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

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-12-2001, 02:36 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 8,745
Post The "Inerrant" Bible, *Again*

Some of us have been accused by Veritas of claiming the bible to contain errors without any proof in this thread. So I'm starting a new topic here in an attempt to prove that the Bible contains errors.

I'll start things off:
Christians, please explain to me which 3 people Peter denied Jesus to...
TollHouse is offline  
Old 10-12-2001, 05:18 PM   #2
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah
Posts: 1,945
Post

Why go so far? The Bible contains errors beginning from page 1, when it says God separated between the lower waters and the uppers waters by means of a solid covering (raqiya', Hebrew for "vault"), with holes that could be open in case God wanted to flood the world... (see more here).

See, even without trying to refute evolution the Bible inerrantists are fighting a losing battle.
emotional is offline  
Old 10-12-2001, 07:39 PM   #3
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Littleton, CO, USA
Posts: 1,477
Post

Biblical inerrancy is best understood as a metaphysical principle, not as an epistemological principle.

It reveals a hidden assumption to declare, for instance, that the bible is "in error" because it disagrees with perceptual knowledge. The empiricist is unfairly privileging perceptual experience and improperly importing his metaphysical assumptions.

As a metaphysical principle, biblical inerrancy states the the text of the bible is true by definition. Thus any unresolvable discrepancy between biblical text and perceptual experience means that perceptual experience is in error.

Even internal contradiction is not really a particular difficulty, because an apparent contradiction can always be resolved by adding additional information. For instance, if person A says there were 10 men and person B says there were 8 men, the apparent contradiction can be resolved by postulating that person A's definition of "man" was different than person B's.

Keep in mind that biblical inerrancy is used to verify theological hypotheses. It does not say (at least in any of its reasonably sophisticated forms) that the text of the bible can even be understood literally. One must create theological interpretation and hypothesize logically consistent interpretations of god (as well as of historical events); however, to be considered "true", those hypotheses must account for the truth of bible verses.

The bigger issue with biblical inerrancy comes with how one knows the text of the bible itself. It seems abundantly clear, and admited by scientifically literate inerrantists such as Kurt Wise, that there are vast problems reconciling the bible with the vast body of science accumulated perceptually.

Clearly, if one believes in the inerrancy of the bible, one cannot believe even the most basic trustworthiness of perception. However, the text of the bible is known perceptually! One must read it with one's eyes (or hear it with one's ears). However, there is no way to ensure that one's perception of the text is accurate.
SingleDad is offline  
Old 10-13-2001, 02:50 AM   #4
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 405
Cool

Quote:
Originally posted by TollHouse:
<STRONG>Some of us have been accused by Veritas of claiming the bible to contain errors without any proof in this thread. So I'm starting a new topic here in an attempt to prove that the Bible contains errors.

I'll start things off:
Christians, please explain to me which 3 people Peter denied Jesus to...</STRONG>
I went over there to offer support for a fellow Christian, wondering if I might help them out of some sort of straw-man position you made them out to hold.

I didn't read the thread for long--I read only until I got to this:

Quote:
&gt;I do not consider Bible errors as grounds for
&gt;disproving my faith.

So you don't have faith in the Bible? Why do you try to defend it?
After that, I really started to wonder what on earth you're talking about?

Every time I hear an atheist go along this line of arguement (there are some errors in the Bible, therefore we must throw out the whole thing) I think of this scenario:

1) Photocopy a Rembrandt several times.
2) Look at photocopy & say "Man! It's so flat in black & white and there are crummy little spots all over it. This guy must've been a horrible artist."
You don't suppose there was a *reason* for teaching in parables, do you? I mean, the fact that the story can change wording a lot & still have the same meanings. Even when its used with varying literary intents, the totality of the original meaning isn't lost to anyone who understands the context of it...

We then cover the events themselves. It's a good thing you've never been a court witness. I *do* realize that I remembered things differently than other people, but the fact that I got contradicted on the most inconsequential details (quick! what model of phone to you have!) most certainly did *not* mean that I was "lying." Aside from the elements you undoubtably consider embellishments, I don't see enough variation in the core testamony to warrant throwing out the baby with the bath water as so many skeptics do. OTOH, if we go the borrowing route, I believe that to be consistant, we must believe in the continent of Atlantis, something I consider absurd in the extreme.

Finally, on the OT, without embracing Marcionism, I suggest you write your local synagoge. They, far better than I, can express what it has meant to them as a small, oppressed people over the millenia.

In short, I don't believe you have the case you think you do. On every count, I find you isolating every fragment of proof & squashing each piece as "insufficient" on it's own. What I mean by that is that you cannot see the forest (proof) for the trees (individual arguements which each provide only part of the proof).
Photocrat is offline  
Old 10-13-2001, 05:33 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 554
Post

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I seem to be reading is that the Bible is inerrant if you want it to be. Isn't this redefining the word error? Is it unfair to use facts to detirmine what error is?
Beelzebub is offline  
Old 10-13-2001, 06:14 AM   #6
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want
Posts: 4,871
Post

Quote:
&gt;I do not consider Bible errors as grounds for
&gt;disproving my faith.

So you don't have faith in the Bible? Why do you try to defend it?

After that, I really started to wonder what on earth you're talking about?
This was my point:

He said that proving that the Bible is in error would not disprove his faith.

This suggests that his faith is not in the Bible.

If it were, then proving that the Bible is in error would in fact disprove his faith.

Yet, he claims that proving the fallibility of the Bible would not destroy his faith.

Therefore, we can assume:
1) His faith is not placed in the Bible
2) His attempts to defend the infallibility of the Bible are irrational.
GunnerJ is offline  
Old 10-13-2001, 07:38 AM   #7
New Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 1
Post

I am in the process of doing research on the Bible's inerrancy and I was wondering if anyone would point me to resources that defeats this thesis. Any book or article whose thesis begins with "...the Bible is untrustworthy becase..." is what I'm looking for. I appreciate any help in this area.

[ October 13, 2001: Message edited by: Harry ]
Harry is offline  
Old 10-13-2001, 09:36 AM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Gatorville, Florida
Posts: 4,334
Lightbulb

Those people who hold that the Christian Bible is "inerrant" ought to work their way through my essay: Is God A Criminal? An "inerrant" and literally true Bible produces an inescapable judgment that, according to modern standards of law and morality, the God of the Old Testament is one of the greatest criminals to have ever operated on planet Earth!

== Bill
Bill is offline  
Old 10-13-2001, 09:39 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Gatorville, Florida
Posts: 4,334
Arrow

Quote:
Originally posted by Harry:
<STRONG>I am in the process of doing research on the Bible's inerrancy and I was wondering if anyone would point me to resources that defeats this thesis. Any book or article whose thesis begins with "...the Bible is untrustworthy becase..." is what I'm looking for. I appreciate any help in this area. </STRONG>
Please help yourself to the Biblical Errancy section of the Secular Web. You will note that a fair number of those articles are by our own Feedback Editor and Discussion Forum Administrator, Don Morgan.

== Bill
Bill is offline  
Old 10-13-2001, 11:13 AM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 69
Post

The way that inerrantists define an error has always been a problem for me. The notion of inerrancy is usually directed towards a lay audience, yet the technical definition of error is far from what the lay person would consider. Furthermore, when a Christian affirms that the Bible is inerrant, it is usually in the context that the plain meaning of the Bible is trustworthy (such as the literal interpretation of Creation and the flood). According to the inerrantist, an error is only an error if (compiled by Stephen Davis – The Debate About the Bible)
  • The purported error concerns a biblical claim rather than Biblical grammar
  • The purported error occurs in the autograph
  • The purported error concerns the main point being made in the passage where it occurs
And either
  • The purported error is an inconsistency that can be shown to be incapable of harmonization
Or
  • The purported error is indisputably false and not just a resolvable difficulty
In short, any imaginable purported error can be dismissed on these grounds!
Quatermass is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:23 PM.

Top

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