PDA

View Full Version : Biblical Inerrancy (Open discussion)



Dionysus
October 14th, 2004, 06:47 PM
I'm starting this thread to discuss the issue, and some of the intricacies, of the claim Biblical inerrancy. I welcome posts making arguments for and against Biblical inerrancy as well as posts that may lead to citing very specific examples in great detail. Whether you believe the Bible or not, I'd like to explore at least the reasoning behind the assertion of Biblical inerrancy and we can take whatever path we need to get there.

My position is admittedly very simplistic. To quote from another thread,if the Bible is SO inerrant, why does EVERY seemingly errant passage require a time machine and a host of religious, linguistic and historic scholars to explain it but the logical stuff is accepted without question? How does one explain the seemingly self-supporting bias as anything other than what it appears to be? I have looked high and low and have yet to find a Bible that says what the hell it means. Is this too much to ask for? If we are meant fully understand what it means, why doesn't it just SAY WHAT IT IS MEANT TO SAY? WHY has no one compiled such a text? What's the holdup? :?:

To demonstrate my honest intentions of being objective, I further admit that MY position IS biased and the justification for this bias is my fundamentalist Christian background and the propensity for fundies to remain remarkably closed-minded influences my views. My intention is to shed this bias in order to properly understand both sides of the argument.

vance101
October 14th, 2004, 07:03 PM
the bible is like a *trys hard to think of word* (I KNOW) a bowl of spegittie that you get from a caffiateria. You can look at it as "true" speggitiey and belive that its true speggity, or you can look at it and think "where the hell did this stuff come from?" *pokes fork* "That sure as hell aint noodels i can tell ya that" or you can say "This is good real speggittie" you can interpret the bible in many diffrent wayes but it never can cover up that its "not real speggittie"

Fyshhed
October 14th, 2004, 07:23 PM
Well along those lines, it has to be a definite bowl of spaghetti. The quality of spaghetti is in question. Cafeteria-quality spaghetti is generally pretty poor, but is the bible a cafeteria book?

I disagree. My thread on Harpoon Theory shows my respect for the intents and methods of the bible. I just don't believe the stories it contains any more than I believe Aesop's Fables.

PallidaMors
October 14th, 2004, 07:41 PM
That is also how I have always viewed the Bible. Excellent storybook, good morals taught(most of them), but not reliable as a history book. Should not be taken literally, but somehow, someway is....

Zhavric
October 15th, 2004, 06:15 AM
The problem with interpreting the bible is the truth within it.

No, really. I did say that.

There is a lot that is true in the bible. There really were Romans. There really were Jews. There really were Pharoes. There really is a Red Sea. We can verify all these independantly. The problem is when people take the ENTIRE bible as valid; namely the supernatural aspects of it.

Consider this:

Abraham Lincoln was president of the United States during the civil war.
Abraham Lincoln was assisinated by John Wilkes Booth.
Abraham Lincoln new about his assasination by a devine communication from god, but went to the play anyway because he knew that if he didn't his assasins would use a bomb to eventually kill him which would have killed many others.

So, Lincoln is extremely good because of what he did for the people who would have been blown up.

This is the kind of thing we see in the bible.

Statement of fact.
Statement of fact.
Super-natural claim concerning the statements of fact.

Since the first two (or however many) statements are factual, then the super-natural one must be true as well, right?

Wrong. This is a fallacy I like to refer to as "truth by association". If 90% of the ordinary claims of a document are true then the other 10% must be true even if they're supernatural, right? I think not.

Dionysus
October 15th, 2004, 01:41 PM
What? No defenders of the Bible?

vance101
October 15th, 2004, 02:31 PM
lol darn, well lets look for spart or some one how about that?

Zhavric
October 18th, 2004, 04:39 AM
Kevin? 'Pok? F&N? Sparty? Bueller? Bueller?

*bump*

FruitandNut
October 18th, 2004, 04:56 AM
GLP, that old larper Zhav., fellow hostiles and ? , I think most of my argument has been thrashed about and fought over in numeruos posts on many threads, if ears do not hear, why should I waste your good time and mine own?


Ps. In regard to any sensitivity over identity - why have it plastered on the web????? If it is bad form, then it is YOUR bad form. When and author sticks his name on a book with other details, or a director publishes his name on the silver screen, it is reasonable to assume the items not to be confidential.


Your other assumptions 'also' fall foul of strict accuracy - you just choose to play about, you know the issues as we both see things - your view is a priori to you, my view is a priori to me. It seems that to you, all who do not see things your way are cretins, you slice up a holistic arguement into bits, attacking those bits that seem the easiest to attack when isolated and ignoring or twisting those which might bite back. :rolleyes:

Zhavric
October 18th, 2004, 05:05 AM
Bad form, F&N. Bad form.

We'll all just assume that you don't have any real argument to what I have presented / agree with what I have stated.

Next? Kevin? 'Pok? Sparty?

Withnail
October 18th, 2004, 07:58 AM
(devil's advocate, or rather, God's)

"The message, the truth, is inerrant. If the message is fully embraced by the heart, one understands, and need not understand rationally. To try and understand the Truth using only reason leads to the seemingly conflicting and confusing aspects of the Bible you allude to. You must know the Lord in your Heart before all else"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zhavric
October 18th, 2004, 09:13 AM
(devil's advocate, or rather, God's)

"The message, the truth, is inerrant. If the message is fully embraced by the heart, one understands, and need not understand rationally. To try and understand the Truth using only reason leads to the seemingly conflicting and confusing aspects of the Bible you allude to. You must know the Lord in your Heart before all else"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Translation: "don't think so hard about this or you'll start to see how little sense it makes."

Seriously, though, the motivation for faith is logic. No, really, it is.

For the theists reading this (if any), do you believe in Jesus (or who/what ever) just because? Do you believe in your deity because it is the "right" thing to do? Do you believe because it wouldn't make sense not to?

Can any theist honestly make the claim, "I believe in god just because. There's no reason behind it."

Clearly not. Theists believe because they see it as the most rational thing to do. If you believe that there is a hell and don't want you or your family / friends to go there then it is perfectly rational and logical to believe in Jesus.

If
then
else

The problem is that theists use inconsistant logic as detailed in the resurection debate. It isn't a matter of perception or a matter of faith. It's a matter of using the same logic to examine all phenomenon or events.

FruitandNut
October 18th, 2004, 12:24 PM
Zhav. you really don't listen or want to listen. You are happy to argue your own corner 'a priori', but you expect any counter argument to be 'habius corpus'. I accept and respect that your view is honestly felt. Please accept that others are equally able to 'honestly' come to a differing conclusion. You seem to expect every bit of 'evidence' in a case to, by itself, be able to prove the case in the light of a balance of probabilities. This is usually not the case in law, it usually takes a holistic approach of evidences - it is this approach that has personally 'conviced' me. Likewise it won't convince you - so why the heck just knock heads just for the sake of it? Why do you think there are juries, and they often hold to guilty or not guilty on a majority verdict and not a unanimous one?

KevinBrowning
October 18th, 2004, 02:21 PM
the bible is like a *trys hard to think of word* (I KNOW) a bowl of spegittie that you get from a caffiateria. You can look at it as "true" speggitiey and belive that its true speggity, or you can look at it and think "where the hell did this stuff come from?" *pokes fork* "That sure as hell aint noodels i can tell ya that" or you can say "This is good real speggittie" you can interpret the bible in many diffrent wayes but it never can cover up that its "not real speggittie"

I have no earthly idea what you mean by that metaphor. And it's "spaghetti". Could you clarify please?

Zhavric
October 20th, 2004, 12:07 PM
Zhav. you really don't listen or want to listen. You are happy to argue your own corner 'a priori', but you expect any counter argument to be 'habius corpus'. I accept and respect that your view is honestly felt. Please accept that others are equally able to 'honestly' come to a differing conclusion.

It is you who are not listening, FruitandNut.

Right now, this second, unwrap yourself from the notion that I am requesting forensic evidence.

Is it gone? No. Okay, try again.

Gone now? Good. Moving on.

It is the case that I am examining the LOGIC BEHIND how we know what we know about the bible.

Theists use inconsistent logic to examine the bible. Period.

In the statement above, do you see any requests for evidence? Do you see me demanding that you cough up Jesus' corpse or other such nonsense?

No, you do not.

The bible is a matter of faith and history. It is unknowable.

What is knowable is how we (you, me, and everyone else) examine it. THAT is what I meant to discuss.

So, you can dig your heals in and try to paint my argument as demands for evidence all you like. It won't do you one lick of good... unless you wanted to appear as to be completely dodging my question / not reading my posts? Was that it?


You seem to expect every bit of 'evidence' in a case to, by itself, be able to prove the case in the light of a balance of probabilities. This is usually not the case in law, it usually takes a holistic approach of evidences - it is this approach that has personally 'conviced' me. Likewise it won't convince you - so why the heck just knock heads just for the sake of it? Why do you think there are juries, and they often hold to guilty or not guilty on a majority verdict and not a unanimous one?

Every bit of evidence has to follow a logical flow. You wouldn't believe that Lincoln knew about his own demise and embraced it for the goodness of others, but Christ in gethesmane(sp?) ? That MUST be true, right?

Inconsistant logic.

Trial lawyers present cases to juries where each piece of evidence flows from the next one. A + B = AB. Fact + Fact = Facts. You don't go into a court and say A + B = C or fact + fact = fiction.

We're not "knocking heads". I am proving that the logic you use to examine the happenings of the bible is exclusive to the examination of the bible which therefor makes it invalid logic.