Christians Who Do Not Believe the Bible is Inerrant

[InamBerea]

30 minutes ago, WalterP said:

But, if you refuse to answer perfectly reasonable questions that throw a spotlight on the Bible and matters of faith, then this displays a different kind of spiritual fruit to us.

@WalterP - I hear a lot of chatter about Bible inaccuracies, but I'm finding it hard to pin down the details. If you can point to specific Bible verse(s) I'll respond.

[Hierophant]

1 minute ago, InamBerea said:

Authors of Bible books did not always identify themselves. The author of I&II Peter identifies himself as Peter the Apostle of Jesus Christ and there was only 1 Apostle named Peter. No need for a scholar to tell you what that says.

 

I know what it claims, but I think the evidence weighs on the side of an anonymous author claiming to be the Apostle Peter. Not Peter himself.

 

1 minute ago, InamBerea said:

The Bible teaches that when Faith is genuine, our lives will change. (James 2:18, Lk 19:1-10). But salvation remains a Gift of God by Faith, not works. (Eph 2:18)

 

In my opinion, the Bible provides contradictory plans of salvation. Different authors disagreed with each other on what being a Christian meant. Ephesians is another supposed forgery, mainstream scholars do not believe Paul wrote it.

 

1 minute ago, InamBerea said:

 

My faith is based on what the Bible teaches, and I want to be careful not to fall into what-if scenarios. So I'm not going to speculate on what if God required child sacrifice. 

 

That's up to you. At the end of the day, you are absolutely free to believe whatever you like. I am only challenging you here because you asked to be challenged.

 

This is a site of Ex-Christians, many of whom were/are well versed in the Bible and have studied it inside and outside of Christianity. I can spout apologetics all day, and I know the counter arguments coming using the historical-critical method. To me, the evidence weighs on the side of the critics. Critical does not mean, "I hate the Bible." It means that the Bible gets viewed from the lens of history, its historical context, comparative religion, etc. Not from the viewpoint of systematic theology or a predisposed idea it is "true" whether that be allegorical, literal, or another interpretive lens chosen that is theologically biased.

[InamBerea]

16 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

This is a site of Ex-Christians, many of whom were/are well versed in the Bible and have studied it inside and outside of Christianity.

@Hierophant - I see that now. In one of my early posts someone commented that I sounded "Pious". That was not my intention, but not knowing who's on the other end I responded as if talking to my kids.

My experience with critics debating who wrote specific books is that it's a waste of my time. In the end it's chasing the wind, all that matters is a real relationship with God. I believed Jesus died and was raised from the dead to bring me into that relationship. 

[Hierophant]

50 minutes ago, InamBerea said:

My experience with critics debating who wrote specific books is that it's a waste of my time. In the end it's chasing the wind, all that matters is a real relationship with God. I believed Jesus died and was raised from the dead to bring me into that relationship. 

 

Like I said, if that is what works for you, awesome. After I deconverted, I never felt the need to be a advocate against faith. I think some people need it and it works well in their lives.

 

But faith did not work for me. Chasing the wind was exactly how I felt in Christianity. I never found any real answers, especially among Christians. I just reached a dead end with it. Trying to figure out the "faith" under the threat of eternal torture started to drive me mentally insane. It was literally chasing the wind - too many different ways to interpret the Bible, everyone has their own hermeneutics, church X says every other Christian is fake and going hell, church Y says the same thing, so does uber-evangelist A.B.C.

 

Eventually I was so disenchanted and disenfranchised with the whole business I started stepping out of my evangelical circle and started reading material from Christians who left the faith. I at least wanted to hear what they had to say. I thought maybe I could start over and build a whole theology from scratch without the well poisoning of what was considered orthodoxy. I soon found out that the logic, reason, and arguments used by those who left the faith or were never faithful were more powerful, convincing, and provided more explanatory power then I ever encountered within the ranks of Christianity.

[TABA]

17 minutes ago, InamBerea said:

My experience with critics debating who wrote specific books is that it's a waste of my time. In the end it's chasing the wind, all that matters is a real relationship with God. I believed Jesus died and was raised from the dead to bring me into that relationship. 

I don’t think it’s chasing the wind, I think it’s pursuing facts.  I understand that you want a relationship with God, and I trust it makes your life better.  I respect Christians who concede that there are problems, contradictions etc in the Bible and who say “I choose to believe anyway”.  Good for them.  In my case, I was open to the possibility that Christianity was not truth, and I was not overly invested in it being true, so eventually I stepped away from it.  You are happy with your relationship with your God, I am happy with no relationship with any god.  Different strokes...

[WalterP]

41 minutes ago, InamBerea said:

@WalterP - I hear a lot of chatter about Bible inaccuracies, but I'm finding it hard to pin down the details. If you can point to specific Bible verse(s) I'll respond.

 

I did.  You refused to go where I was directing your attention.

 

If the Bible really is inerrant it cannot lead to error.

 

Yet, in the example I gave of eagles catching their young, even if this is poetic, it still leads to error because it relies on a fiction and not a fact about the behaviour of these birds.

 

It is an error to believe this literally and it is an error to believe that this illuminates something about God's nature.

 

The example given is untrue.  Untruths cannot lead to truths about God, can they?

 

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

36 minutes ago, InamBerea said:

@Hierophant - I see that now. In one of my early posts someone commented that I sounded "Pious". That was not my intention, but not knowing who's on the other end I responded as if talking to my kids.

My experience with critics debating who wrote specific books is that it's a waste of my time. In the end it's chasing the wind, all that matters is a real relationship with God. I believed Jesus died and was raised from the dead to bring me into that relationship. 

 

Now you've shifted the goalposts.

 

You said that you would discuss only Biblical fallacies in this thread, but instead of remaining focused on that you've swerved over to your personal relationship with Jesus.

 

The two are not the same.

 

Please stay focused on the subject of this thread.

 

 

Hierophant -- You're trying to make the discussion personal.  I'm here to address perceived fallacies in specific Bible passages. I won't respond to anything else.

[WalterP]

2 hours ago, InamBerea said:

@WalterP @LogicalFallacy @TheRedneckProfessor  -  Jesus' criticism of the Pharisees is they spent too much effort on the minutiae, and missed what was important. Straining at knats and swallowing camels. (Mt 23:24) I take the Bible seriously, not literally. 

 

 

If you don't take the Bible literally, why do you have an issue with big bang cosmology?

 

I had you down as a Young Earth Creationist.  A Christian who does take Genesis literally.

 

Can you please clarify where you stand on Genesis?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[LogicalFallacy]

6 hours ago, InamBerea said:

@WalterP @LogicalFallacy @TheRedneckProfessor  -  Jesus' criticism of the Pharisees is they spent too much effort on the minutiae, and missed what was important. Straining at knats and swallowing camels. (Mt 23:24) I take the Bible seriously, not literally. 

 

I think you are missing the point. If the Bible is divinely inspired we'd expect to find a text that is inerrant. We don't find that. Sure the eagle bit is one tiny portion, but a representation of the problems with even simply claiming its divinely inspired. (Let alone literal).

 

In taking the Bible seriously, do you consider some parts of the Bible literal and some parts not literal?

[florduh]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I think you are missing the point.

That is deliberate and the most essential part of "successful" apologetics.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

I have one, it may be straining at gnats, but an inerrant book must be without error, so please help me with the correct order for words of Jesus:

Matthew 26:21-29 discussion of betrayal -> . . . Woe to that man -> bread -> cup -> I tell you, I will not drink again . . .

 

Mark 14:18-25 discussion of betrayal -> . . . Woe to that man ->bread -> cup -> Truly I tell you, I will not drink again  . . .

 

Luke 22:18-23 For I tell you, I will not drink again . . . -> bread -> cup -> discussion of betrayal ->  . . . Woe to that man

 

John 13:26-30  discussion of betrayal -> bread -> Judas immediately leaves

 

Which account is in error?

 

Matthew =  A -> B -> C -> D -> E

 

Mark       =  A -> B -> C -> D -> E

 

Luke       =  E -> C -> D -> A -> B

 

John       =  A -> C (no discussion of B, D, E)

 

To stave it off, I agree that John omits details is capable of being congruent with Matthew & Mark, but Luke is clearly not.  Is Luke mistaken?

[Robert_Tulip]

On 6/20/2020 at 10:36 AM, LostinParis said:

by what criteria do we determine which stories are literal and which are allegory?

Hello, ages since I posted here.  I am an old friend of Josh with shared interests in astrotheology.  I have just been cruising around the threads and thought I would comment here. 

 

My view is that the original primary meaning of the Bible, like all mythology, was as a popular fictional introduction to secret esoteric wisdom held by initiates.  But the Roman conquest suppressed that whole Gnostic mystery method, leading eventually to the damaging psychosis of modern inerrantism.  Recovering the fragments of the original meaning, a key theme is that the Bible sees God as revealed in nature, principally in the order of the visible heavens.

 

Following this through, the most coherent interpretation in my view is that the order of the heavens is revealed in the precession of the equinox, and that the inventors of Christianity used this astronomical framework to construct Jesus Christ as avatar of the Age of Pisces in his first imaginary coming, and as avatar of the Age of Aquarius in his Second Coming. 

 

Seeing the extent of depravity, they imagined a future when the world will be ruled on the principles of love set out in the Last Judgement and the Sermon on the Mount.  I think this is a line that is compatible with evidence and logic, redeeming Christianity to envision a necessary cultural evolution of our species to achieve global stability.   

The question here of the criteria to determine which stories are literal and which are allegory should begin with the assumption that the whole Bible is allegory, with just minimal historical framing, like the existence of Pontius Pilate, the captivity in Babylon, and some of the town locations confirmed by archaeology. 

 

The meaning of the allegory can use the parable of the wheat and tares at Matthew 13 as the heuristic.  The wheat is the esoteric allegorical cosmic meaning, while the tares are the corrupted ignorant power political literalism of the church. They are intertwined until the end of the age of Pisces, at which time it will become possible to separate good from evil. As Christianity moves into a new age of Aquarius, building on the rock of the love of Christ will be essential to imagine how to connect our fallen world to an ultimate vision of peace.

 

I think the doomsday judgement of Christ upon the world will include a severe critique of the church as a fallen institution.  This critique was most tellingly prefigured by the comment from Voltaire that whoever believes absurdities permits atrocities.  The entirety of literal Christianity is absurd, and has permitted atrocities.  The only way to redeem the religion is to recognise the kernel of truth in its allegorical meaning.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

2 hours ago, Robert_Tulip said:

 

The only way to redeem the religion is to recognise the kernel of truth in its allegorical meaning.

 

I agree.  I assume you are speaking of a truth recognized by major religions----basically the golden rule, or love neighbor as self.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 8/11/2020 at 9:46 AM, InamBerea said:

 

 all that matters is a real relationship with God. I believed Jesus died and was raised from the dead to bring me into that relationship. 

 

If you had grown up in another society, under a different religion, you would likely have the same devotion to another divinity. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

3 minutes ago, Weezer said:

If you had grown up in another society, under a different religion, you would likely have the same devotion to another divinity. 

Are you operating under the assumption that your God, and religuon are the "true" ones?  Or have you studied the history of gods and religions and arrived at that conclusion?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

WHAT the heck happened to the "edit" feature?  The only option showing this morning is the "quote" feature. 

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

WHAT the heck happened to the "edit" feature?  The only option showing this morning is the "quote" feature. 

It seems it's now located under the 3 dots at the top right of every post. Welcome to update quirks. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

24 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

It seems it's now located under the 3 dots at the top right of every post. Welcome to update quirks. 

 

No, it doesn't.  I think you're wrong.  I've attached my supporting evidence below.

 

 

[Robert_Tulip]

7 hours ago, Weezer said:

I agree.  I assume you are speaking of a truth recognized by major religions----basically the golden rule, or love neighbor as self.

I see the 'kernel of truth' in Christianity as the direct basis of the Christ Myth in the ancient observation of precession of the equinoxes.  This is a heavily concealed story that has numerous points of justification.  The ancients could see for centuries or millennia before Christ that the sun would enter the northern hemisphere in Pisces at around the time we now know was 21 AD.  This intellectual structure of astronomy gave the impetus to Old Testament prophecy of Christ, and is the scientific basis of core Christian allegories including the alpha and omega, the loaves and fishes, the holy city, the Second Coming, the upper room, the tree of life and all the fish and lamb imagery.

[LogicalFallacy]

6 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

No, it doesn't.  I think you're wrong.  I've attached my supporting evidence below.

 

 

And I think... well not that you are wrong, but that you seem to lack options i have. Strange considering your mod powers are greater. I provide counter evidence:

[TheRedneckProfessor]

39 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

but that you seem to lack options i have. Strange considering your mod powers are greater.

It seems webmdave has even fewer powers.

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

39 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

It seems webmdave has even fewer powers.

 

And thus it came to pass as the prophet foretold: "The strong shall become weak, and the weak shall become strong."

 

There of course could be a technical explanation...

[◊ Krowb ◊]

6 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You have to reach a certain number of posts for certain features to appear.  If I'm not mistaken, at 25 posts you will get the quote feature.  At 666 posts, the 75 virgins option becomes available.

 

13 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

And thus it came to pass as the prophet foretold: "The strong shall become weak, and the weak shall become strong."

 

There of course could be a technical explanation...

 

So with the technical gods bringing us trials and tribulations,

 

that means I may get my 75 virgins early?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

There of course could be a technical explanation...

Ya reckon?

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 hours ago, Krowb said:

 

 

So with the technical gods bringing us trials and tribulations,

 

that means I may get my 75 virgins early?

Be careful what you wish for.