Mullibok

Voltaaaaaire

Amos

Inspired does not equal Gods word. For one, all words are arrived at by convention and since God is not part of this convention the author is inspired to use conventional words to write about God etc.

????

The only requirement here is that you are just as inspired to read it as the author was when he wrote it. The bible still is inerrant except maybe for some small translation errors which the inspired reader should be able to identify as he reads it. Had the translators been sufficiently inspired to do their work properly they would not exist.

Doctor X

Oh my . . . a day of bad connections and what one misses. . . .

First things first. . . .

Corrections:

In a previous reply to beastmaster I indicated that the Chronicler may have used "Satan" in other places. Wrong. Worse, I indicated that the word is used without the indefinite article. Also wrong, it is used without the definite article.

beastmaster:

Forsyth gives a great discussion of the Chronicles passage:

Thus, this does result in a shift of blame. In the DH, David has commited crimes which one can use as an "excuse" for YHWH to squish him . . . actually seventy thousand poor slobs. Granted, YHWH ordering David to do something "bad" so he can punish him for it seems rather "unjust;" however, it is an explanation that did not seem to bother the DH. Indeed, Ezekiel explains the problematic requirement for child sacrifice by having YHWH admit he sinned and made people do bad in order to punish them.

Consider the Greek gods . . . smite and squish with abandon . . . oh, sorry, you wandered into the wrong neck of the woods? Hera is pissed that she is not as beautiful as Aphrodite? I guess your city gets flattened. Indeed, in a wonderful scene in the Iliad, Hera sleeps with Zeus to get him to promise her she may squish Troy. He agrees then reminds her that when he should decide to squish a city she likes she cannot complain!

These are very human gods--venile, selfish, sometimes rash.

This type of god does not fit later theism--certainly not the Chronicler. So he had to "elevate" someone else to "do the dirty work" This may not satisfy us--it did not satisfy later generations. We have the whole crap of trying to figure out why--in the Chronicles--YHWH did not just punish Satan. Why did he have the power to fuck with David?

The "fallen angel" or "great rebel" has not yet entered the picture. Thus, I would agree:

I will "nitpick" in that he is more in this passage than a simple anthropomorphism--such as "the power of god" that walks around. "The Destroyer" is a separate figure in Exodus, and Satan is a separate figure in Job. Both are under the control of YHWH/El. Indeed, people who see Satan in a modern sense--having read too much Neil Gaiman--will have a "problem" with Job because, clearly, Satan is an agent of YHWH.

In the Chronicles passage, he is independent. He is, however, also just a literary device. The Chronicler does not explain "why" or "how" Satan does what he does--he is not dealing with a "fallen angel/rebel" mythology we all grew up with.

Indeed, my mistake in assuming the Chronicler used him in further passages demonstrates that he is just a literary device--otherwise, the Chronicler could have used him to explain away all ills in his rewriting of the history: "Satan made Solomon love foreign women," for example.

Contradiction:

I still think it is a great contradiction because it demonstrates as shift in theological understanding: comfortable with Big Daddy being unjust to not-so-comfortable.

From the standpoint of showing "mistakes" in the Bible as a whole, yes, you can show some rather more "horrible" ones.

Now for comedy relief. . . .

Magnus:

Actually not, Jn "sums up" salvation when he states that one must be "born from above." [See thread on genealogies for the explanation.--Ed.] Good men, like Nicodemus, who are not inherently saved--"from above"--can never be saved.

This, of course, differs from Mk--though the effect is the same. Jn and the Synoptics preach an exclusionary "us versus them" message which makes perfect sense when one considers these texts were written for groups.

As always, I find it interesting how a misunderstanding of the source-texts leads us to a better understanding. Keep up the "good work."

Peter:

You have to think back when you were young and innocent . . . go back . . . go back . . . Baywatch was a hit, no one knew Clinton was a liar, the Red Sox still lost. . . .

It will always be an "eye opener" to anyone raised with a Jewish or Christian religion that the Bible is "wrong"--that it is inaccurate. This is a rite of passage.

Even the most religious of scholars recognize the errancy and find ways around it--which generally do not work, of course.

As you note, for biblical scholars "proving" errancy is like proving water is wet.

However, new people to this site and to biblical literature in general will continue to be surprised.

Celsus:

Nothing like multiple authorship . . . I think Isaac has twenty-seven different ages, depending on the commentator!

GPLindsey:

Indeed.

However, that removes the feeling of objective certainty that people have of their religion--something to "point to" and say, "See?!! I AM right!" This is why the justice tried to keep a monument to some of the ten commandments--give the impression that the "normal" and "accepted" opinion is that his religion is "correct."

Now . . . more comedy. . . .

BWA!HA!HA!HA!HA! . . . oh . . . you were serious?

Most unfortunate. . . .

THAT is the very embodiment of the problem I describe for GPLindsey. Some just cannot let go of the certainty. They will believe the delusion no matter how ridiculous.

Nevertheless, the poster never could reconcile the genealogies or birth narratives of Junior other than to just claim they are the same by some fiat.

This approach to perspective on reality is as successful as burying one's head in the sands of the banks of the River DeNile--uniform darkness with no light.

--J.D.

Reference:

Neil Forsyth. The Old Enemy: Satan & the Combat Myth. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987

[Edited to reference the reference.--Ed.]

GPLindsey

In regards to inspiration, the Rocky Mountains might "inspire" a landscape artist to pick up his brush and make a painting. However, the mountains would not control what the artist painted in any way, and would of course be completely unaware they were being painted, because they are not aware of anything. This is your every day type of "inspiration."

However, when Christians speak of the Bible being "inspired" and inerrant, they mean that God was an active agent steering the authors to choose the right words, convey just the right meanings, etc. His intervention didn't stop with the original scribes, but extended to all the scholars over the years who translated and retranslated the original texts, so that erroneous interpretations of what this or that ancient Hebrew word "meant" wouldn't enter into the Bible. The inspired Rocky Mountain artist produced his painting entirely with his own skills. The Bible authors and translators could not have done so without God's guiding hand to prevent errors.

So I disagree with you--in any meaningful sense, "inspired" by God means that it was written by God. The scribes and translators were more like automatons, or Charlie McCarthy if you will, sitting in God's lap as God moved his lips.

Also, I still think my contradiction was the best. The business about Jesus saying the day being 12 hours is a weak criticism, because saying the day was 24 hours would have been unintelligible to his listeners. In fact, the day isn't even 24 hours, it is 23 hours and some lenghtly fraction, and fractions would have been unintelligible as well since they weren't invented yet. DOUBLE in fact, to a timeless God, the length of the day is not fixed, since the Earth rotated more quickly billions of years ago and continues to slow down. What was Jesus to tell his listeners--an accurate, to the fraction "average" length of the day, from the time of Earth's creation to its demise?

Devilnaut

Why would the bible contain such "obvious" contradictions when the church has had every opportunity over the past seventeen hundred years to refine and perfect its message?

Amos

You mean like a third party? Don't be silly. There is just as much inspiration in Shakespeare as there is in the bible and who do you think was pushing his pen? The bible was written by gnostics who were omniscient because they had noetic vision. According to the bible this is within our reach and is actually our mandate in the bible (to obtain the mind of God and know the depth, width and breadth of the Lord our God).

What I think is funny is that you don't believe much of the bible but insist that God's intervention extended even to translators who wanted to prove their own perspective (eg. "sola scriptura" and now the "gender equality" versions).

Before we can really understand the bible it's content must be prior to us by nature and therefore second to us when we read about it in the bible. I think Jn. 5:39-40 clearly tells us that this is possible and it just is not good enough to read the bible to gain understanding. In fact, if we do we will be misled by it and that is exactly what the mythmakers had in mind when they added the religious component to the scriptures. It could be argued here that Jews are mesmerized by it and that Christians are enslaved to it (in my view many so called 'Christians' represent the second beast of Rev 14 and many posters here have found deliverance from that kind of slavery).

gregor

Devilnaut

Two answers to your question (why didn't the scribes correct contradictions, if they indeed are).

First, the idea that the 'Buybull' needs to be completely inerrant is an idea of more recent vintage. One doubts that Eusebius would lose sleep over any obvious contradiction, though 19th century apologists would.

Second, the Church has not had 1,700 years to change things. The OT was fixed and unalterable before Christianity arose. And why would the Church worry about NT contradictions? They controlled access to the Bible early on (and at a time when inerrancy was a foreign concept). By the time the NT was available to the masses via the printing press (and the laity could discover contradictions) it was impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.

Doctor X

Devilnaut:

Indeed! The funny thing is that NONE of the authors thought they would be in the same book with the other guy! When Mt used Mk as a source, he sure as shit did not expect Mk to be there with him. Similarly, the Chronicler did not expect to have Samuels-Kings there to show everyone his changes--he expected his history to supplant his sources.

What is more interesting is that there was some comfort with "keeping stuff" even if it was uncomfortable. Take Genesis . . . please . . . whoever blended the J and P stories sure as hell could have harmonized them. For whatever reason, he kept the texts. Why not at least get the name of your deity consistent?

The many contradictions and repetitions in the story were noticed by early commentators.

--J.D.

Calzaer

Umm.. if John 3:16 sums up everything I need to do in order to be saved, then I'm saved whether I like it or not with no effort or statement of faith whatsoever required on my part. If salvation is summed up as "God gave his only son so we wouldn't fry forever", then, well, the only son has been given up (although one has to ask what definition of "give" we're using here, since God appears to have gotten his kid back). John 3:16 says nothing about accepting or believing in Jesus, nothing about baptism or grace or anything.

Mageth

I'll point this out to you before some Theist does, Calzear:

John 3:16 (KJV): For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.