djrafikie

I'm going to state clearly that there are NOT my words.. they are in fact from this site and I recommend reading the article I have linked to, as it is the basis for this discussion.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...full-of-errors

"an unbiased reader of the Bible would assume that the author had good reasons for his chosen words. As Christians, though, we know without question that the Author spoke the truth and knew what He was talking about.
Conclusion

The same methods apply for resolving most apparent errors. If we do not have an immediate explanation, then our starting assumption that the Bible is true must take precedence, and we just have to learn more. In every case, there is a logical explanation— we just have to clear up our own ignorance. The idea that God made an error is never a possibility."


I have come across this attitude many times when speaking to xtians (partcularly fundamentalists) which leads me to my point..

Is it REALLY possible to have any kind of real academic discourse with a believer, when they are, by definition, incapable of an honest regard of the bible in terms of its actual content, importance as a historical document, and possible failings?

Should bible studies actually be left to the "unbelievers" if we are to get any kind of real academic result?

Chris Weimer

This was a huge discussion in the biblioblogs not too long ago, with Michael V. Fox basically saying the same thing you are. I think where we draw is with inerrancy - merely being a believer doesn't mean that you have to subscribe to this heretical notion - some of our very own believers here, Ben Smith, Andrew Criddle, Roger Pearse, Stephen Carlson, etc... do not subscribe to that position, but are believers who contribute much to the academic discourse.

djrafikie

I'm not suggesting that this is the case in all instances, but isn't it literally IMPERATIVE that studies of biblical text presented by believers be regarded highly sceptically? If I were presented with a medication, told it would cure me, even presented with STUDIES assuring me that this seemed to be the case..

and then I discovered that the individual offering me the medication would in fact pocket all of the money him/herself...

I would'nt take their word for it, in fact, I would pretty much ignore their word and go and check it out with people who did not have a vested interest.

Doesn't the same apply to beliving biblical academics?

Keith&Co.

Well, say there's a pharmaceutical company that's published the results of their latest drug trials. On the same report there's a statement of professionalism that all their druggists must sign, stating that they will not release any information that contradicts the company's stance that the drug is an effective drug with undesirable zero side effects.
CAN you trust their drug trial results?
Ever?

YOu just have to approach believer's 'drug trials' with an understanding that they have way too much of a tendency to start with the conclusion and work backwards to acceptable evidence.

If their results are in any way valid, if their observations are really observed from without, not projected from within, then non-believer auditors should find the same or similar results. If the results ONLY work when you start with a belief they MUST work, then no one has to accept them.

Julian

There is a good amount of truth to this post. The idea of the drug companies running their own trials is a major weakness in the FDA drug approval process, but that rant would be off-topic.

Most biblical scholars have a vast amount of knowledge regarding the field of biblical studies. What they don't have is much inkling of the scientific method. One senses a certain level of desperation in the scholar circles because they seem at a loss as to things that await discovery. One cannot truly blame them since they have, after all, never been trained as scientists. There is, nonetheless, a large amount of truly bad research being published.

We are beginning to see a younger generation of scholars who are somewhat better at their craft, but only marginally. What they need are a few semesters of proper training in methodology. Ah, well.

It is also true that the capabilities of the scholars in the field affects the amount of junk being produced, however, it says nothing about the level of quality of any given individual paper or theory. After all, if we can see the data, if we know that it is comprehensive and fairly represented, if we are told of the process and falsifiability, then it is not the ability of the scholar that determines the quality of his work (although it does determine his probability of producing quality). Our main concern should be our own ability to assess that level of quality. After all, a monkey may accidently produce something brilliant (giving an extreme example here). One cannot discount a brilliant piece of work just because the author wasn't qualified (and by qualified we are referring, of course, to probability. After all, a monkey could produce brilliant work but isn't very likely to do so). Once the work has been produced it can be evaluated on its own merits, independent of authorship. This final step eliminates any influence that the scientific ability of the author might have had on the work. In other words, the current lack of ability only affects the number of quality studies being produced, it doesn't prevent an occasional quality study from materializing. The skill of the reader is the only real thing of importance once the study leaves the presses.

Julian

Clouseau

There is at least one university Christian Union who will not allow AiG to speak to it, so inadequate is AiG in terms of academic competence, whether in science or in Biblical knowledge. Probably the harshest critics of YEC generally are Christian scientists (small 's'), because they tend to know both how absurd are the scientific claims of YEC, and how twisted are the Scriptural claims. YEC and ID are truly dead issues, kept alive, I suspect, because sceptics have run out of better arguments.

Christians are very ready and able to discuss the Bible in terms of its content, its importance as a historical document, and its possible failings, as is regularly shown here and in many other places on the 'net. However, it seems to me that sceptics put rather too much faith in attempting to discredit the Bible as an authority. The Bible got its status among Christians from its spiritual, moral and practical precepts rather than because it is historically accurate. It is necessary to understand the causality of Christianity, or the individual Christian, to be more precise. The Christian is 'formed' from the gospel, which is not necessarily the Bible (some of the first Christians had no Bible, OT or NT). Then follows a change in the motivation of the convert, a new way of looking at all things of a moral nature. That includes, of course, attitude to the Bible, where the Bible is available (and many Christians have not had, and do not have access to a Bible or a part thereof). The invariable response of the Christian is to recognise pretty well the whole Bible as the message of God to him/her- this not on the basis of compelling historical detail, but of recognition of the same spirit in the Bible as the Christian feels is within him/herself.

For the Christian, Christianity is true primarily because it works, and the Bible actively supports and informs the working of Christianity. Whether Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale or not is rather irrelevant to living one's everyday life and applying a loving attitude to those one encounters daily. So, by all means carry on discussing the Bible, but do not expect to change many people's attitude to it. Ultimately, it's a book about morality and personal choice.

Keith&Co.

I don't expect, or even want, to change anyone's feelings about, attitude towards or relationship with The Books.
Not at all. Freedom of worship and all that there.


I do, however, see a need to show that it's not readily apparent to me that it is inerrant. That there are problems, holes, contradictions. So i don't see it's the perfect work of a god or a god-inspired human.
THerefore, it's not something that needs to be legislated.
You want to guide your morality by it, by all means do so.

Just don't expect me to accept moral guidance or living instructions from a book that describes a flat earth under a solid sky.

Clouseau

We don't all live in the Dark Continent. Do have a thought for other users.

djrafikie

Hmm, that was a very long quote..
Where have I said I wanted to change your spiritual beliefs? I'm discussing the veractiy of the source of biblical study. Not you.

Clouseau

Long? Wow. I won't send you one of my books, then.

Nowhere. Where have I said that you have?