Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[Guest kcdad]

I see it hard to deny this. You would have to claim that somehow this collection that was sanctioned was itself done through divine inspiration. Care to offer some Biblical or otherwise authoritative support for that?

 

Here is a good site for seeing early attempts at Canon

 

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html

 

Here is a fun exercise in translating and reconciling different texts.

 

http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/interp_mss.html

[SWIM]

I see it hard to deny this. You would have to claim that somehow this collection that was sanctioned was itself done through divine inspiration. Care to offer some Biblical or otherwise authoritative support for that?

 

Here is a good site for seeing early attempts at Canon

 

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html

 

Here is a fun exercise in translating and reconciling different texts.

 

http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/interp_mss.html

 

 

and here are a couple to help understand why christians are delusional:

 

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

 

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

 

Also, check out the articles on the site in my sig.

 

If you can read all that, and still at the very least, not have some "doubts" spring up, you are more then delusional, you are flat brainwashed...

[Guest kcdad]

I see it hard to deny this. You would have to claim that somehow this collection that was sanctioned was itself done through divine inspiration. Care to offer some Biblical or otherwise authoritative support for that?

 

Here is a good site for seeing early attempts at Canon

 

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html

 

Here is a fun exercise in translating and reconciling different texts.

 

http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/interp_mss.html

 

 

and here are a couple to help understand why christians are delusional:

 

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

 

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

 

Also, check out the articles on the site in my sig.

 

If you can read all that, and still at the very least, not have some "doubts" spring up, you are more then delusional, you are flat brainwashed...

 

This is only effective against literalism, as it is a literalist approach itself...

 

All it can hope to do is raise doubts about literalism... which MOST Christians around the world already understand. It is a peculiarly American trait to be a literalist.

[white_raven23]

This is only effective against literalism, as it is a literalist approach itself...

 

All it can hope to do is raise doubts about literalism... which MOST Christians around the world already understand. It is a peculiarly American trait to be a literalist.

 

If you are not a literalist, then you are a cherry-picker. And by WHOSE authority do you get to select which parts of the book are to be taken literally, and which parts are figurative?

 

If the whole book is just a figurative collection of Aesop-esque Fables, then by WHOSE authority do christians attempt to force other people to believe them as though they were truth? Which is EXACTLY what MOST (granted not all) christians do.

 

Literalism doesn't work in the modern world. Figurativism has no right to any sort of legal authority or "perks" (like tax breaks).

 

And those caught between Literalism and Figurativism only serve as enablers for the rabid literalists for the most part.

 

So what is left?

[Guest kcdad]

This is only effective against literalism, as it is a literalist approach itself...

 

All it can hope to do is raise doubts about literalism... which MOST Christians around the world already understand. It is a peculiarly American trait to be a literalist.

 

If you are not a literalist, then you are a cherry-picker. And by WHOSE authority do you get to select which parts of the book are to be taken literally, and which parts are figurative?

 

The same way you read a newspaper or listen to the news... it is not that difficult. "Do you believe everything you read? Then you better not read." (Japaese proverb)

[florduh]

I must confess that I, too, don't understand choosing the parts of the Bible you like or agree with, discarding the rest, and calling it the True Religion.

 

If The God of the Universe wrote an inspired book for his creation's edification, which is what the Bible claims to be, how could parts of it be correct and other parts in error? Would a god that inept be worth worshipping?

 

Since the Bible claims to be the true word of the One God, and it even contains warnings to not change it, reading it is nothing like reading a newspaper.

[Kuroikaze]

"Literalists" a.k.a. fundamentalists and evangelicals cherry pick just as much as the rest of them. They just pick different passages than the other groups.

[white_raven23]

The same way you read a newspaper or listen to the news... it is not that difficult. "Do you believe everything you read? Then you better not read." (Japaese proverb)

 

Except no one has ever told me I'll burn in hell if I don't read Newsweek.

 

Comparing the Bible to literature meant to convey information on current events is like comparing apples to fried meat on a stick.

 

And it's not just a matter of reading the same article. In terms of the bible, if two people read the same article, one person agrees with the message, and all is well with them and the people in their life, the other person DISAGREES with the article, and is now shunned by family, former friends, and in some cases, fired from employment.

 

Yeah...comparing the Bible to the news....completely inappropriate.

[Neon Genesis]

If you are not a literalist, then you are a cherry-picker. And by WHOSE authority do you get to select which parts of the book are to be taken literally, and which parts are figurative?

 

If the whole book is just a figurative collection of Aesop-esque Fables, then by WHOSE authority do christians attempt to force other people to believe them as though they were truth? Which is EXACTLY what MOST (granted not all) christians do.

 

Literalism doesn't work in the modern world. Figurativism has no right to any sort of legal authority or "perks" (like tax breaks).

 

And those caught between Literalism and Figurativism only serve as enablers for the rabid literalists for the most part.

 

So what is left?

I disagree that Christians who don't believe in literalism are cherry pickers. In fact, I think it is the literalist Christians who are the true cherry pickers. Literalist Christians claim to believe the bible is the inspired word of God but why is it that so many fundies don't love their neighbors as themselves? Why is it that so many literalists don't literally give all they have and purposely become poor to follow Jesus? Why is it that so many literalist Christians claim to follow Paul's words when he says that the Old Law no longer applies to Christians but then they cherry pick Old Testament laws when it comes to things like having tattoos or having long hair? Why is it that so many literals claim to believe the bible is the literal word of God but don't follow Jesus when he said to judge not lest ye be judged? Why is it that even most modern day fundies will disregard Paul's approval of slavery if they truly believe the bible is the literal word of God? Fundies are the real cherry pickers because they claim to believe in the literal interpretation of the bible but only follow scripture when it's convenient for them. At least the figurativts are honest that scripture is not God which I think is the real problem when people start acting like the bible is God and worshiping the bible more than God.

 

And how do moderate believers enable the fundamentalist Christians? I've heard the New Atheists say this before in their books but they offer no evidence to back their claims up nor have i ever seen anyone explain how this actually works. People just say it and leave it at that as if simply saying the mere existence of moderate faith enables fundamentalism proves it so. This is not to say moderates never enable fundies or that moderates/liberals never force their beliefs on others, but as I've said before, I think the problem is that they're forcing their views on other, not that they believe. Speaking as a former fundamentalist Christian that is now an atheist and grew up hearing all these claims preached about the evils of figurativsm, I think this whole debate about liberals being cherry pickers is nothing more than a red herring that the fundies have spread to ignore what the real issues are and I think people have bought into this red herring, hook, line, and sinker and so this red herring gets spread around with no evidence to back it up. As to the question of what's left without literalism, I recommend watching this video by John Shelby Spong who I think can explain it better than I can:

[florduh]

Everyone must "cherry pick" if they want to claim they are Christians. It's the nature of that conflicted book.

[Kuroikaze]

And how do moderate believers enable the fundamentalist Christians? I've heard the New Atheists say this before in their books but they offer no evidence to back their claims up nor have i ever seen anyone explain how this actually works. People just say it and leave it at that as if simply saying the mere existence of moderate faith enables fundamentalism proves it so. This is not to say moderates never enable fundies or that moderates/liberals never force their beliefs on others, but as I've said before, I think the problem is that they're forcing their views on other, not that they believe. Speaking as a former fundamentalist Christian that is now an atheist and grew up hearing all these claims preached about the evils of figurativsm, I think this whole debate about liberals being cherry pickers is nothing more than a red herring that the fundies have spread to ignore what the real issues are and I think people have bought into this red herring, hook, line, and sinker and so this red herring gets spread around with no evidence to back it up. As to the question of what's left without literalism, I recommend watching this video by John Shelby Spong who I think can explain it better than I can:

 

I think there is a little something to what the "New Atheists" are saying, though I don't particularly like the choice of the word "moderate." I think of a moderate as someone who has thought through the issues and decided on a moderate position. (which is often the rational one)

 

On the other most people who call themselves Christian are neither, fundamentalist or moderate, or liberal for that matter. Most of them are just thoughtless masses who sit in a pew on Sunday. Most of this thoughtless mass is very easily swayed by bad arguments, particularly when they lead to black and white thinking. Its easy, and the majority of people like things to be easy.

 

An example of this would be Prop 8 passing in California. I find it unlikely that 52 percent of California are fundamentalist Christians, so why did so many people vote against gay marriage? They bought into the hype and propaganda spread around by fundamentalist like James Dobson and the Mormon Church. These people don't think about it, they just automatically trust church leaders more than other people.

 

Now, if the average person were more skeptical, particularly of fundamentalists and black and white thinking, then fundies would just be some lone nuts that no one paid any attention to. So in that way, the majority of people do give that minority of fundamentalists power.

 

 

As to who is cherry picking, I'll point out again that EVERY type of Christian (there are more than two) cherry pick the HELL out of the bible. The bible contradicts itself almost constantly. Does anyone disagree?

 

When the bible says "love your neighbor as yourself" and "you shall not suffer a witch to live" these two things are morally contradictory. You can't do both, you have to pick one. People just frame their theology in such a way as to make it seem like aren't doing that. Usually by taking certain passages metaphorically or by claiming the context changes something somehow.

 

I would suggest and idea that may be unpopular here, but I've been thinking about it for a while. The reason that most of us here often see the moderates/liberals as cherry picking verses and the conservatives believing in the whole bible, is because we mostly come from fundamentalist backgrounds.

 

We may have abandoned our beliefs but years of conditioning and being taught the particular interpretation/spin of fundamentalist theology still causes us, unwittingly, to identify with that thinking, and see those interpretations of the bible as more valid than a liberal one.

 

We see fundamentalists as interpreting the bible correctly, since fundamentalists are wrong then the bible is also wrong. When more to the point, fundamentalist are wrong, in part, because there isn't ONE right interpretation of the bible.

[white_raven23]

I disagree that Christians who don't believe in literalism are cherry pickers. In fact, I think it is the literalist Christians who are the true cherry pickers.

 

You have a point. I agree. Also, as I got to thinking about it, the literalists really DO have to cherry pick...or the'd all be making frequent treks outside of town will a trowel just to take a poop.

 

And how do moderate believers enable the fundamentalist Christians?

 

I will do my best to answer. And mostly, this is opinion based on life experience...so of course, it is subjective.

 

I think the moderates could be called the "silent majority" for 2 reasons....1 - I think most people personally shape and mold their religious views so much, they cannot help but be Moderate (particularly in America) because it facilitates communicatiuon and tolerance in a wider society. This by itself is not a bad thing really. But then comes reason 2.

 

They are silent. Beyond answering the question of belief in the most basic way: "Yes, I'm a christian." they do NOT get more specific. And the person asking (possibly a literalist) is able to walk away from them assuming the other person BELIEVES JUST AS THEY DO.

 

They are also "silent" in the sense that it is not the Moderates I see discussing stuff in online forums...it tends to be the extremist christian views of every stripe. Moderates are like cows kinda. Their needs are fulfilled with a little grass, a little sun, and water. They don't want to debate, they just want to get on with life (and that's what is GOOD about them).

 

But.

 

Sure they are individually happy, but they are also a tad lethargic when it comes to the Issues that generally make their extremist friends blood boil.

 

I recall church. If the pastor were to start raving about an abortion clinic...everyone in a congregation of 1500 may be nodding their heads....but on the Wed following, only 150 show up to the pro-life rally the pastor was encouraging folks to go to. You could consider the 150 the passionate extremists, and everyone who did not show up?

 

Are they Moderates? Maybe. Many probably are, but since they DIDN'T SHOW UP on either side of the rally line who knows? We can't ask them. This is what makes giving examples of the social effect Moderates have next to impossible. We have no idea where they stand. Even if their views were all over the board, they would still strike a blow in the name of Moderation, Tolerance, and Open-mindedness...which would be better than just the Extremes on either side. But that isn't what happens. The Extremes have their say, but the Mods remain the silent majority. Many of whom might LATER bitch and moan about how the issues were resolved.

 

Just like voting. You've got Red, and Blue....and most of the time a 20% turnout for Registered Voters (this is not all the time, but most of the time it's around 20%). Them when it's over, you hear more people bitching one way or the other, and griping about their views not being represented. Did they vote? No.

 

As to the question of what's left without literalism, I recommend watching this video by John Shelby Spong who I think can explain it better than I can:

 

Will watch this when I get home. Can't watch vids at work.

[Neon Genesis]

I think the moderates could be called the "silent majority" for 2 reasons....1 - I think most people personally shape and mold their religious views so much, they cannot help but be Moderate (particularly in America) because it facilitates communicatiuon and tolerance in a wider society. This by itself is not a bad thing really. But then comes reason 2.

 

They are silent. Beyond answering the question of belief in the most basic way: "Yes, I'm a christian." they do NOT get more specific. And the person asking (possibly a literalist) is able to walk away from them assuming the other person BELIEVES JUST AS THEY DO.

 

They are also "silent" in the sense that it is not the Moderates I see discussing stuff in online forums...it tends to be the extremist christian views of every stripe. Moderates are like cows kinda. Their needs are fulfilled with a little grass, a little sun, and water. They don't want to debate, they just want to get on with life (and that's what is GOOD about them).

 

But.

 

Sure they are individually happy, but they are also a tad lethargic when it comes to the Issues that generally make their extremist friends blood boil.

 

I recall church. If the pastor were to start raving about an abortion clinic...everyone in a congregation of 1500 may be nodding their heads....but on the Wed following, only 150 show up to the pro-life rally the pastor was encouraging folks to go to. You could consider the 150 the passionate extremists, and everyone who did not show up?

 

Are they Moderates? Maybe. Many probably are, but since they DIDN'T SHOW UP on either side of the rally line who knows? We can't ask them. This is what makes giving examples of the social effect Moderates have next to impossible. We have no idea where they stand. Even if their views were all over the board, they would still strike a blow in the name of Moderation, Tolerance, and Open-mindedness...which would be better than just the Extremes on either side. But that isn't what happens. The Extremes have their say, but the Mods remain the silent majority. Many of whom might LATER bitch and moan about how the issues were resolved.

I can see your point about moderate Christians not being more vocal against fundamentalists but if they aren't being more vocal against them, then the problem is that they aren't being more vocal, not that they're Christians. I also think it comes across as being rather stereotypical as there are moderate Christians out there who are vocal against fundies. I have several friends who are moderate Christians that are just as open and critical of fundies as any atheist I know and will debate with fundies. And then there are Christian authors out there who openly criticsize fundies such as the aforementioned John Shelby Spong as well as Chris Hedges. There's probably more examples but I'm not as knowledgeable about liberal Christianity as AM or kcdad are. But when I watch a video by someone inspiring like Bishop Spong, it makes it hard for me to bash them all. R.S. Martin posted a thread awhile back of various other videos on youtube where Bishop Spong debates with fundies. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=27802

 

Bishop Spong has also received many death threats and even been almost shot at by "true" Christians who consider him to be an evil heretic. But again, if the moderates aren't being vocal enough towards fundamentalists, I think we should be encouraging them to stand up to them instead of beating them down with strawman arguments. Like, let's say you were in elementary school and a bully was picking on a nerdy kid and the other nerdy kids were too afraid to stand up to the bully because they were beat up by the bully too. Would you then go and beat the nerdy kids up or would you try to help them stand up to the bullies? Should we try to work together to improve the way things are or should we fall into the trap of the fundamentalists by causing more divisions and simply recreating the us vs them mentality we escaped from?

[mwc]

People like Spong ought to just go ahead and rename jesus to Buddha and get over it already (or agree that he's the X incarnation of Vishnu if they really want a deity I guess). That crap is cherry picking going full steam ("all the stuff in the books about jesus is just mythological crap except the parts where he's a super-duper special guy...the most special ever in the history of ever so special guys...that's all true and we can still have a religion based on all of that extra special goodliness...but let's call him Yeshua instead of jesus since that makes us sound like smarties okay? Okay."). Barf.

 

mwc

[MathGeek]

I've read maybe 10% of the Bible, if one considers all the masses I've attended and all the individual and group Bible studies. To not be a cherry-picker according to what I've perused requires a 100% knowledge of the Bible and how every part of it connects. That won't happen, because humans are finite creatures with finite memory and finite time. To make a particular case, one must cherry-pick the scriptures in order to make it. Take the average sermon given by Jack Van Impe ("The Walking Bible"). In twenty minutes, he could toss out (rather fast) 100 to 200 bible verses just like that. The man is a Rhodes scholar in terms of memorization compared to me. How he makes his case is by spouting single verses (book, chapter, verse) and tied them together under some unifying heading. On a recent episode of his show, he made the claim that "nuclear weapons" were foretold in the Bible and he cited passages in Revelation, Malachi and Zephaniah among others. He may have cited ten verses on this topic alone.

 

Point is, when I think of cherry-picking, I think of preachers and apologists taking single verses and paragraphs of text from different parts of the Bible and tying them together under some kind of heading.

[Guest kcdad]

I must confess that I, too, don't understand choosing the parts of the Bible you like or agree with, discarding the rest, and calling it the True Religion.

 

If The God of the Universe wrote an inspired book for his creation's edification, which is what the Bible claims to be, how could parts of it be correct and other parts in error? Would a god that inept be worth worshipping?

 

Since the Bible claims to be the true word of the One God, and it even contains warnings to not change it, reading it is nothing like reading a newspaper.

 

The Bible make no claims about itself.

 

The Word of God is NEVER referred to as a written word. It is always spoken.

 

The Bible makes no claims about being inspired more or less than any other written work.

 

Inspired by God does not mean written by God, it means written by man because of their reverence, respect, or love for God. Whistler's Mother was a painting inspired by the painter's mother. She didn't paint it, he did.

[GraphicsGuy]

The Bible make no claims about itself.

 

That's obvious. It's an inanimate book.

 

The Word of God is NEVER referred to as a written word. It is always spoken.

 

And your point is???

 

The Bible makes no claims about being inspired more or less than any other written work.

 

So?

 

Inspired by God does not mean written by God, it means written by man because of their reverence, respect, or love for God.

 

Again, so?

 

All your points seem to say that the Bible isn't all that special...which is what this whole thread is saying...

[florduh]

The Bible make no claims about itself.

 

The Word of God is NEVER referred to as a written word. It is always spoken.

 

The Bible makes no claims about being inspired more or less than any other written work.

 

Inspired by God does not mean written by God, it means written by man because of their reverence, respect, or love for God. Whistler's Mother was a painting inspired by the painter's mother. She didn't paint it, he did.

 

 

I Cor.2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

 

II Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

[Guest kcdad]

The Bible make no claims about itself.

 

That's obvious. It's an inanimate book.

 

The Word of God is NEVER referred to as a written word. It is always spoken.

 

And your point is???

 

The Bible makes no claims about being inspired more or less than any other written work.

 

So?

 

Inspired by God does not mean written by God, it means written by man because of their reverence, respect, or love for God.

 

Again, so?

 

All your points seem to say that the Bible isn't all that special...which is what this whole thread is saying...

 

How convenient for you to come that conclusion.

 

I didn't say it wasn't special. I said it wasn't written by God.

[Guest kcdad]

The Bible make no claims about itself.

 

The Word of God is NEVER referred to as a written word. It is always spoken.

 

The Bible makes no claims about being inspired more or less than any other written work.

 

Inspired by God does not mean written by God, it means written by man because of their reverence, respect, or love for God. Whistler's Mother was a painting inspired by the painter's mother. She didn't paint it, he did.

 

 

I Cor.2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

 

II Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

 

Did you know that the word translated spirit is also breath or wind? "Words taught by ... WORD OF MOUTH"

 

As far as 2 Tim, the written word was not the usual method of learning and seeking truth. Paul is saying you don't need to hear me speak, you can trust the written word.

So 2Tim really says "all writings that are (written) by inspiration of God are profitable..."

 

2 Tim couldn't possibly refer to The Bible, anyway.

[florduh]

All Scripture is God-breathed

 

2 Tim couldn't possibly refer to The Bible, anyway.

 

Okay, whatever.

[Guest kcdad]

All Scripture is God-breathed

 

2 Tim couldn't possibly refer to The Bible, anyway.

 

Okay, whatever.

 

Are you being dense? There was no Bible when 2 Tim was written.

 

Besides, "God breathed" is a literal translation of a metaphor - in-spired by God. It doesn't mean God "breathed" it. It means God INSPIRED it.

[nightflight]

Many here on this site have been hurt so bad by Christianity that it is conducive to sanity to reject the Bible and Christianity completely. Anything "positive" in Christianity can be found in other religions or philosophy. And, if the "good parts" of the Bible are god-inspired, then why did not god "inspire" the writers a little further, enough to keep the shit out of the scriptures? You would think that a loving god who wanted to communicate his love and wisdom would not allow his message to be so garbled as to cause people to turn away in disgust. But we find that this is not so.

[florduh]

I am dense sometimes, but I do understand that the KJV had not been published at the time II Tim was being penned. What was the relevance of that statement?

 

 

I Cor.2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

 

That is clearly more than a case of men speaking about God out of reverence - it states that the very words came from God. The SPOKEN words came not from humans, but from Spirit (God). Those not present to hear the spoken word have to rely on a written record of what was said. Why the nit-pick about quoting the Spirit-inspired words in writing? It seems reasonable if an omnipotent god has men speak for him he could keep the written record of those words accurate. Otherwise, the religion should have died out with the death or oral tradition.

[Guest kcdad]

Many here on this site have been hurt so bad by Christianity that it is conducive to sanity to reject the Bible and Christianity completely. Anything "positive" in Christianity can be found in other religions or philosophy. And, if the "good parts" of the Bible are god-inspired, then why did not god "inspire" the writers a little further, enough to keep the shit out of the scriptures? You would think that a loving god who wanted to communicate his love and wisdom would not allow his message to be so garbled as to cause people to turn away in disgust. But we find that this is not so.

 

Just because I am inspired by God, that doesn't change who I am, what I think or my ability to explain things that I experience...

 

IN THE SAME WAY, being inspired by my mother doesn't allow me to paint, write, sing, work or do anything better than I could before I felt that inspiration.

 

Inspiration is not MAGIC, it is one's motivation.