few words so it can be retained. Otherwise, it is gone and we missed it. That part of converting it to words and then relaying those words to others is the work of our soul which is a part of our personality.

So you're telling us that the disciples saw the Gospels stories about Jesus only in visions, feelings and spiritual flashes? So you admit that there's a possibility that Jesus was never physically here on Earth, but it's just a spiritual experience written as a story?

 

My point is that the flash of light or inspiration or vision is in the spirit and is from God, but the way we explain or express what we received from God is through the tool or vessel of our human personality and will contain aspects of who we are and our culture.

 

I believe that all of Paul's epistles contain the word of God as do the epistles of John and the epistles of Peter. But, you can hear Paul and John and Peter in them. When God spoke the same word to each apostle, the way they expressed it through their own soul must be different if he indeed used men. Paul's style of writing and educated background and connection to the Law as a Pharisee was reflected in the way that he wrote what God had revealed. Peter's more blue collar fisherman life caused his writing to be more down to earth and plain. etc

So what about Rael and his writings? Is he inspired too?

 

I hope this helps.

Not a bit. My writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Can you deny it?

[Ouroboros]

If you start with the assumption that God did not inspire what was written in the Bible, then you will hear others saying that educated men purposely put in errors to make it appear inspired.

Like the Quran.

 

This does not make sense to me. As you said, the Bible was written by 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years. I do not think it would be humanly possible to have done such a project without a thousand times more contradictions than we see.

Actually there were 100's of authors, but only the favorite books were picked. If you go to Amazon and search for authors, you will find hundreds of thousands of authors spanning for more than 1500 years. Some of the stories do fit together to 99% if you want to. It would take some time now when we have such an amount of written material, but I bet you it is possible to find similar stories by different authors and then we put them together and claim they were inspired by the same supernatural source. You don't believe it? Just take a simple story based on the game Halo. There are I think 3 or 4 authors that have written different books and they fit togheter fairly good. Or think about Romeo and Juliette how many versions we have and some of the very similar I bet. Or all these different Robin Hood movies. Some of them have similar themes, and that must be a miracle because it can't happen naturally. You see, ideas evolve and people borrow and build upon them. It is natural, and it can be explained. But you don't see it, because you don't want to.

 

I remember reading the Three Muskateers that was only written a few hundred years ago and noticing how much the language and way of thinking no longer made sense in our current day. The Bible which is 10 times as old flows much more sensibly even in our modern day.

Hardly. It's flows because it has been worked on with translations and a lot of mixing, meshing, molding to make it work. The scholars have been busy for 2000 years so yeah, of couse it flows.

 

My point was not that educated men added contradictions to make it appear inspired or that God put in contradictions to add validity. My point was that when someone writes in their own words what they heard from another, their personality comes through in the way that it is expressed. And, if 40 people from different periods of time that stretch 1500 years all hear the same thing from the same source and each tell in their own words what they heard, it is a miracle of God that there is any continuity at all.

But you see, the stories are not telling the same thing. In the old testament God is not all knowing or very loving. God in the old testament got a bad temper and kill the innocent masses for one persons trespassing (and this was a common theme in other contemporary religions of those times!) so the God you see in different books do not match the God you see in other. God in Job let Satan kill innocent people to test the faith on one person who he spares. Is that justice or love you think? I can't make up my mind there. Maybe it's love... He must have loved Job's family quite a deal since he let Satan kill them. But it doesn't matter, God hooked Job up with a new wife. That's the loving Jesus you believe in. Killing innocent people through natural (go figure) disasters to prove his point. Yeah... lets bow our heads and thank him for all the people he killed today... It's sick to believe in a God like that, and the book you read contain 2000 years old material on peoples views on God. Get a new view. Get a new understanding. Move on. They didn't know MORE than we do, they lived 2000 years ago you know, so what did they know that we don't today? Can't people feel God in news ways today? God can't inspire new Bibles today? It can only be 2000 years old to be valid?

[Evolution_beyond]

This 'contradictions give ring of truth' thing probably refers to trivial inconsistencies within the bible itself, rather than any inconsistencies of message.

 

I assume what is meant is things like when the gospels disagree over details of what Jesus did when, or when 1 Samuel claims David killed Goliath but Chronicles claim that someone else did.

 

I think the point is that if the Bible perfectly agreed with itself all of the time, it would seem a bit fishy, it would seem fake because you would expect contradictions when many different people are writing it. But these little contradictions within the book show that it is not fake and genuinely was written by different people, making it all the more amazing and truthful when the different writers agree on the core matters of faith and theology.

 

It's a bogus argument though because a) no one in their right mind would claim that it was written by one man or by some kind of conspiracy rather than by separate authors and it does contradict itself on matters of theology also.

 

Conclusion: It's not a deliberately conceived fake but it is the work of faulty human understandings and not God.

 

Certainly the 'ring of truth' idea negates none of your feelings that the Bible is inconsistent with reality, since the argument has nothing to say about that particular issue.

[Evolution_beyond]

 

HanSolo, very good points all.

 

I agree.

 

While it's true that if different writers all perfectly agreed, it would seem fishy but if they disagree on minor, trivial matters it's what you'd expect and gives the accounts more credability. On the other hand, disagreeing about major matters and events, central to the whole story does make it seem more likely that they were making it up as they went along!

 

excellent post HS

[mwc]

However, if they all remember and tell the exact same story and even use the same langueage, there is a good chance that they know each other and got their stories straight before the police talked to them.

Which is why, say, G.Matthew and G.Mark share large quantities of text in Greek? I'm glad you've cleared this up.

 

I can tell you as a Christian that inspiration from God is not like channeling where God speaks through you word for word or some kind of automatic writing where the one penning God's word is not involved in the process. As I tried to explain in the thread on the carnal mind over in the Coliseum, the spirit is seen as different from the soul which is different from the body.

 

God is a Spirit and reveals His Word in our spirit, but it is not in words. It is more of an impression that you get or a flash of light by which we see. It is not easy to explain. But, if we are quick enough, we can capture that light and convert it to a few words so it can be retained. Otherwise, it is gone and we missed it. That part of converting it to words and then relaying those words to others is the work of our soul which is a part of our personality.

So "god" sends you an ambiguous message. You then take that message and hopefully "capture" it if you're quick enough (cross your fingers). Then you take this hopefully undamaged message and "process" through your "carnal" soul. That lower form that is the "self" at which point you jot the message down for the rest of us? That sounds pretty damn reliable. I can't see how that system could have any corruption in it like "god" says via semaphore "<flash> <blip> <flash> <flash> <blink>" and you then rattle it around in your "soul" and finally come up with "God says to kill the fags!" Then you jot that down and call it scripture. 3000 or so years later some moron is marching around with your words on his signs at funerals.

 

My point is that the flash of light or inspiration or vision is in the spirit and is from God, but the way we explain or express what we received from God is through the tool or vessel of our human personality and will contain aspects of who we are and our culture.

I agree with your point. If you're a dick the your "god" is a dick (I'm sorry you used the word "tool" but I interpreted it as "dick"). Once you take it upon yourself to speak for a god you have become that god. It's really simple and you have as much as said it here. "God" speaks but it's all tainted by the individuals personality. So is the message "pure?" There's no guaranty...and taking the messengers word that he didn't muck it up just doesn't seem to be good enough (especially when that messenger is saying everyone "lies" and "cheats" and so forth...you don't sound so trustworthy and neither does your message).

 

I believe that all of Paul's epistles contain the word of God as do the epistles of John and the epistles of Peter. But, you can hear Paul and John and Peter in them. When God spoke the same word to each apostle, the way they expressed it through their own soul must be different if he indeed used men. Paul's style of writing and educated background and connection to the Law as a Pharisee was reflected in the way that he wrote what God had revealed. Peter's more blue collar fisherman life caused his writing to be more down to earth and plain. etc

Of course the epistles sounds similar. They were chosen for a reason. If you were compiling a "library" of love stories you probably wouldn't start by knocking on Wes Craven's door. When you are holding a council and the emperor says "make me a library of stories" you go around the room and start writing making your list (okay, not how it happened but I'm illustrating the point that the book exists for a purpose and it didn't just fall from the sky). The first known bibles to be made included books that we don't have in our collections today. Why don't you get all gushy over those stories? Were they good enough for those folks but not you and the rest of us? What about all the other, non-protestant, bibles today? Not really real? All the bibles in between? Your theories always fall flat with so little examination. 66 Protestant books. That's your "god." His message is whatever you can twist out of it when shaken with a pinch of mysticism.

 

mwc

[Mythra]

"The Bible is a collection of books, written over 1500 years, without a single error, contradiction, or inconsistency. This proves, incontrovertably, that God is the author"

 

This is what I heard every Sunday in church. Even as a completely brain-fucked fundy, I rolled my eyes every time I heard it. I mean, I had read the book, for chrissakes. Several times over.

 

And, I've also heard the claim that Ruby references (put forth by a different flavor of christians) - that it's the contradictions themselves that prove the Bible is true. It's evidence that there was no collusion on the part of the authors. And the contradictions are actually just "apparent contradictions" that come forth as a result of the individualized interpretations of the authors as they put down on paper that "divine spark" that Kratos talked about.

 

Both stances are nonsense. I always suspected it, but I never understood it well until I started studying biblical criticism a little bit - and finding another side of the story. Finding that there were people (highly educated people) who were able to dig into the texts and, like Sherlock Holmes, extract the clues, lift the fingerprints, and put the pieces of puzzle into place, until a clear picture eventually emerges.

 

My enduring favorite book is "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" by Robert Price. Price has a PhD in New Testament studies and is a professor of biblical criticism. So he's not just some self-educated crackpot with a far-out theory to hock. But, what this book did for me is precisely like the Wizard of Oz. The bible was a big "I AM THE GREAT AND POWERFUL GOD" - scary, BIG, god-like. And Price slowly began to pull back the curtain for me, and let me get a peek at the little meek man who was behind the controls trying to instill fear into everyone.

 

I'll snip just a couple of passages from the Incredible Shrinking here, as Price talks about the Synoptics vs. GJohn:

 

First, there is the great difference between the style of Jesus' teaching here as opposed to the Synoptics, John has no real parables and uses a drastically different (much simpler) vocabulary. And while the style and vocabulary have little in common with Matthew, Mark, or Luke, they sound as if they are cut from the very same cloth as the Johannine Epistles. One hears the same voice there. In fact, if read out of context, it would be hard to tell whether a number of texts came from the gospel or the epistles ascribed to John. Note further that the similariy holds good not only between the Gospel and Epistles of John but also among all the characters in the gospel. We are not dealing with reporting here. Whether we are ostensibly listening to Jesus, John the Baptist, Thomas, Peter, Mary and Martha, the Sanhedrin - they each and all sound just like the evangelist! It is exactly like reading Kahlil Gibran's fictive collection of memoirs, Jesus, the Son of Man. There we read the (fictive) recollections of scores of witneses of Jesus, all quite profound, like the Gospel of John itself. But all speak with the readily identifiable voice of Gibran!

 

William Temple, followed by George Eldon Ladd and others, adopted the desperate expedient of proposing that while both Johannine and Synoptic idioms go back to the historical Jesus, John preserves the language Jesus used in secret with the disciples. Does it? How odd that John is the very gospel that has Jesus denying that he had any special private teaching (18:20)! This surprising attempt to make Jesus into an esoteric mystagogue will not fly, and one cannot imagine Temple or Ladd accepting it for one second if someone were to appeal to the same argument to vindicate something like the Pistis Sophia as authentic (as Margaret Barker does).

 

Second, there is the vast difference in content between John and the others. Simply put, John has Jesus preach himself as the object of faith, while Matthew, Mark, and Luke make Jesus a pointer to the Father. In the Synoptcs, Jesus proclaims the coming kingdom of God, while in John he speaks instead of eternal life. For the Synoptic Jesus, one must believe in his news and repent, while the Johannine Jesus demands belief in himself. In the first three gospels, repentence is sufficient for salvation, unlike John, where, unless one accepts the Christological claims of Jesus, one will die in one's sins.

 

Third, the staged artificiality of the discourses and dialoges of Jesus in John make clear that they are purely the writer's own creation. They all share a structure in which carnal-minded opponents misunderstand Jesus' spiritual double entendres (sometimes existing only in Greek, 3:3, 6:33, as if we could imagine Jesus debating with Palestinian Pharisees in Greek!) This gives Jesus occasion to explain his point at greater length for the benefit of the reader.

 

From the Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, pgs. 33-34

[Ouroboros]

Another point I have about using inconsistencies as a proof of reliability is that, how easy it is to fake! I've heard about news stories that were faked in this manner:

 

A person intends to give the media a story that is made up, but want to make it reliable.

 

Most of the media does have a process to confirm the story, like checking a second source.

 

This person he manages to plant the story in other places under fictitious names, and then contact the media directly.

 

The media checks his story, and they find second and third source (independent they think) and they believe the story is true.

 

This has happened, and it shows the danger of thinking that multiple sources must make something true.

[Ouroboros]

"The Bible is a collection of books, written over 1500 years, without a single error, contradiction, or inconsistency. This proves, incontrovertably, that God is the author"

 

This is what I heard every Sunday in church. Even as a completely brain-fucked fundy, I rolled my eyes every time I heard it. I mean, I had read the book, for chrissakes. Several times over.

And that's why I'm so irritated with the opposite argument that contradictions suddenly proves it too. It's like saying "The Bible is true because it contains any consistencies and inconsistencies".

 

It's similar to the "the universe is perfect, hence it was created", and then "there's evil in the world, and it proves the devil exist and that God exist". So God is proven through the perfection and imperfection of the universe.

 

How stupid it is. Then I can claim I'm telling the truth because I'm lying... I'd like to try to tell someone that sometime and see if they agree.

[Kratos]

Hans and MWC,

 

I get it that you do not get it. It offends your idea of what God should be like when He chooses to use falible men to accomplish His will and it offends your view of humankind to believe they can be used by God. This is the same thing that caused many to stumble at the principle of the incarnation. How can one man be both Son of Man and Son of God? How can both humanity and divinity be in one person? Wouldn't it just have been better if God just did it Himself?

 

The same thing could be asked of a father who lets his 5 year old son help to fix the car or a mother letting her 5 year old daughter help her bake a cake. Yes, the car woould be fixed faster and better without the help of the child and the cake would be done faster and with less mess without the child's help. I get that. But, wouldn't the parent and the child miss out on what really matters by the process? And wouldn't the child remain ignorant and untrained about cars and cakes if the parent just did it on their own?

 

The Bible and the church would be better without God using man to help. I get it.

 

Kratos

[dr_funkenstein]

Kratos:

 

If, as you say, the God of the universe decided to let man screw up his holy book by letting man put his grubby fingerprints all over it, knowing full well that anyone who studies it with an honestly skeptical position would come to the conclusion that God had no hand in writing it at all and that it were merely the work of men, then such a God is not worthy of my worship.

 

Why should I worship a god who intentionally makes it appear like his holy book - the means of transmission for his very word, absolutely crucial to my salvation - was written by men?

 

Why does your god play hide and seek?