svensky

No i don't have a problem with the cannonization of the bible.

I have looked at how the cannon was compiled, and i'm not sure where you base the assertion

>but christians are willing to accept that fallen man correctly assembled the canon without divine intervention.

Why could God's guiding hand not be present in the assembling of the cannon ?

Jason

svensky

Can i ask for a point of clarification abotu what exaclty everybody thinks i mean, if i assert that the bible is inspired by God ?

Jason

Jack the Bodiless

What about Biblical verses which contradict basic Christian doctrine, such as the notion that God is "benevolent"? Why, for instance, does the Biblical god command or carry out acts of genocide against innocents on many occasions?

Is this not a problem for you? If not, why not?

Grand Nubian

1 Jn 4:16 God is love;

1 Jn.4:18 There is no fear in love;


Lev.25:17 Thou shalt fear thy God

Grand Nubian

I think you are a monkey when you say that.

Doubting Thomas

I'm starting to get the impression that maybe you don't want to "see it".

-T

My_Handle

I was raised in a fundie home, and was even homeschooled throughout gradeschool in order to protect what I would be exposed to -- I guess that didn't work! Anyway, I was always brought up to believe in a literal, inerrant, divinely inspired word of god.

Reading about the canon showed me that there was no wide spread agreement on what should be in it, and that the assembly was a subjective process. For a fundie, this is shattering... It made me start wondering if I was reading something that Paul wrote as advice, or if the passage was divinely inspired, thus requiring obedience.

If, from a fundie PoV, you can't know if all the Bible is inspired, than how can you base your life on it?

Echo

Yes, I would agree the bible is full of conflicting moral laws, and when a moral law is applicable in one situation and not applicable in another situation, we call this situational ethics. It is, IMO, absolutely ridiculous for Jesus to chastise the Pharisees for their strict obedience to the sabbath laws that HE (assuming jesus and god are one) instituted! God was so tightassed about the law that people were killed for the pettiest violations of that law...and here we have Jesus, who is allegedly either god or the son of god, implying that the Pharisees should have known that it was only the spirit of the law that God was interested in, not in strict observance. Hah! Yeah right.

The name being wrong is one error. The author of Matthew apparently knew better than to repeat the error when he tells the same story.

The other error is somewhat nitpicky and under normal circumstances noone overhearing such an error would care, but it does present a problem when it comes from the mouth of the alleged son of the creator of the universe. Jesus asks the Pharisees if they ever read what David did when he was hungry and went into the House of God and ate of the holy bread and gave some of it to his men. Swell. Where were they supposed to read this? Nothing in the OT story says that David gave any of the holy bread to his men; it doesn't even say that there were any men with him at all. Jesus seems to be implying that the Pharisees should have read something that wasn't there. Nitpicky, perhaps, but we are talking about a deity here, and a deity should know better.

Echo

This could mean any number of things. You could mean that the authors were inspired to write stories in the same way that a sultry summer evening might inspire someone to write a love poem. Or you could mean that the scriptures are literally "god-breathed" and represent the actual thoughts and desires of god.

I think it would be more productive if you tell us:

1) What you mean when you say the bible is inspired by God.

2) How you went about determining that God inspires in this manner.

3) How you went about determining that the collection of writings you call the "bible" was inspired in this manner.

4) Are there any other writings that are not in this collection of writings known as the "bible" that are also inspired in a similiar fashion. If so, how do you go about determining that these other writings are inspired?


I think it would help us all out if you could clarify some of this for us.

ex-preacher

<STRONG> Expreacher, i've had a bit of a look at the verses you've mentioned. I think it is a strech to say that jesus is practicing situational ethics here. Or at least what i noramlly associate with the term.
You'd have to agree that the bible is full of examples of 2 conflicting moral laws, ruth lying to save the lives of the isrealite spies, or the apostles preaching the gospel inspite of a command from rome not to, spring instally to mind.
This isn't any different. Or at least i dont think so.</STRONG>

I was just throwing in the situational ethics item as an aside, but let’s look at that a little more. Jesus was justifying that he and his disciples were picking and eating grain on a Sabbath. This is a clear violation of the OT Sabbath law (see Ex. 34:21). Jesus did not deny this charge, he merely cited the example of David as justification. Yet, exactly what moral law was Jesus following when he violated the Sabbath? He was simply hungry and wanted a snack. This is actually worse than situational ethics since there was no compelling moral reason to violate the law. He and his disciple could have fasted one day.

Furthermore, he cites the example of David, who clearly was doing something unethical. David lied to Ahimelech about his mission so that he could get some bread which was reserved for the priests only. By doing this, he put the lives of all the priests in danger. In fact, he later admitted that he was partially responsible for the massacre at Nob (see 1 Sam. 22:22).

You mention the conflict of two moral laws. This is exactly what situational ethics is about. When 2 moral principles conflict, you must choose. You mention “ruth lying to save the lives of the isrealite spies.” Actually, that was Rahab. I have heard Christians twist pretzel-like arguments to explain that she wasn’t rewarded for lying. As you and I know, morality and ethics are far more complex than just saying “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” There are often extenuating circumstances – thus situational ethics. It seems likely that Rahab lied not because of selflessness, but in order to save her own skin from the wrathful god who was preparing to massacre the inhabitants of Jericho.

<STRONG> As for errors. The first one i see is the differences in names used. Was that 1 ? The names seem to be similar so i'm not sure (at this point) that that is a problem. What were the other 2. I will point out that i only read the chapter you mentioned, and judging from the chapter i will need to go back a couple of chapters in samuel to figure out what is going on. So i will get back to you in a bit more detail here. At any rate what where the other 2 errors (assumint the name is one).
Jason </STRONG>

Here are the 3 errors:
1. Wrong high priest. The actual high priest was Ahimelech, Abiathar’s father. Matthew and Luke apparently caught this mistake and didn’t repeat Mark’s error (see Mt 12 and Lk 6). Inerrantists like to argue that it was during the days of Abiathar since he was alive. Yet, he was not high priest. This would be like saying that the War of 1812 took place in the days of President James Monroe, when the actual president was James Madison. An easy mistake for Jesus or Mark to make since copies of the OT were not readily available. Nobody’s perfect!

2. David was alone, not with companions. The text in 1 Sam. 21 is painfully clear that David was all alone when he fled to Nob. Ahimelech even asks him, “Why are you all alone? Why is no one with you?” This is when David lies to get the bread. It is much later, after David has spent time acting like a madman in Gath (21:10-15) that David is finally joined by companions.

3. There was no “house of God” yet. The indication in 1 Sam 21 is that David took the sacred bread and ran away. But, Jesus has David and his companions eating bread in the “house of God.” Unfortunately, the temple was not built yet. It was built by David’s son, Solomon many years later. Read 2 Sam7, which takes place many years after the incident at Nob. David wanted to build a house for God, but God replies, “I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day.”