Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Deus Ex · 07-26-2009, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Would you give us an example of what you would consider a disharmony? Make up two statements about any event you'd care to imagine, such that if you read both of them in any publication, you would infer that at least one of them had to be a mistake.

well, here are some snippets of news from news articles. None of them aredis-harmonious if you understand the context of the author and his audience.

* 19 hijackers.
* the "20th hijacker" who was snagged.
* 2 planes involved in the attack.
* 4 planes hijacked.
* Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11.

Someone reading these articles looking for errors will be quick to note that one reporter said there were 2 planes and another saif there were 4. One reporter said there were 19 hijackers and named them, while another said Osama Bin Laden clamed responsibility. Was he a 20th hijacker? No, there was a separate 20th hijacker. All those who do not either know the context or take the time to learn the context (culture, time, geography) will assume they are dis-harmonious.

I happen to know the context here, so I know the reporter that said there were 2 planes was a NY reporter and was only concerned about the twin towers. the other reporter looked at the entire incident. Osama Bin Laden may have claimed responsibility but he was not directly invlolved in the context of the report that claimed 19 hijackers, nor was he the 20th hijacker - which is only called a hijacker because we all know the reporter is referring to a would-be hijacker. We are not calling the reporter a liar because we all understand that he / she meant would-be hijacker. This is easy for us to understand because we live in the context. Wait 2000 years and you will think all these reporters were full of crap because you do not understand.

I had this conversation before and used this same example. the long version is here. http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....47#post5503447

if we only had to worry about math, I could give you an easier example of dis-harmony like 2 + 2 = 4 and 2 + 2 = 5.

Using this example we come to the conclusion that the bible is not inerrant. Conservative Christians want to have it both ways. They want to claim that discrepancies in the gospels are explained away by human writers writing from different perspectives, but they also want to state that God has divinely inspired the originals without error.

Is God only concerned with a "core doctrine" such as the Resurrection, and all else is tangential? God must not care about some errors, no?

The Nativity stories clearly do not match up. Any attempt to harmonize is contrived. The post Resurrection stories are all over the map. The synoptic gospels have Jesus crucified on a different day than John's gospel. How much peripheral error is Yahweh comfortable with?

aa5874 · 07-26-2009, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, it is not true at all that they were impressed with their speech it was their BOLDNESS.

Acts 4:13

ok, they were impressed by how bold and the speech made them marvel and realize that they had been with Jesus.

Is 3 years with an itinerant rabbi and 30 years post-fisherman give you enough time to learn to write fluent greek? I am sure it is.

But there is no information in Acts or the NT that Peter and John were with Jesus for three years.

Where do you get your information from?

And Jesus was not an itinerant rabbi, according to Church writers, he was the son of God, the offspring of the Holy Ghost with thousands of followers, who transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

You sure make stuff up.

Virtually all your posts are filled with blatant errors.

sschlichter · 07-26-2009, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

ok, they were impressed by how bold and the speech made them marvel and realize that they had been with Jesus.

Is 3 years with an itinerant rabbi and 30 years post-fisherman give you enough time to learn to write fluent greek? I am sure it is.

But there is no information in Acts or the NT that Peter and John were with Jesus for three years.

Where do you get your information from?

And Jesus was not an itinerant rabbi, according to Church writers, he was the son of God, the offspring of the Holy Ghost with thousands of followers, who transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

You sure make stuff up.

Virtually all your posts are filled with blatant errors.

if you add up the feasts the Jesus attended, you will find out how long he had a public ministry. You have to think beyond the words you read. You did not see the words 'three days' so you cannot figure out how long it was.

sschlichter · 07-26-2009, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

well, here are some snippets of news from news articles. None of them aredis-harmonious if you understand the context of the author and his audience.

* 19 hijackers.
* the "20th hijacker" who was snagged.
* 2 planes involved in the attack.
* 4 planes hijacked.
* Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11.

Someone reading these articles looking for errors will be quick to note that one reporter said there were 2 planes and another saif there were 4. One reporter said there were 19 hijackers and named them, while another said Osama Bin Laden clamed responsibility. Was he a 20th hijacker? No, there was a separate 20th hijacker. All those who do not either know the context or take the time to learn the context (culture, time, geography) will assume they are dis-harmonious.

I happen to know the context here, so I know the reporter that said there were 2 planes was a NY reporter and was only concerned about the twin towers. the other reporter looked at the entire incident. Osama Bin Laden may have claimed responsibility but he was not directly invlolved in the context of the report that claimed 19 hijackers, nor was he the 20th hijacker - which is only called a hijacker because we all know the reporter is referring to a would-be hijacker. We are not calling the reporter a liar because we all understand that he / she meant would-be hijacker. This is easy for us to understand because we live in the context. Wait 2000 years and you will think all these reporters were full of crap because you do not understand.

I had this conversation before and used this same example. the long version is here. http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....47#post5503447

if we only had to worry about math, I could give you an easier example of dis-harmony like 2 + 2 = 4 and 2 + 2 = 5.

Using this example we come to the conclusion that the bible is not inerrant. Conservative Christians want to have it both ways. They want to claim that discrepancies in the gospels are explained away by human writers writing from different perspectives, but they also want to state that God has divinely inspired the originals without error.

Is God only concerned with a "core doctrine" such as the Resurrection, and all else is tangential? God must not care about some errors, no?

The Nativity stories clearly do not match up. Any attempt to harmonize is contrived. The post Resurrection stories are all over the map. The synoptic gospels have Jesus crucified on a different day than John's gospel. How much peripheral error is Yahweh comfortable with?

If you think there was error in the statements then you are not considering the context and not understanding the claim to inerrancy. If you want an inerrant answer by the defintion you have, then the correct answer is the total number of planes in the air and on the ground on Sept 11th. However, since 9/11, the meaning changed. For most americans, the term refers to the 4 planes that were flown into 4 different places. (possibly) For NY'ers it is likely that the meaning is different. All the gospels were written by different people and for different people.

Do you know what it means to let the cat out of the bag? How would you test that phrase for inerrancy?

Deus Ex · 07-26-2009, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

If you think there was error in the statements then you are not considering the context and not understanding the claim to inerrancy. If you want an inerrant answer by the defintion you have, then the correct answer is the total number of planes in the air and on the ground on Sept 11th. However, since 9/11, the meaning changed. For most americans, the term refers to the 4 planes that were flown into 4 different places. (possibly) For NY'ers it is likely that the meaning is different. All the gospels were written by different people and for different people.

Do you know what it means to let the cat out of the bag? How would you test that phrase for inerrancy?

Inerrancy is a sinking ship that even many Evangelical Christians are departing from. It is dying the death of a thousand qualifications. One simply needs to read the bible without the chains of dogma to see that it is far from inerrant.

Perhaps you have some nuanced view of inerrancy? I see a collection of books written by different people at different times that share a somewhat similar story, that also have significant differences. My conclusion is the bible is the words of men and not the Word of God.

sschlichter · 07-26-2009, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

If you think there was error in the statements then you are not considering the context and not understanding the claim to inerrancy. If you want an inerrant answer by the defintion you have, then the correct answer is the total number of planes in the air and on the ground on Sept 11th. However, since 9/11, the meaning changed. For most americans, the term refers to the 4 planes that were flown into 4 different places. (possibly) For NY'ers it is likely that the meaning is different. All the gospels were written by different people and for different people.

Do you know what it means to let the cat out of the bag? How would you test that phrase for inerrancy?

Inerrancy is a sinking ship that even many Evangelical Christians are departing from. It is dying the death of a thousand qualifications. One simply needs to read the bible without the chains of dogma to see that it is far from inerrant.

Perhaps you have some nuanced view of inerrancy? I see a collection of books written by different people at different times that share a somewhat similar story, that also have significant differences. My conclusion is the bible is the words of men and not the Word of God.

Nope, my view is 1800 years old. No nuances.
Many christians probably find comfort in inerrancy but
Could not really define it.

spamandham · 07-26-2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

well, you beleive Mark Twain had an intent. is that your premise, that the gospels were meant to entertain?

Although I suppose that's possible, that wasn't what I meant at all. I merely used Twain as an example of why falsehoods are not always lies.

Without knowing the intents of the authors, we can not really say they were lying...although, that's certainly a possibility.

spamandham · 07-26-2009, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan2

If the motive was not to write/record accurate history, what was the motive?

An analysis of the genre (see Talbert) indicates the motive probably was not to record history, but was instead, to settle doctrinal disputes and to humanize Jesus - the purpose of any biography. In ancient biographies such as these, historical accuracy was neither important nor expected. Stories, quotes, and history itself were open to revision/invention. Both the authors and the readers must have known this or we wouldn't see it as wide spread as we do.

Biographies such as this were much closer to what we call fan fiction than to history. If you can work some well known historical settings into the story, it's that much more compelling, of course, and any well known tidbits of the hero would generally also be worked in as long as they were congruent with the spin the author was going for.

This analysis assumes the Gospels fall into certain types of biographies. Another possibility is that they are allegorical fiction written in the style of what I call a "hero biography" (Talbert calls them type 1, type 2, etc.... which is not very descriptive ....). If this is the case, then they were also not intended as historical records.

...has anyone here seen Galaxy Quest?

aa5874 · 07-26-2009, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

if you add up the feasts the Jesus attended, you will find out how long he had a public ministry. You have to think beyond the words you read. You did not see the words 'three days' so you cannot figure out how long it was.

But which Jesus story is correct? There are four gospels with different accounts of Jesus.

Now it is not a good idea just to add up the feast that Jesus attended because you may have made a grave error. Please tell me what year did Jesus attend the 1st passover with his disciples and the year when he supposedly had his last.

In gMatthew, gMark and gLuke there is only one mention of the feast of the passover with the disciples, what does that add up to? How long was the ministry of Jesus according to the Synoptics?

sschlichter · 07-27-2009, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

if you add up the feasts the Jesus attended, you will find out how long he had a public ministry. You have to think beyond the words you read. You did not see the words 'three days' so you cannot figure out how long it was.

But which Jesus story is correct? There are four gospels with different accounts of Jesus.

Now it is not a good idea just to add up the feast that Jesus attended because you may have made a grave error. Please tell me what year did Jesus attend the 1st passover with his disciples and the year when he supposedly had his last.

In gMatthew, gMark and gLuke there is only one mention of the feast of the passover with the disciples, what does that add up to? How long was the ministry of Jesus according to the Synoptics?

Is 30 years enough time for a fisherman to learn to write fluent greek?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.