Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 10-15-2001, 02:13 AM

Plutocrat: It appears that you do not regard the Bible as "inerrant". However, many of your fellow Christians do. For you, it isn't important: for them, it is (I don't know why, maybe you should ask them).

"Inerrant" means "without error". Therefore, even a single error is enough to establish that the Bible is not inerrant. There are hundreds at www.skepticsannotatedbible.com , but inerrantists have a tendency to pick one that they can think up an answer to, then casually dismiss the rest: "they're all like that".

But I have yet to see an answer to this one:

Quote:

John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

No such scripture exists anywhere else in the Bible: nothing even comes close. Therefore either John is inventing references to nonexistent scripture, or a part of the Bible considered valid by John is now missing.

Imhotehp · 10-15-2001, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Is any of that actually relevant if you take Adam, Noah & co. as parables?

Yes. A contradiction in parable is still a contradiction. A more effective parable would not contain such a massive error.

Quote:

They're an interesting mode of communication since they're more robust than other means, given that variations destroy minimal amounts of information and accurate understandings of the meanings can be preserved for far longer & more easily (even after being preserved as oral tradition for generations) than any other form of communication I am aware of ...

Maybe, but you haven't proven that this is indeed a parable(what was the moral of the story?).

Many people want this "parable" taught as fact in science classes around the US, becomes It comes from their "perfectly inerrant" book. thats who my post is directed at.

SingleDad · 10-15-2001, 01:33 PM

Quote:

I have actually had the opportunity to observe a hoax spread amongst a sizeable number of people. I noted how it mutated. The pattern I observed does not conform to the pattern of testamony found in the Bible. From that experience and others, I conclude that the Bible is more likely true than not, in spite of the sum total of everything you've managed to complain about.

An interesting observation. However, I'm not sure how you can make the comparison. Presumably the hoax you observed spread orally, and we (obviously) have no record of the oral transmission of biblical information before it it was written. It would be interesting to determine what could be inferred about the transmission of your hoax from the final version only, without knowledge of the intermediate steps.

Secondly, it seems trivially fallacious to determine that one experience constitutes a template for the inaccurate spread of information and to conclude that another transmission is accurate only because it did not exhibit that particular pattern.

SingleDad · 10-15-2001, 01:36 PM

Photocrat

Quote:

Is any of that actually relevant if you take Adam, Noah & co. as parables?

But why should we take these as parables? Certainly, there are occassions in the text (especially the NT) where Jesus says, "Let me tell you a parable: 'Yada yada yada.'" In this case, the parable-ness is clearly demanded by the text itself. However, we have no such internal support for deciding that Genesis is a parable except for its obvious factual absurdity.

TollHouse · 10-15-2001, 02:40 PM

Quote:

I have actually had the opportunity to observe a hoax spread amongst a sizeable number of people. I noted how it mutated. The pattern I observed does not conform to the pattern of testamony found in the Bible.

What is the "pattern of testamony found in the Bible"? What were you looking for in your test case?

Vinnie · 10-16-2001, 09:54 PM

Quote:

But I have yet to see an answer to this one:

John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

No such scripture exists anywhere else in the Bible: nothing even comes close. Therefore either John is inventing references to nonexistent scripture, or a part of the Bible considered valid by John is now missing.

What about crossing John 4:14 and Is 58:11?

A little general info about inerrancy:

Biblical Inerrancy applies to the autographs alone. We do not have the autographs but we do have good copies of them. So your kjv and Niv are not said to be inerrant at all. They are inerrant only as far as they are an accurate copy and translation of the autographs. It is the original manuscripts alone that inerrancy applies to.

Jeremy Pallant · 10-16-2001, 10:41 PM

It is the original manuscripts alone that inerrancy applies to.

Prove they were inerrant.

Jack the Bodiless · 10-17-2001, 06:16 AM

Quote:

What about crossing John 4:14 and Is 58:11?

John can't quote John. Otherwise the "scripture" mentioned in John 7:38 could be John 7:38.

Quote:

Isaiah 58:11 And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.

This apparently indicates that the believer won't go hungry or thirsty. Not a very close match for "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water".

Quote:

Prove they were inerrant.

And, while you're at it, prove that we "do have good copies" of these lost "original manuscripts". What an extraordinary claim!

FreeToThink · 10-17-2001, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TollHouse:
Some of us have been accused by Veritas of claiming the bible to contain errors without any proof

That's an outrage! I am going to stop using Backup Exec immediately!!!

Oh, wait. You didn't mean Veritas

Jack the Bodiless · 10-19-2001, 03:30 AM

There are plenty to choose from, but I think the most powerful errors and contradictions are those which also challenge a key part of Christian orthodoxy, rather than disagreements about the size of an army.

For instance, should innocents be punished for the sins of others? The Bible clearly says NO:

Quote:

Dt.24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Jer.31:29-30 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity.

Ezek.18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

But the Bible also clearly says YES (Gen.9:21-25, Ex.20:5, Dt.5:9, Ex.34:7, Num.14:18, Dt.28:18, 2 Sam.12:14, 2 Sam.21:6-9, 1 Kg.2:33, 1 Kg.21:29, 2 Kg.5:27, Is.14:21, Jer.16:10-11, all listed in SAB contradiction 151, "Are we punished for the sins of others"). Furthermore, this lies at the core of Christian doctrine: it underpins the Fall (we are all somehow blameworthy for it), the death of Jesus, and the slaughter of innocents (such as infants) by God or by the Israelites throughout the Bible. It evokes the dilemma of the Problem of Evil, and destroys the notion that the Biblical God is just or benevolent.

Another good one is the monotheism/polytheism contradiction: there is only one god, but there are also many gods. This opens up the whole issue of Jewish polytheism, and the mysterious miracles of the Egyptian priests (turning their staves into snakes and reproducing several of the Plagues). If YHWH is one god among many, why worship YHWH? Maybe one of the others is better, the Bible is somewhat biased...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-16-2001, 10:41 PM	#27
Jeremy Pallant Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA Posts: 1,242	It is the original manuscripts alone that inerrancy applies to. Prove they were inerrant.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.