Iconoclasty,

Well, do you?!?

Matt

[This message has been edited by matt (edited May 18, 2001).]

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

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.

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.

I'm not sure I follow. I don't think there are any doctrinal or gross historical errors in the Bible.

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

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.

Toto

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.

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).]

Iconoclast

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.

Would any answer I give really matter to you at all or in anyway affect your pre-conceived notions?

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

LOL. You wish Toto... you wish.

Isn't Dr Laura Jewish? Why should I agree with her own this?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.