Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[centauri]

Re: the self-referential aspect of Bible witness. We must remember that a person's testimony about themselves is accepted as valid in a court of law. This is an analogous situation. The Bible claims to be the Word of God - testifying to its own veracity and authority based on authorship (the Holy Spirit moved upon men and guided their writing). People for centuries have assembled some evidence > which is circumstantial at best > to contradict the Bible's testimony of itself. All this is fine. BUT the fact is there has been no objective proof submitted which would demand a denial of the Bible's claims. And there is also evidence to substantiate the Bible's claims for itself.

 

Without inserting your own qualifiers into the text, which genealogy of Jesus, as provided by the Bible, is the valid Word of God?

 

The scenario of the "last men standing" is sheer conjecture. It's considered by some as a plausible explanation for how we got our current Bible, based on minimal data, but loads of speculation of how this could possibly occur by positing... any number of scenarios.

 

The "last man standing" scenario makes a great deal of sense when compared to your magical explanation, which is even more of a sheer conjecture and based on wishful thinking.

You assume everything must be fine because that's how you want things to be.

[centauri]

The passage in Micah 5:2-15 describes the ministry of God's Messiah. 5:2 prophesies the place of His birth for His First Coming , specifically Bethlehem Ephrathah to distinguish this Bethlehem in the district Ephrathah from another that exisited duirng the days of Micah. The remainder of Micah 5 describes the ministry of the Messiah during His Second Coming when He comes to establish His Millennial Kingdom and He defeats unbelieving nations. Oftentimes in OT Scripture that referred to the Messiah, there was no distinction between what would take place in His First Coming and His Second Coming. Isaiah Ch 61 is another example of this.

 

You haven't established this from the Hebrew scriptures.

There is nothing in the "Old Testament" that specifies a king messiah needing to come twice to fulfill the job requirements.

 

Re: Micah 5, Jesus was never a ruler in Israel.

Nor is there anything in that passage that says a king messiah would be coming twice, separated by thousands of years.

 

Re: Isa 61, There is nothing mentioned about "the Messiah", which I assume you mean to be an expected king messiah.

There isn't anything about a second coming being required for this expected king to perform the job requirements.

Isaiah is the preacher sent by God in verses Isa 61:1-3.

[Kuroikaze]

The passage in Micah 5:2-15 describes the ministry of God's Messiah. 5:2 prophesies the place of His birth for His First Coming , specifically Bethlehem Ephrathah to distinguish this Bethlehem in the district Ephrathah from another that exisited duirng the days of Micah. The remainder of Micah 5 describes the ministry of the Messiah during His Second Coming when He comes to establish His Millennial Kingdom and He defeats unbelieving nations. Oftentimes in OT Scripture that referred to the Messiah, there was no distinction between what would take place in His First Coming and His Second Coming. Isaiah Ch 61 is another example of this.

 

There is nothing in the bible itself to lend credence to such an interpretation, besides now you are claiming that Jesus is going to destroy a dead civilization thousands of years after it died instead of a few hundred. I don't know if you get whats going on here, but you don't get points for making your explanations MORE ridiculous.

 

Moreover, I would be interested in any scholarly work you know of which suggests that Ephrathah refers to a district, every work I've ever read suggests that this, pretty obviously, refers to a group within the tribe. You have made several claims that I have asked for proof for, in the way of scholarly works supporting your claims. So far you have refused.

 

Oh, by the by, I looked up the thing about Bethlehem not existing in the first century, and I got it wrong. I'll admit that its been a while since I've read a lot of this stuff. Nazareth is the city which historians think probably did not exist in the first century, not Bethlehem.

[Ouroboros]

...I don't know if you get whats going on here, but you don't get points for making your explanations MORE ridiculous.

They don't? I thought God gave them extra gold-stars in the Heavenly Santa-list, each time they came up with some new, funny, crazy, explanation. So when they pray for something later on, God will answer much faster. It's like reward points at Best Buy, or something.

[Antlerman]

Sorry - I have been on vacation in SC >> the sun, the beach, the fried seafood, the sweet tea, the golf; but as always, now it's back to the Salt Mine.

Not to worry, I too have been distracted by other matters, none which I would consider pleasurable, a least nothing that's anywhere near such as you describe, to be sure! I'll give what I can in a response here.

 

Re: Ehrman - he has a method of Biblical interpretation, but his methodology carries certain presuppositions and certain speculations, of which he is very confident. BUT literary criticsm is not a hard science, and so you end up in a "my expert vs your expert" situation. And so I maintain with the conservative scholars that I have cited previously - men & women who have weighed the same data re: inerrancy and authority and authorship, etc - that there are no sustainable reasons to doubt the NT veracity nor its inerrancy - nor the careful process which established the NT canon.

Forgive me if I repeat myself. It seems I may have touched on this already, or not, but will say bring to the discussion anyway as it is something I think bears a good consideration moving forward. Yes of course it's not a hard science, but I disagree with it being dismissed so lightly as "your expert versus mine". If that's the case our discussion is simply dead in the water, and there is no understanding, no dialog to be had by either of us, just simply a religious choice. But I disagree it can be waved away so simply.

 

I think methodology is important. I think there is fault in the conservative method, and in a lot of the liberal method as well. Stepping back from NT scholarship for a moment, if you consider the scientific method as an example of finding a method for interpreting data. There are good reasons why that method was devised. It lends itself towards a checks and balances to reduce the influence of personal biases, inherited preconceptions and the like, though an approach that sets discovery above ideologies. This is a good thing.

 

However, when it comes to NT scholarship, can you with any honesty whatsoever, make a claim that the conservative scholar sets aside his preconception in pursuit of understanding Christian origins? Can you name one conservative scholar who would approach the NT, or Jesus, or any of it, as a human invention? No? Then how can you possibly hope to arrive at an understanding when you've laced it with ideas at the outset? It's not possible.

 

Now for the opposite side of that. What about liberal scholarship? Are they setting aside preconceptions? Some, not all. Certainly more than the conservative at least. But the liberal too seems married to the ideal of the person of Jesus as the initiator of all that follows; that the myths about him were inspired by a superior personality who came upon the scene. In this existential embrace of the significance of Jesus the person as the founder of their religion, they too don't remove biases to approach it as objectively, as removing Jesus from the picture as well might.

 

And why not? Why not remove Jesus from the picture? Why? Because he is an object of faith? Then how is that objective? It's not. Such scholarship is tantamount to redefining religious belief. Or in the case of the conservative, propping up religious belief by seeking out and making the data fit into it. Not objective, nor a good methodology, no matter what the subject matter is. How is this arguable?

 

If Christianity when approached from outside of it, when examined equally as all other religions, in the examination of textual histories, as well as social histories, that at the end of the day the dispassionate scholar can see something miraculous, something that sets it distinctly apart from the processes seen everywhere, that this is "something else", then and only then can you support it as something more than a product of human creation, then it might be able to be argued as the work of a god; no different than looking at nature and finding the inexplicable, that after all else has been exhausted it stands as beyond the possible with the natural.

 

So far that has not happened, and the more we learn the more we see that is hardly the case with Christianity either! The conservative's methods are hardly proper when considering "evidence". They seem more a tool of the church and the theologian to support its own existence, rather that the pursuit of exploring objective knowledge: one willing to set aside ALL assumptions. Do they do that? They don't accept the evidence present by archeologists, textual critics, religious historians, etc, Don't kid yourself, they are not objective.

 

What model fits it best, from the outside. That should be the question. Not just an argument from within to support itself.

 

Now to the septic, the secularist... the enemy, as some would choose to see them. Are they objective? If they likewise are not approaching Christianity as a religion, like any religion, and trying to understand it, evaluate it, compare it, understand it, equally as a religion among all religions, and weigh if for good and for bad, then they too have an agenda to support and are lacking in a solid objectivity. I don't care for that, as much as I don't care for the conservative.

 

If however, it starts with the desire to understand, to weigh it equally with the tools available to us along with any human effort, and from there, from what it informs us of, we are able to look at the good and the bad without rose-colored glasses, with full awareness, then I would say the value is vastly superior, infinitely more rewarding to people, than just falling in behind the beliefs imagined in some distant antiquity, in a culture far removed from our own, in a time where the world and its ideas was valid to them, and it's myths products of their imaginations to support them are valuable as insights into our creative genius as a people, as humans, then I'd say we're beginning to move forward. But that's a philosophical assessment, I would hope at some point we could explore if we can move past marriage to ideals that block the pursuit of understanding.

 

If there is value in Christianity, it needs to be able to stand up to this, or else reconsidered as to its pertinence.

 

 

Re: the self-referential aspect of Bible witness. We must remember that a person's testimony about themselves is accepted as valid in a court of law.

In history, in the study of ancient literature, is this in any way pertinent?? Let me answer: No.

 

This is an analogous situation. The Bible claims to be the Word of God - testifying to its own veracity and authority based on authorship (the Holy Spirit moved upon men and guided their writing). People for centuries have assembled some evidence > which is circumstantial at best > to contradict the Bible's testimony of itself. All this is fine. BUT the fact is there has been no objective proof submitted which would demand a denial of the Bible's claims. And there is also evidence to substantiate the Bible's claims for itself.

None of this is biblical scholarship. It does smack suspiciously of conspiracy theory, which betrays an absence of objective thought, of course.

 

No objective proofs??? Please. You jest?

 

The scenario of the "last men standing" is sheer conjecture.

Hardly conjecture. Your statement is bald assertion. You don't see any examples anywhere in history of the victor writing history in his favor? Seriously?

 

It's considered by some as a plausible explanation for how we got our current Bible, based on minimal data, but loads of speculation of how this could possibly occur by positing... any number of scenarios.

Load of speculation is what I am indeed hearing. Have you ever read any of the research done, or only from those who talk about it negatively?

[rayskidude]

Sorry - I have been on vacation in SC >> the sun, the beach, the fried seafood, the sweet tea, the golf; but as always, now it's back to the Salt Mine.

Not to worry, I too have been distracted by other matters, none which I would consider pleasurable, a least nothing that's anywhere near such as you describe, to be sure! I'll give what I can in a response here.

 

Re: Ehrman - he has a method of Biblical interpretation, but his methodology carries certain presuppositions and certain speculations, of which he is very confident. BUT literary criticsm is not a hard science, and so you end up in a "my expert vs your expert" situation. And so I maintain with the conservative scholars that I have cited previously - men & women who have weighed the same data re: inerrancy and authority and authorship, etc - that there are no sustainable reasons to doubt the NT veracity nor its inerrancy - nor the careful process which established the NT canon.

Forgive me if I repeat myself. It seems I may have touched on this already, or not, but will say bring to the discussion anyway as it is something I think bears a good consideration moving forward. Yes of course it's not a hard science, but I disagree with it being dismissed so lightly as "your expert versus mine". If that's the case our discussion is simply dead in the water, and there is no understanding, no dialog to be had by either of us, just simply a religious choice. But I disagree it can be waved away so simply.

 

I think methodology is important. I think there is fault in the conservative method, and in a lot of the liberal method as well. Stepping back from NT scholarship for a moment, if you consider the scientific method as an example of finding a method for interpreting data. There are good reasons why that method was devised. It lends itself towards a checks and balances to reduce the influence of personal biases, inherited preconceptions and the like, though an approach that sets discovery above ideologies. This is a good thing.

 

However, when it comes to NT scholarship, can you with any honesty whatsoever, make a claim that the conservative scholar sets aside his preconception in pursuit of understanding Christian origins? Can you name one conservative scholar who would approach the NT, or Jesus, or any of it, as a human invention? No? Then how can you possibly hope to arrive at an understanding when you've laced it with ideas at the outset? It's not possible.

 

Now for the opposite side of that. What about liberal scholarship? Are they setting aside preconceptions? Some, not all. Certainly more than the conservative at least. But the liberal too seems married to the ideal of the person of Jesus as the initiator of all that follows; that the myths about him were inspired by a superior personality who came upon the scene. In this existential embrace of the significance of Jesus the person as the founder of their religion, they too don't remove biases to approach it as objectively, as removing Jesus from the picture as well might.

 

And why not? Why not remove Jesus from the picture? Why? Because he is an object of faith? Then how is that objective? It's not. Such scholarship is tantamount to redefining religious belief. Or in the case of the conservative, propping up religious belief by seeking out and making the data fit into it. Not objective, nor a good methodology, no matter what the subject matter is. How is this arguable?

 

If Christianity when approached from outside of it, when examined equally as all other religions, in the examination of textual histories, as well as social histories, that at the end of the day the dispassionate scholar can see something miraculous, something that sets it distinctly apart from the processes seen everywhere, that this is "something else", then and only then can you support it as something more than a product of human creation, then it might be able to be argued as the work of a god; no different than looking at nature and finding the inexplicable, that after all else has been exhausted it stands as beyond the possible with the natural.

 

So far that has not happened, and the more we learn the more we see that is hardly the case with Christianity either! The conservative's methods are hardly proper when considering "evidence". They seem more a tool of the church and the theologian to support its own existence, rather that the pursuit of exploring objective knowledge: one willing to set aside ALL assumptions. Do they do that? They don't accept the evidence present by archeologists, textual critics, religious historians, etc, Don't kid yourself, they are not objective.

 

What model fits it best, from the outside. That should be the question. Not just an argument from within to support itself.

 

Now to the septic, the secularist... the enemy, as some would choose to see them. Are they objective? If they likewise are not approaching Christianity as a religion, like any religion, and trying to understand it, evaluate it, compare it, understand it, equally as a religion among all religions, and weigh if for good and for bad, then they too have an agenda to support and are lacking in a solid objectivity. I don't care for that, as much as I don't care for the conservative.

 

If however, it starts with the desire to understand, to weigh it equally with the tools available to us along with any human effort, and from there, from what it informs us of, we are able to look at the good and the bad without rose-colored glasses, with full awareness, then I would say the value is vastly superior, infinitely more rewarding to people, than just falling in behind the beliefs imagined in some distant antiquity, in a culture far removed from our own, in a time where the world and its ideas was valid to them, and it's myths products of their imaginations to support them are valuable as insights into our creative genius as a people, as humans, then I'd say we're beginning to move forward. But that's a philosophical assessment, I would hope at some point we could explore if we can move past marriage to ideals that block the pursuit of understanding.

 

If there is value in Christianity, it needs to be able to stand up to this, or else reconsidered as to its pertinence.

 

 

Re: the self-referential aspect of Bible witness. We must remember that a person's testimony about themselves is accepted as valid in a court of law.

In history, in the study of ancient literature, is this in any way pertinent?? Let me answer: No.

 

This is an analogous situation. The Bible claims to be the Word of God - testifying to its own veracity and authority based on authorship (the Holy Spirit moved upon men and guided their writing). People for centuries have assembled some evidence > which is circumstantial at best > to contradict the Bible's testimony of itself. All this is fine. BUT the fact is there has been no objective proof submitted which would demand a denial of the Bible's claims. And there is also evidence to substantiate the Bible's claims for itself.

None of this is biblical scholarship. It does smack suspiciously of conspiracy theory, which betrays an absence of objective thought, of course.

 

No objective proofs??? Please. You jest?

 

The scenario of the "last men standing" is sheer conjecture.

Hardly conjecture. Your statement is bald assertion. You don't see any examples anywhere in history of the victor writing history in his favor? Seriously?

 

It's considered by some as a plausible explanation for how we got our current Bible, based on minimal data, but loads of speculation of how this could possibly occur by positing... any number of scenarios.

Load of speculation is what I am indeed hearing. Have you ever read any of the research done, or only from those who talk about it negatively?

 

A brief response - I fully agree that conservative Biblical scholarship is somewhat biased and subjective. We assume all the following: God's existence, that He created Man in His own image & likeness as persons, that God & man can communicate and have a personal relationship as Creator & creature, that God has given us clear revelation of His Person & purposes in the Bible, that man willfully rebelled and now all men are sinners by nature (i.e., separated from God, born outside the family of God), that God has taken the initiative to reconcile to relationship severed by our sin - and that the Person & Ministry of Jesus Christ - specifically His vicarious death, His glorious resurrection, and His subsequent ascension into heaven - and that men are saved from the eternal consequences of their sin by repenting of their sin and placing their trust in Jesus Christ as their LORD & Savior.

 

This a redemptive thread found throughout Scripture from Genesis to Revelation - and from this faith we study and interpret the Bible. And from the truths found throughout Scripture we reject false religion, false teachers and false their writings. We don't hide form our faith, our biased worldview - we embrace it. ANd we embrace it because of what we see from various Biblical studies covering a wide range of topics, from Church history (and Israel's history), and from what we have experinced from God's work in our own individiual hearts and what we have seen God in the lives of others based on their salvation - and from what we have seen God accomplish in human history through His people. Not all of the Chuch's impact has been good - but it has been for the benefit of millions in an overwhelming way. But to say "the last man standing" is the case - that in itself is also a bald assertion.

 

BUT- we simply ask others to realize that they too have a worldview, a bias, some subjectivity in approaching religion in general and Biblical Christianity in particular- and that the validity of all our assumptions must be continually re-assessed. SO re: "last man standing" has this ever occurred? YES, but that does mean that its always true in all circumstances. Is this 'last man' the case for the Bible and Christinaity? NO, unless you consider the perseverance of Christians in the face of persecution throughout history as the 'last man' - then we need to ask the question; what is the strength and motivation behind this strange & strong perseverance in the face of persecution that has harassed and killed millions of Christians? Keep in mind that the data shows that more people have been martyred for Christian beliefs in the past 150 years than in the prior 1800 years.

 

So though we fully admit to some level of subjectivity - it is not in opposition to clearly objective proofs to the contrary. Data is data, but interpretation of that data has always been debated in all disciplines for all human history. SO we can both assemble studies and experts to whom we gravitate toward - and we must to all we can to be objective in our assessment ao the work done - but at the end of the day we must both admit we're operating within certain prescribed parameters. And again, the question becomes - which parameters are correct?

 

Ergo, as I have read and studied the Bible and history - I believe the Bible as God's word; and I stand with the Early Church Fathers, Augustine, Sir Isaac Newton, CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, Ravi Zacharias, Alvin Platinga, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Hudson Taylor, John Carey, Adoniram Judson, Dr. John Livingstone, etc. All these arte fallible men who all put on their pants one-leg-at-a-time, and yet all are men whose lives were completely transformed by their faith in Jesus Christ. And today there are a myriad of Christian missionaries all over the world supported by voluntary $$ contributions from millions of Chrsitians - and they're operating orphanges, hospitals, schools, soup kitchens, rescue missions, teaching hygiene, agriculture & community develpoment, etc. in addition to planting new churces and seeing peoples' lives transformed by the Gospel.

 

So I have seen no evidence that would trump anything I've seen and experienced. Please recommend a book with objective proofs that would aid my search for truth - I will commit to reading it. And I also would recommennd to you a book by Paul Johnson - "The Intellectuals." Have you read this book? I would be interested in your estimation of its premise and conclusions.

[Deva]

We assume all the following: God's existence, that He created Man in His own image & likeness as persons, that God & man can communicate and have a personal relationship as Creator & creature, that God has given us clear revelation of His Person & purposes in the Bible, that man willfully rebelled and now all men are sinners by nature (i.e., separated from God, born outside the family of God), that God has taken the initiative to reconcile to relationship severed by our sin - and that the Person & Ministry of Jesus Christ - specifically His vicarious death, His glorious resurrection, and His subsequent ascension into heaven - and that men are saved from the eternal consequences of their sin by repenting of their sin and placing their trust in Jesus Christ as their LORD & Savior.

 

No, we certainly cannot assume any of these things. "Man willfully rebelled." No, Adam and Eve were set up. Didn't God know what would happen?

 

There is no such thing as "sinners by nature". You are just making a series of statements taken purely on faith with nothing whatsoever to back them up other than your reading of the Bible. None of it makes any sense and I must go on record as utterly rejecting the whole of this wholly destructive and damaging doctrine.

[florduh]

So I have seen no evidence that would trump anything I've seen and experienced.

 

The same is true for believers in Bigfoot, Nessie, Aliens, ghosts, seances, Voodoo and Scientology. Their experiences and the things they are convinced they have seen are as valid/invalid as yours.

 

Of course, YOUR beliefs are the TRUE ones, aren't they?

[Kuroikaze]

Is this 'last man' the case for the Bible and Christinaity? NO, unless you consider the perseverance of Christians in the face of persecution throughout history as the 'last man' - then we need to ask the question; what is the strength and motivation behind this strange & strong perseverance in the face of persecution that has harassed and killed millions of Christians? Keep in mind that the data shows that more people have been martyred for Christian beliefs in the past 150 years than in the prior 1800 years.

 

People have died for lots of beliefs over the centuries, some of them religious some of them not, some of them good ideas some of them not. The fact that people died for a belief in Christianity is not salient to its truth or falsity. Not even a little bit.

 

Personally, I think Christians over estimate this number.

For instance, would you include the persecution of Christians in Japan in the 17th century? You shouldn't, because the persecution had nothing to do with religion. The Japanese kicked Christianity out because religious conversions had been the first step used by European countries to colonize other counties. The Japanese were not stupid they could see what was happening, and they kicked them out to protect their sovereignty.

[Justin]

Is this 'last man' the case for the Bible and Christinaity? NO, unless you consider the perseverance of Christians in the face of persecution throughout history as the 'last man' - then we need to ask the question; what is the strength and motivation behind this strange & strong perseverance in the face of persecution that has harassed and killed millions of Christians? Keep in mind that the data shows that more people have been martyred for Christian beliefs in the past 150 years than in the prior 1800 years.

 

What about the Jews? Sure got nothing on them in the past few centuries. However, as far as your last sentence goes, care to give any examples of this typical christian persecution complex. It's been said and said and said, yet never is any examples thrown out there to prove that more christians have been killed in modern times as opposed to ancient times.

[rayskidude]

So I have seen no evidence that would trump anything I've seen and experienced.

 

The same is true for believers in Bigfoot, Nessie, Aliens, ghosts, seances, Voodoo and Scientology. Their experiences and the things they are convinced they have seen are as valid/invalid as yours.

 

Of course, YOUR beliefs are the TRUE ones, aren't they?

 

Yes. my beliefs are the right ones - but not because their mine, but because the are inherently true. I believe only because of God's grace towards me.

 

And you mentioned "Aliens" - hey, that's my favorite movie.

[Ouroboros]

Yes. my beliefs are the right ones - but not because their mine, but because the are inherently true. I believe only because of God's grace towards me.

So have you sold everything you own, given it to the poor, and then followed Jesus full-time?

 

And you mentioned "Aliens" - hey, that's my favorite movie.

Is that what Jesus would do? Watch horror movies where people get torn up by alien monsters?

 

Does this apply?

"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." - phil 7:8 (NIV)

Or is your "absolutely true and universal interpretation--which all Christians agree upon" that it doesn't apply?

 

Well, my pastor did think so. He considered watching Horror movies to be a SIN. So it would by you against my former pastors (who btw was an accredited scholar).

[The-Captain]

And you mentioned "Aliens" - hey, that's my favorite movie.

 

They're coming outta the goddamn walls!

[The-Captain]

I think Ray is demonstrating an interesting point. Faith has an entirely different criteria for scholarship. It doesn't work by the typical rules, and it prides itself on that. Really you either go with it or you don't.

[Kuroikaze]

Yes. my beliefs are the right ones - but not because their mine, but because the are inherently true. I believe only because of God's grace towards me.

 

But EVERYONE thinks that their beliefs are the correct ones. This whole statement is redundant because its blatantly obvious. We don't think your beliefs are inherently true, or we would also believe them.

 

People who believe in Bigfoot or alien abductions, or another religion like Islam would ALL say the exact same thing you just said. No body claims that their beliefs are true merely because they believe them.

 

I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult for you too grasp.

[MathGeek]

Yes. my beliefs are the right ones - but not because their mine, but because the are inherently true. I believe only because of God's grace towards me.

 

Math is inherently true, as is chemistry and libertarianism. And they can demonstrated empirically.

 

Let G = God of the Bible

 

0 * G = 1

 

I picked this equation because God created species in six days (just a large explosion of biology and cosmology like that and expanding rapidly too, which is I picked multiplication because that operation expands rapidly when applied repeatedly).

 

Solve for G...

 

G = 1 / 0

 

G = Does not exist because the first commandment of math says "Thou shalt not divide by zero".

 

Therefore the God of the Bible does not exist.

 

Proven empirically for your reading pleasure.

 

Q.E.D.

[Antlerman]

A brief response - I fully agree that conservative Biblical scholarship is somewhat biased and subjective. We assume all the following: God's existence, that He created Man in His own image & likeness as persons, that God & man can communicate and have a personal relationship as Creator & creature, that God has given us clear revelation of His Person & purposes in the Bible, that man willfully rebelled and now all men are sinners by nature (i.e., separated from God, born outside the family of God), that God has taken the initiative to reconcile to relationship severed by our sin - and that the Person & Ministry of Jesus Christ - specifically His vicarious death, His glorious resurrection, and His subsequent ascension into heaven - and that men are saved from the eternal consequences of their sin by repenting of their sin and placing their trust in Jesus Christ as their LORD & Savior.

Now I’d like to focus with you on the importance of methodology I opened up in my previous response you are replying to here.

 

There are a great many assumptions you are admitting to making here:

 

1. God’s existence

2. Man created in the likeness of this god

3. Two-way relationship of deity and man

4. Clear instructions given from the god to man

5. Man’s nature is basically evil, inheriting that nature through the fault of one man in antiquity

6. God involves himself in rescuing men, forgiving them being imperfect by birth

7. The mythology of the Christ is fact, while other religion’s myths are not

8. That a mystical experience of salvation secures a better destination following death

 

With so many assumptions with sweeping definitions and limits already in hand prior to opening the pages of the Bible, is it any wonder it will be read to support your beliefs?

 

I would like to share with you awareness of a well known psychological phenomenon. It’s called Confirmation Bias:

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and to avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.

 

Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it.

Critical thought on the other hand, would in the best scenario begin by setting aside these types of assumptions you use above, evaluate the data without assumption, and then seek to explain the data with a model of explanation. Quite often this results in unexpected explanations. Your approach however will generally always yield expected results: a confirmation of your beliefs.

 

Why I prefer a critical approach to the conservative one is because its potential for yielding new insights is far greater. And with greater insights come a greater potential for effective understanding of the world seeing things in multidimensional, multifaceted forms, as opposed to monolinear, two-dimensional brush strokes defined by a set of preconceived assumptions such as the conservative imposes at the outset. And with a greater understanding, for me personally, comes a deeper appreciation and respect of all views, including the religious.

 

I find a system willing to put all our inherited assumptions on the table for examination to be better suited for me. My interests are different than seeking to build walls of protection around my assumptions for the sake of community alone. I prefer a community that has the freedom to challenge assumptions, rather than sacrifice that liberty for something else (sort of like Ben Franklin put it, ‘those who are willing to exchange their liberty for security deserve neither’).

 

In fact, my leaving Christianity was due to what was in my heart seeking insights, understanding, wisdom, and inspiration being held back, thwarted, and injured by the limits imposed on it through doctrinal boundaries; putting God in a box so to speak. With the set of assumptions you come at this with, it necessitates other ways of understanding be dismissed automatically as heretical, false, and wrong-headed if they don’t accept the limits of these assumption. How doing that adds to ones’ appreciation for life is hard for me to fathom.

 

It certainly didn’t for me, and hence why I feel it more than appropriate for me to choose an approach that works better with the goal of what this all is for me. My motives are the appreciation of life and the respect of knowledge, not some self-indulgent rebellion against the truth, as the conservative may wish to brand it to dismiss the reason why someone might reject their approach.

 

In short, to me conservative scholarship is about providing support for its assumptions in the interest of preserving traditional views. Critical scholarship is about setting aside assumptions to discover new understandings and move our views forward.

 

The discovery of truth is a marvelous and inspiring thing, and if there is a God, to me that is the highest of form of honor and reverence towards it: understanding with eyes wide opened and unafraid, “for now we see through a glass darkly, then face to face.” What sort of God would say, “Don’t look there” if the god were a god of light and truth? If something is true, it will stand on its own without threats to not examine it. The only ones I could see creating that demand would be humans afraid to look into the face of God for what they might see staring back at them.

 

I’m not afraid. I’m willing to accept there is a god with compelling reasons, and I’m equally willing to accept that that face in the deep mystery is very well my own staring back at me. And if that is the realization for us, is it bad, or good; disastrous or enlightenment? And would the answer to that question then, in fact, truly define the real meaning of what “faith” is? That despite knowing the truth we embrace it as good, and worthy of our reverence.

 

This a redemptive thread found throughout Scripture from Genesis to Revelation - and from this faith we study and interpret the Bible.

That not what is seen when you set aside those assumptions. It’s a different picture than that.

 

And from the truths found throughout Scripture we reject false religion, false teachers and false their writings. We don't hide form our faith, our biased worldview - we embrace it.

To the point of limiting your consideration of possibilities, by branding other ways of looking at it as inspired by devils; rejecting all who challenge? Would that then be the worship of a god of truth, or the worship of a belief at that god’s expense?

 

ANd we embrace it because of what we see from various Biblical studies covering a wide range of topics, from Church history (and Israel's history),

Again, confirmation bias. This is exactly what you will get when you have concluded at the outset through your list of assumptions how the pieces of the puzzle have to fit. This is true no matter what the subject is, anywhere from orthodox Christianity, to Astrology, to Bigfoot, to UFO’S, to a JFK conspiracy theory.

 

The method does matter.

 

and from what we have experinced from God's work in our own individiual hearts and what we have seen God in the lives of others based on their salvation - and from what we have seen God accomplish in human history through His people. Not all of the Chuch's impact has been good - but it has been for the benefit of millions in an overwhelming way.

None of this confirms the theological interpretations you have. What this is humans feeling compelled to help others. That a belief system helps facilitate this is of course very consistent with why they are created in the first place as part of social experimentation. People create these things for human reasons. This is not limited to Christianity, and nor is Christianity somehow set apart from all others in this regard, except of course to those who look at it with internal bias towards it. Once however you set aside all the subjective, direct experience of it and look at it up against other systems objectively, its quite understandable, and not some evidence of something above the rest, a miracle confirming God’s “chosen people”.

 

BUT- we simply ask others to realize that they too have a worldview, a bias, some subjectivity in approaching religion in general and Biblical Christianity in particular- and that the validity of all our assumptions must be continually re-assessed.

I accept I have a worldview, but I constantly have not allow my biases to lead me down the road of closed-mindedness, such as saying things like, “we reject false religion, false teachers and false their writings.” That was a statement showing that you are not constantly re-assessing your assumptions. When I do that, I have now just switched one set of religious doctrines for another.

 

It’s my worldview, that the world is multifaceted, multi-layered, multi-dimensional, brilliant and beautiful, sublime, and terrifying, and inspiring. The experience of this nature cannot be known while disregarding perspectives, including your own here, as “wrong”.

 

I see the problem with these sorts of doctrinal lines, this list of assumptions you made, is that is only allows one way of thinking, one way of looking at something. It is my belief, my worldview, that we are all looking at the same thing, valuing the same thing, talking about the same thing, yet from different points of view. For you to say your view is right and others wrong, dishonors the thing you’re viewing by denying its reality to others.

 

Keep in mind that the data shows that more people have been martyred for Christian beliefs in the past 150 years than in the prior 1800 years.

.001% when the world’s population was 300,000,000 is a far smaller number than it is when .001% is sliced out of 650,000,000,000.

[Antlerman]

So though we fully admit to some level of subjectivity - it is not in opposition to clearly objective proofs to the contrary.

So you accept that man evolved from earlier life forms through the process of evolution? Or do you believe against the evidence that man appeared independently from this process?

Data is data, but interpretation of that data has always been debated in all disciplines for all human history. SO we can both assemble studies and experts to whom we gravitate toward - and we must to all we can to be objective in our assessment ao the work done - but at the end of the day we must both admit we're operating within certain prescribed parameters. And again, the question becomes - which parameters are correct?

Again, not all things are equal. It depends what one is trying to accomplish. If you’re talking about the facts on the ground, then not all things are equal. If conservative scholars say that there is archeological evidence of a mass exodus from Egypt, that the 40 some cities listed in Joshua as having been destroyed show signs on the ground confirming this story, etc, then you will have a dispute. Who is right is the one who can produce the evidence, and that evidence has to be allowed to be evaluating independently and dispassionately as to its veracity.

 

It’s the same thing with creationists versus the world’s scientists. Method does matter. We can say with far greater confidence as a result that evolution is a valid explanation, than we can with the likes of those at AiG.

 

And today there are a myriad of Christian missionaries all over the world supported by voluntary $$ contributions from millions of Chrsitians - and they're operating orphanges, hospitals, schools, soup kitchens, rescue missions, teaching hygiene, agriculture & community develpoment, etc. in addition to planting new churces and seeing peoples' lives transformed by the Gospel.

Emotional appeals are not evidence of your doctrines, only the power of organized social programs and the humans who create them. The myth has value as a focal point for this human enterprise. It’s not God who set them up. People did.

 

So I have seen no evidence that would trump anything I've seen and experienced. Please recommend a book with objective proofs that would aid my search for truth - I will commit to reading it. And I also would recommennd to you a book by Paul Johnson - "The Intellectuals." Have you read this book? I would be interested in your estimation of its premise and conclusions.

Strongly opinioned anti-intellectual popular authors may appeal to confused and frustrated masses looking for simple views (like those who huddle around the AM talk radio show hosts like Rush Limbaugh). But for me I prefer a balanced critique. Otherwise it’s just political, religious rhetoric. Rhetoric bores me.

[rayskidude]

So though we fully admit to some level of subjectivity - it is not in opposition to clearly objective proofs to the contrary.

So you accept that man evolved from earlier life forms through the process of evolution? Or do you believe against the evidence that man appeared independently from this process?

Data is data, but interpretation of that data has always been debated in all disciplines for all human history. SO we can both assemble studies and experts to whom we gravitate toward - and we must to all we can to be objective in our assessment ao the work done - but at the end of the day we must both admit we're operating within certain prescribed parameters. And again, the question becomes - which parameters are correct?

Again, not all things are equal. It depends what one is trying to accomplish. If you’re talking about the facts on the ground, then not all things are equal. If conservative scholars say that there is archeological evidence of a mass exodus from Egypt, that the 40 some cities listed in Joshua as having been destroyed show signs on the ground confirming this story, etc, then you will have a dispute. Who is right is the one who can produce the evidence, and that evidence has to be allowed to be evaluating independently and dispassionately as to its veracity.

 

It’s the same thing with creationists versus the world’s scientists. Method does matter. We can say with far greater confidence as a result that evolution is a valid explanation, than we can with the likes of those at AiG.

 

And today there are a myriad of Christian missionaries all over the world supported by voluntary $$ contributions from millions of Chrsitians - and they're operating orphanges, hospitals, schools, soup kitchens, rescue missions, teaching hygiene, agriculture & community develpoment, etc. in addition to planting new churces and seeing peoples' lives transformed by the Gospel.

Emotional appeals are not evidence of your doctrines, only the power of organized social programs and the humans who create them. The myth has value as a focal point for this human enterprise. It’s not God who set them up. People did.

 

So I have seen no evidence that would trump anything I've seen and experienced. Please recommend a book with objective proofs that would aid my search for truth - I will commit to reading it. And I also would recommennd to you a book by Paul Johnson - "The Intellectuals." Have you read this book? I would be interested in your estimation of its premise and conclusions.

Strongly opinioned anti-intellectual popular authors may appeal to confused and frustrated masses looking for simple views (like those who huddle around the AM talk radio show hosts like Rush Limbaugh). But for me I prefer a balanced critique. Otherwise it’s just political, religious rhetoric. Rhetoric bores me.

 

The book I recommended to you; "The Intellectuals" by Paul Johnson, follows the lives of Marx, Hemingway and others who impacted society. As I said - I think it would be a good study for you to examine their lives - which were based on their personal philosophies. And then ask the question - what is the superior philosphy/worldview as played out in history?

[Antlerman]

Strongly opinioned anti-intellectual popular authors may appeal to confused and frustrated masses looking for simple views (like those who huddle around the AM talk radio show hosts like Rush Limbaugh). But for me I prefer a balanced critique. Otherwise it’s just political, religious rhetoric. Rhetoric bores me.

 

The book I recommended to you; "The Intellectuals" by Paul Johnson, follows the lives of Marx, Hemingway and others who impacted society. As I said - I think it would be a good study for you to examine their lives - which were based on their personal philosophies. And then ask the question - what is the superior philosphy/worldview as played out in history?

That's it? All the attention and detail I offer in response, and this is it? Any author who has to resort to personal insults such as Jean Paul Sartre was incontinent and therefore his thoughts are absurd, may appeal to those looking to dismiss a persons thoughts based on personality, but not to someone who looks at the merit of the thought. This type of author appeals to emotions, not reason. Hence why I likened him to Rush Limbaugh.

 

I understand anti-intellectualism, and it is purely emotional in nature. It's a way to dismiss ideas by attacking character instead. Anyone can find fault with another human being, but is that relevant to a philosophy in general? Hardly. If so, then would it be fair, or reasonable, to dismiss your thoughts by taking a look at the behaviors of those within Evangelical Christianity who most certainly live poorly? Many of whom are in jail for their actions? Should I respond to arguments of substance from you by citing Jim Baker, or Kent Hovind and their hypocrisies? It's a low blow that is not an argument. It's called an ad hominen attack and is considered a logic fallacy.

 

Here's a clear explaination on what an adhomimen is. See if it pertains to what you're telling me is worth looking into in evaluating the doctrines of these so-called "intellectuals":

 

Description of Ad Hominem

 

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

 

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which

a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

 

1. Person A makes claim X.

2. Person B makes an attack on person A.

3. Therefore A's claim is false.

 

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

 

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."

Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."

Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"

Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

 

I won't get dragged into defending the life of Jean Paul Sartre, as for one thing, any criticisms of how someone lives their lives is utterly a subjective criticism based entirely on their cultural points of view of the person making the charge, or is a shallow evaluation of them excluding critical data (the level of gossip queens, as an example). It appeals to those with that cultural orientation because to them how some philosopher may choose to live his life outside the "norm" may jar their sensibilities, but it has nothing to do with their actual character as people. It's a matter of living, and Sartre would say, sincerely. You know, they said Christians were immoral too, since you're fond of the early Church Fathers. Any similarity maybe?

 

If you want to talk about the relevance of a philosophy to someone's life, then talk to me of how I live my life. I've said many times with humorous irony that, I'm more a Christian now that I'm not one, than I ever was when I was one. In other words, the ideals that Christianity claims to espouse became inaccessible through having to become one! What does that say?

 

Again, Paul M. Johnson is entertaining and appealing to a certain segment looking to feel validated by each other, which is entirely different than actually substantive. I prefer a balanced approach to both sides. I did say that I dislike rhetoric from the secular side as well, didn't I? Why should this author then appeal to me?

 

 

So, would you care to now address the substance of what I'm am arguing, that method matters and why, or are you essentially saying you can't, and I should rather spend my energies looking at the personal character of those whose are teaching me these "things", and evaluate it on that level as opposed to the substance of the argument? It seems you are. Are you capable of discussing my arguments directly, or not?

[Legion]

Yes. my beliefs are the right ones - but not because their mine, but because the are inherently true.

I have heard that a “true belief” is called “knowledge”. So it seems that you are asserting knowledge of God.

 

How did you acquire this knowledge?

[Antlerman]

Yes. my beliefs are the right ones - but not because their mine, but because the are inherently true.

I have heard that a “true belief” is called “knowledge”. So it seems that you are asserting knowledge of God.

 

How did you acquire this knowledge?

Yes, I saw that earlier but didn't jump on that. It's impossible to claim to know it is inherently true, since the means to which we arrive at that conclusion are limited and flawed. I could equally say they are inherently false, and it would have as much meaning. It's ironic that he acknowledges bias, then in the next breath claims the beliefs are without bias, viz., "inherently true".

 

BTW, I had to edit out my brief post from last night as it was lacking substance, merely expressing personal frustration at the end of the day. I would prefer to argue substance whenever possible. It now says what I think needs to be said.

[Neon Genesis]

Yes, I saw that earlier but didn't jump on that. It's impossible to claim to know it is inherently true, since the means to which we arrive at that conclusion are limited and flawed. I could equally say they are inherently false, and it would have as much meaning. It's ironic that he acknowledges bias, then in the next breath claims the beliefs are without bias, viz., "inherently true".

 

BTW, I had to edit out my brief post from last night as it was lacking substance, merely expressing personal frustration at the end of the day. I would prefer to argue substance whenever possible. It now says what I think needs to be said.

What amazes me is that in my other thread, he accuses the Jesus Seminar people of being quacks without backing his claims up with any proof. So much for judge not lest ye be judged. Then in this thread he cites Paul Johnson as his evidence, but according to the Wikipedia article about him, Paul Johnson got his education from conservative Christians over an actual education simply because he preferred it over those ebil secularists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_(writer) Perhaps he should try reading Marcus Borg's book The Search for Jesus: Modern Scholarship Looks at the Gospels? Which is a book I need to read sometime but it's hard to find books by liberal Christians around here.

[Ouroboros]

What amazes me is that in my other thread, he accuses the Jesus Seminar people of being quacks without backing his claims up with any proof.

What fascinates me is that I learned from him that we were supposed to trust the interpretation of the scholars, and that they are all in agreement, but on the other hand we should not trust the scholars of the Jesus seminar because they don't agree with him.

[Neon Genesis]

He reminds me of the xtians at my parents' church who make fun of the Jesus Seminar people for believing there's only 14 verses in the bible Jesus actually said (wasn't it more than that, though) because the babble is obviously the inerrant word of Gawd because they say so.