FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-18-2001, 08:50 PM   #21
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Iconoclasty,

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Iconoclast:
I'm surprised "Christians" like matty here haven't yet accused us of eating babies.</font>
Well, do you?!?

Matt

[This message has been edited by matt (edited May 18, 2001).]
 
Old 05-18-2001, 10:29 PM   #22
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Hi Matt, I'm wondering if I know you: do you post on any other boards under the name MattTaz?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by matt:
You'd better carefully rethink some of your ideas about the Gospel of Matthew, etc.! Once you start trying to sift through the Biblical accounts to find the historical and the unhistorical, you're already going headlong down the path to an extremely dangerous degree of liberalism. If you think that the Bible writers "could be right and could be wrong" about what actions in history they attributed to God, then you've certainly got no right to call yourself "conservative" in any sense whatsoever. </font>
Hmmm, that's interesting... I always considered myself extremely conservative and about as close to fundamentalist as you could get without inerrancy. I suppose there are a lot of shades of gray. Considering my post was discussing errancy I probably came across a bit more liberal than I truly am... but probably not enough to change your opinion of me as a liberal.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I have never heard such liberalism in my life from someone who accepted the literal resurrection from the dead of Jesus (you do, don't you?!?).</font>
Yes. I accept all the basic doctrines. Although possibly you might consider me 'liberal' on two: I'm quite happy with an old earth and I'm prepared to allow evolution of plants and animals (But not of man).
I don't mean this in a mean way, but if you haven't met anyone more liberal than me who accepts the literal truth of the resurrection then you haven't met very many people.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Heck, if the Bible CAN contain doctrinal and gross historical errors, then our own ideas about God are as legitamite as those of the Biblical writers!</font>
I'm not sure I follow. I don't think there are any doctrinal or gross historical errors in the Bible.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Better check out these verses:

Romans 1:1,5
Galatians 1:8,9
I Thessalonians 2:13
I Timothy 2:7
Colossians 4:16
II Thessalonians 3:14
Revaltion 1:3

ESPECIALLY:
I Corinthians 14:37
II Corinthians 13:3
John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13

II PETER 3:14-18

While you may not hold to the innerrancy of scripture, you must somehow bend your theology to accomodate these verses. As far as I can see, and judging by the views expressed in your post, you do not.</font>
I checked the verses and I still don't follow. Half those verses could be construed as support for inerrancy... but that surely isn't what your trying to convince me of. I believe that Paul was a very godly man. Where he says "God told me this:" I believe him. This does not mean he was never wrong when he spoke on his own authority does it?
The Holy Spirit guides people and helps them remember truth, yes I agree with that... but what is the point?
The Peter verse says not misinterpret Paul's letters, well I certainly try not to do this, but I don't see how it is relevant.
I think I pointed out in my last post (or at least I meant to) that "The Bible" should not be thought of as one book. It is written by different authors all with different ideas. (Go read Ecclesiastes and you'll get my drift) Different authors knew what they were talking about better than others. Personally I don't think Marcion was too far off the mark in wanting to have a smaller cannon of Paul's letters and Luke. Yet I think the mainstream Church was right too in recognising the diversity available from the rest of the cannon.

-Tercel
 
Old 05-18-2001, 10:35 PM   #23
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I'm not sure I follow. I don't think there are any doctrinal or gross historical errors in the Bible.</font>
There cannot be any doctrinal errors in the Bible; the Bible is the authoritative source of Christian doctrine.

The evidence listed in The Bible Unearthed (arguing for gross (large-scale) historical error in the OT) awaits substantive refutation.
 
Old 05-18-2001, 10:43 PM   #24
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Wow, Tercel. Keep sliding down that slipperly slope. So the Bible is not necessary for moral action? I'm glad you don't agree with Dr. Laura and the rest of the conservatives on that one. God didn't write the Bible, it was a product of fallible humans? That's a start.

Are you willing to actually look at the evidence for the resurrection? All of those books out there arguing for the evidence for the resurrection don't have any evidence but the Bible, which you have just said was written by fallible humans.

When you read the Bible do you know what you're reading? Lots of people just know they're reading fiction - poetry and moral stories, not factual history.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-19-2001, 01:16 PM   #25
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by doc58:
Strangely most fundamentals upon realising the the Bible isn't inerrant seem to drop Christianity entirely instead of just dropping the inerrancy doctrine. Personally I find this wierd...

Tercel,
Why do you find this wierd? After 40 years of being a fundamental inerrantist and teaching accordingly, I find myself in the surprising position of realizing that is has many errors. I cannot figure out why to trust any of it if some of it is wrong and how to figure out what is from God and what is mans invention? Why is it not an all or none deal and how do you decide?
Thanks for your thoughts.</font>
Tercel: All right, here are my thoughts on the matter.
***Disclaimer: Rodahi: this IS MY OPINION. I do not need a response saying "this is your opinion" or "this is conjecture" or "no one knows". Thank you.***

[Snip]

I consider your comment about "exteme posters" to be inappropriate. It seems that anyone who disagrees with you and tells you why is "extreme." If you wish to convince anyone you are correct in your views, you will have to offer more than un-evidenced assertion and opinion. If you are merely giving your views, then what is the point?

The rest of your post is typical conservative Christian apology. You might try reading commentary that is of a non-apologetic--neutral--nature. That is, unless your mind is completely made up.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited May 19, 2001).]
 
Old 05-19-2001, 08:04 PM   #26
Iconoclast
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,588
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">First of all, my message was not intended for you or in any way addressed to you, so you needn't get huffy!</font>
My reply to SingleDad was for him, not you, so don't get all huffy.

Seriously, you posted a PUBLIC message so anyone who sees it may comment on it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Well, do you?!?</font>
Would any answer I give really matter to you at all or in anyway affect your pre-conceived notions?
Iconoclast is offline  
Old 05-20-2001, 01:41 PM   #27
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question

Tercel,

I've never posted under any name but "matt" and once "confused".

You claim that you don't believe that the Bible contains any gross historical errors, and that is good; but didn't you say that you doubted the truthfulness of Matthew's crucifixion story on the report of darkness, an earthquake, and dead people raising?

Matt
 
Old 05-20-2001, 11:29 PM   #28
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Toto:
Wow, Tercel. Keep sliding down that slipperly slope.</font>
LOL. You wish Toto... you wish.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">So the Bible is not necessary for moral action? I'm glad you don't agree with Dr. Laura and the rest of the conservatives on that one.</font>
Isn't Dr Laura Jewish? Why should I agree with her own this?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">God didn't write the Bible, it was a product of fallible humans? That's a start.</font>
No, it's not a start. I don't think you understand: The majority of Christians throughout the history of Christianity have believed the Bible a product of "fallible humans". The doctrine of inerrancy is a pretty recent invention. If you know a lot of fundamentalists and have to put up with them a lot then I sympathise. But don't get Fundamentalist Christianity confused with traditional Christianity.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Are you willing to actually look at the evidence for the resurrection?</font>
Of course. I have done so a number of times. I believe that based on the evidence the most reasonable conclusion is that the resurrection did occur. As far as I can see the only way to avoid this conclusion is to have an extreme a priori bias against the possibility of the miraculous.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">All of those books out there arguing for the evidence for the resurrection don't have any evidence but the Bible, which you have just said was written by fallible humans.</font>
I'm not sure that none of it's true that no books which deal with the resurrection use extra-biblical evidence. But can we not use the Bible as evidence? After all "written by fallible humans" does NOT equal "wrong". I see fallible humans all around me doing many correct things every day.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">When you read the Bible do you know what you're reading? Lots of people just know they're reading fiction - poetry and moral stories, not factual history.</font>
Is this an argument from numbers? Lots of people believe they are reading God's Divinely Inspired Word. Should I believe them because "lots of people" believe it?
I read it as I see it: If I think it is factual history I read it as such.
 
Old 05-20-2001, 11:33 PM   #29
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by matt:
You claim that you don't believe that the Bible contains any gross historical errors, and that is good; but didn't you say that you doubted the truthfulness of Matthew's crucifixion story on the report of darkness, an earthquake, and dead people raising?</font>
I suppose it depends what you define as a "gross" error. I am concerned about the historical accuracy of the slaughter of the innocents, the earthquake at the tomb and the dead saints rising in Matthew. I would count none of these as gross historical errors if it turned out they didn't happen as none of them play a key role but instead are mentioned in passing.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:42 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.