Veri Similitude

For me, there a few things that are as frustrating as arguing with someone who believes in Biblical inerrancy. So frustrating, in fact, that I've stopped doing it.

However, there are still people who have the energy and tenacity to argue with Inerrantists. Good luck.

"If you question the truth of one part of the Bible, then how can you believe any part of it? Therefore, all of the Bible must be true."

I've never understood the logic of such an argument. So I came up with what I think is the underlying syllogism. It's something like this:

1) All statements from God are true.
2) All statements in the Bible are from God.
3) Therefore, all statements in the Bible are true.

Implied in the Inerrantist's view:
4) We must not question the truthfulness of God's statements.
5) Therefore, (from #2 and #4) we must not question the truthfulness of the Bible.

And:
6) Only the Bible has statements from God.
7) Statements that are not from God should be questioned.
8) Therefore, all statements that are not in the Bible should be questioned.

(And of course, the main premise: God exists. Almost forgot that "self-evident truth".)

Even if we assume the premises are true, there are some problems with the logic. But I think that most Biblicists would accept the argument. So we get bullying tactics like "If you are a Christian, you have to accept all of the Bible", and the facile dismissal of scientific evidence "because it's not in the Bible".

Dogmatic Biblicists insist that the Bible must be completely true (#3), and that any supposed errors or contradictions must not be true (#7). Anything that contradicts #3, must be defended (apologized?) at all costs, because the consequences are too much to bear: If the Bible has even one error, then my entire life has been a lie. Ahhh ... but the truth will set you free.

So here are a few questions for Biblicists:
Do you believe everything you hear or read?
How do you determine the truthfulness of any statement?
Whatever method you use, do you use the same method to evaluate the Bible's truthfulness?
And, how do you evaluate the relevance of a Biblical quote to the particular discussion?
And here's the tough one: Do you think for yourself?

For some reason, Biblicists won't admit that what they say and write is their own opinion and not "God's word".

BTW, one problem with the argument above is that it doesn't preclude direct conversations with God. A theist can say: "I know it's true because God told me today."

Also, with the words "must" and "should", where does the obligation come from? Of course: "God told me to do it."


Hmmm ... post almost finished and I found this: From a Christian. Not an Inerrantist. Some interesting stuff on Biblical contradictions.

Cheers.

Mageth

You missed the bit about the Holy Spirit indwelling them so that only they can see the real truth of the Bible.

Demigawd

Yep, The Holy Haint is the Christian version of a Little Orphan Annie Super Secret Decoder Ring.

B E S U R E T O E A T A N D D R I N K Y O U R S A V I O R

Soul Invictus

Great articulation....I doubt there will be many replies on this one, though.

Prophetessofrage

Hi Veri Simitude, those are some very interesting comments you made. I would like to respond to a part of your assertions. Give input as I have come to understand it. I'm definitely not an Biblicist. After all, there is much evidence that a lot of the Biblical information has been distorted. For instance, I always questioned who had the authority to choose which letters would go into the Bible and which would be left out. The left out, books of the Bible should be studied if for nothing else, to get a better grasp of the culture that wrote those letters.

Not only that, but the whole 'sexist' lies are enough to make one question the Biblical letters. I have no problem with agnostics as its just natural to question 'religous' dogma. In studying the Bible, I was full of questions. However, I did absorb the Bible from the spiritual perspective it presented itself as, and I found God/humanity relationship fascinating, phenomenal, in what it was saying. I've read other religous dogma as well but the Bible makes 'ultimate' claims, especially with regard to prophecy. It's phenomenal, psychic, in its revelation that have manifested themselves.

For instance, the world powers that the prophet Daniel spoke of did come into existence just as he foresaw. (Daniel 7). At any rate, though I embrace the spirituality of the Bible, I do not embrace by any means, organized religion for they bred 'sexism' and 'racism.'

In fact, my spirituality consists of embracing the 'feminine' of God aka 'Goddess,' so I'm immediately thrust into the 'heretic' category by most religions and as well, "infidel" by those beings who hurl that word about.

I also find many of the questions brought up by athiests fascinating. However, I don't find athiests or agnostics to be very sincere in their belief because of their inability to acknowledge the Bible according to its declaration. What I mean is, the Bible more or less defines itself as a 'spiritual book that must be spiritually discerned.' Athiests and agnostics ignore that proclaimation and denounce the Bible more than any other religion.

Another thing, many people talk about the many similar stories that preceded the Bible. This too is right for questioning. In fact, Biblicists as you described them are they who are wrong in that, the prophet Isaiah proclaims God is 'reasonable' and invites such 'reasonable' questioning.

Yeshua implored people to 'believe the works' if not Him. I think he was saying, 'believing the miraculous' would wrought belief in the 'God' who was proclaimed to have performed the miraculous. At any rate, interesting comments and I look forward to reading the answers.

DrJim

ProphetessofRage says: How do you know that Daniel foretold it? There is no evidence of the book of Daniel existing until well into the Hellenistic period, and most scholars tend to agree that Dan. 7-12 were not written until the time of Anitochus IV in the second century bce.

Dan . 6:1 calls Darius "the Mede" and says he took King Belshazzar's kingdom "that very night". Darius was as Persian as Cyrus, who defeated the Medians ca. 550 and then conquered Babylon ca. 539. He defeated not "King" Belshazzar, but Nabonidus. There was no Darius ruling until ca. 522 bce. Teh claims made by Daniel is simply wrong.

How does it define itself as a spiritual book, and why should we believe it? How do we know if our discernment is spiritual? Whose spiritual discernment is authoritative? All your line of reasoning comes down to is the same old fight for status and authority within the "spiritual" camp that exists in various "religions" claiming to follow the true "spiritual" interpretation of the Bible.

For us atheists, or at least the more scholarly ones, understanding the religious world view of the writers is very important, but we just reject the view that modern spirituality is a fool-proof way to determine that ancient world-view and hence, the "proper" way to understand the Bible. Modern religions do not "own" the Bible or have proprietory rights to its interpretation.
For scholars, the claims made by the Bible and by believers about it are the properly the SUBJECT of analysis, not the premises.

JRL.

Godless Wonder

I can't help but to bite on this bit.

You don't find atheists or agnostics sincere in their beliefs because of what they think of the Bible? "Sincere" means:
1. Not feigned or affected; genuine: sincere indignation.
2. Being without hypocrisy or pretense; true: a sincere friend.
3. Archaic. Pure; unadulterated.
(from dictionary.com)

So, if I understand you, you either think atheists and agnostics don't really disbelieve what they say they disbelieve, and further, you think this because of what it is they say they disbelieve, or, perhaps you didn't mean to say what you said?

A book comes along, and it says, essentially, in order to believe this book, you must simply have faith that it is true, regardless of how false it may seem. Would you grant this leniency to any other book but the bible? If not, why not, and why grant it specially to the bible?

If a book says that it is true, that is not enough to make it true. An atheist reads the bible and looks around at the world. There are certain things that just don't jive. Rather than thinking "oh well, it says it is true, and it says that I should just believe it even if it seems incorrect, I guess it must be true and so I will believe it, because, what do I know?" the atheist typically thinks, "this doesn't seem right. I think this is not right." and sometimes, "this can't possibly be right."

If the atheists and agnostics seem particularly worked up about the bible as compared to say, the Quran (or however we're spelling it these days) on this board, that is probably more a reflection of the fact that this is an English speaking board, and the most popular religion by far in the English speaking world is xianity, so, that's what we're running into most of the time.

Do you really think that we're all lying about what we disbelieve? Just wondering.

p.s. I hope this doesn't come off in a hostile way, it wasn't meant that way.

Doctor X

Not to mention:

"it"--as in the collection known as the Bible--does not make this claim.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

--J.D.