Minimalist

Read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman and find out how wrong you are.

Wayne Delia

I may have won my office pool, guessing the number of sentences it would take for you to completely equivocate the title of your own thread. I guessed "three" and I don't think anyone took the "four" spot. The title is "The Bible is Inerrant," and you are now off script trying to demonstrate "The Bible is unique."

Every time that argument is put forth, I wonder if Christian apologists sincerely believe it. I don't think so. Another extremely ancient document which has survived over time, since perhaps the 18th century BCE, is the Code of Hammurabi. The reason it's survived is because it's engraved on a huge piece of basalt which is currently on display in the Louvre. I've seen it; I've even touched it. Nobody can say the same for the original manuscripts of the Bible; the papyrus has long, long since turned to dust. So, based only on this one criteria, wouldn't it be consistent and non-hypocritical for the Christian apologist to conclude that the Code of Hammurabi is more infallable and inerrant than the Bible? If not, then some serious special pleading is in effect.

Once again, referring to the example of the Code of Hammurabi, the eight foot tall piece of basalt corresponds to the original manuscript. Nothing at all corresponds to the original manuscripts of the Bible; the earliest known manuscripts from years later consist of very small scraps of very faded text. Wouldn't you agree, then, that the Code of Hammurabi exceeds the Bible in terms of "manuscript evidence?" Perhaps you meant something along the lines of the number of copies printed. Then that's terrific! Can you share with us the number of copies which must be printed before the claims contained in the book magically become the truth? Then all we have to do is crank up the presses, print off that many copies of the Code of Hammurabi, and hey presto - it, too, is inerrant, using the same line of reasoning here supporting the Bible.

I'm afraid John Lea had a huge case of egotism, and instead of referring to the Bible, the title of his book is self-referential. He wrote the book without a title, was somewhat over-impressed with his own work, and thought "The Greatest Book In The World" was an appropriate title to give to his own book.

(I made some of that up.)

The Bible was ripped to shreds when I plugged it with several shotgun shells. To claim that it "survived" would be an extreme stretch.

Seriously, I must echo the unanswered question of others responding: if the devil always fails, according to your cheerleading, then no souls can be captured in hell, and there's no actual need for Jesus as a savior, because there's no peril to be saved from.

I notice, though, that you've already responded in a manner which I (or anyone) could have predicted: "I don't have time to reply. I'm too busy running my web site and looking for a girlfriend."

WMD

Johnny Skeptic

Several weeks ago, notapadawan said that he was going to prepare his defense of inerrancy. Perhaps he is on an extended vacation, or has lost interest in defending inerrancy.

Biff the unclean

Then you know that there is neither an ocean nor a hard as beaten brass firmament in the sky. That means you know that the bible is in error. So who are you kidding?

crazyfingers

I think that Bible John needs to define what he means as inerrant. I see at least two definitions of the term.

1: Everything in the bible is factually correct.
2: Everything in the bible is exactly what God wanted to say.

I think that it's obvious from your example and many others like it, that there are factual errors in the bible. And on examples like that, even Christians diagree on what in the bible should be read as literal and what should be read as a parable.

And should be read should be key to Christians. It suggests that there is someone in authority to say how it should be read.. If there was a god, the problem above suggests to me that the bible would have been intended to be difficult to interpret and understand. If that's the case, then factual errors would have been intended and so could still be inerrant under 2 above.

I think that we need to hear from Bible John if he really means "inerrant" as 1 above or as 2 above.

I have assumed that its 2 above because it would be ludicrous to claim 1 above. That's why I'd like for Bible John to show that his god exists and to show that his God thinks that the bible says exactly what he wants it to say.

Does that make sense?

Dlx2

I'm trying to figure out exactly how translations of the name of God are even remotely accurate and consistent.

Biff the unclean

Well that brings us to Bobby Burns and his “oh what a tangled web we weave…” If day 2 of creation is parable then what about the rest of the days that claim God creates the universe. What about the initial claim that God exists which is a half dozen lines before this claim that a firmament exists? If the firmament is a parable where did Jesus ascend to? Is he in orbit? And what the heck is an ocean in the sky a parable of? Why would the creator not know what the creation was like? And why does cerm put links to programs that people can’t open?

crazyfingers

I've heard plenty of Christians say that Genesis is a parable. The 7 days, the flood and Noah, etc.. They could easily also say that it was intended to be a parable and not intended to be read as if literally true.

That's why I prefer to cut through it all and ask them to show that god exists and that the Bible is exactly how he wants it to be. They can't of course. And so they can't show that the bible is inerrant. Not possible.

The claim that the bible is inerrant is necessarily made on faith and I wonder if Bible John will acknowledge that.

Tinker Grey

Sir Walter Scott, Marmion 1808, Canto VI,XVII

Biff the unclean

Right, thank you.

But have you ever seen Scott and Burns together at the same time? Bobby is a sock puppet, I'll lay odds.

When I wrote Robert Burns that was a parable which of course no one would take literally so my blurbs are still inerrant