mdarus

It is difficult to find Christians who believe that Bible was dictated word for word by God (except for portions that claim to be direct quotes of God speaking). Some believe in "verbal plenary inspiration" meaning that human input is evident but individual words can be trusted to be accurate and truthful about what they are communication. A great deal of Christians regard the sense of the communication to be reliable.

The reason people have thse beliefs are likely varied. The reasons would certainly include a belief that God exists, that he initiates communication, and the Jesus represents the best of this communication. They would then see the New Testament as the best information about Jesus.

The Old Testament gives several examples of how God communicates other than the written word. God reveals himself through his creation, through dreams, through prophets, etc. If you define the Gospel broadly as "God has provided forgiveness", this message can be believed without reading a specific document.

Christ's death potentially benefits those who have not read the New Testament is several ways. It has served as an example of self sacrifice. The effect of this is broadly beneficial. The atonement that Christ provided can also be appropriated by faith for those who trust God's provision. It is probable that a large portion of those "who never heard" have sufficient faith in God's provision that they receive the benefits of Christ's death even though they have never heard about it. I don't expect this explanation to be very helpful because it is way too brief. This issue is also controversial among Christians.


My experiences of life do not indicate that God is evil. I am aware of others who would draw the other conclusion from their life experiences. I became a Christian because of the type of love I saw emulated in Jesus. I saw a sense of purpose in following Jesus - to be part of something bigger than myself that asked me to sacrifice my personal comforts for a greater cause.

I am much more energized by those that are willing to ask hard questions than those who accept unquestioningly whatever is told them. I often wonder why God values faith instead of just shouting out directions.

Time is an issue for me right now, but I will try.

sharon45

What does it matter if the bible has no errors? That just shows the writers were very careful in their compiling, but it does not in anyway show that the bible is a truth.
Because there really isn't a god, but the confidence game wants to continue.

mdarus

You make an excellent point that the view that inspiration is not a direct dictation from God requires a greater miracle in the process of inspiration than direct dictation would require.

Roger Pearse

This is a sound point, and in fact the reverse is true also. If a bible happens to have printer errors in it, it does not cease to be inspired for practical purposes (as we can tell from how people use these things, since most books contain printer errors).

There seems to be a presumption that people in ancient times (who had only hand-copied books) thought that inspiration could not exist if there were any errors in copying; so if we can show that people make mistakes, that proves the bible isn't inspired. To state the presumption seems to me to refute it.

These ideas are not in fact related (unless someone is claiming divine revelation on how inspiration works -- in which case, I have a miracle that I would like performed, purely as evidence, of course). Whatever inspiration is, as understood by Jesus Christ himself, it has to be able to cope with existing in the imperfect world as we have it.

In short I think this discussion is entirely based on a false premise and a strawman. That some Christians are unwise enough to allow themselves to be lured into adopting such a strawman is neither here nor there.

But the theological stuff is not my interest. I merely wish to save you all some time on a false conundrum. (And I'm sick of seeing the thread come up on my screen).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

WILLOWTREE

A mind wide shut.

Ray

darstec

For those who don't know Ray Martinez dubiously renowned for his particicipation on the alt.atheism newsgroup, when he says he studied under the best of them, he means specifically that he watched TV and listened to the self-proclaimed authority Gene Scott who never formally studied theology, history, archaeology nor any of the original languages in which scripture was written. Most scholars of ancient Hebrew and Greek scoffed (Scott is dead) at his translations which were little more than rote recital of Strong's except when he made up new translations of words from thin air to bolster his somewhat bizzare points of view. Likewise, Ray didn't follow his mentor in these pursuits either. The background in theology Ray recently claimed in another thread is by his own admission a product of listening to the Gene Scott show. I don't wish this to be taken as a personal assault on Mr. Martinez but rather to define the limits of his background for those that might unintentionally venture too deeply into the minutia of scholarship to formulate your argument. He will as his past record has demonstrated invariably dismiss any well prepared scholarship with the wave of his hand trumping it with his faith in the rantings of his former mentor, Gene Scott.

By reading up on Gene Scott, you will know where Ray is coming from. Mr. Scott is of course inerrant. I'm just not sure whether he is more or less inerrant than the pope.

Imnotspecial

Originally Posted by Gunter
The bible says somewhere: "Cursed is the man who puts his trust in another man!" "but blessed is he who puts his trust in God."
That is a blatant contradiction since the bible was written by men. The bible also says that all have sinned and that our hearts are full of deceit. How could god expect us then to believe this book?

I am not sure what you are trying to tell me here. My point was that to accept the word of God from humans is an unreasonable position. A loving god would not require us to put our trust in the testimony of others. And that is what the bible says also.
Inerrancy is perhaps not really the issue. Are the propositions of the bible reasonable. That is the question everybody should ask himself. I find that these propositions are unreasonable from every angle.
1. the creation story
2. the expectation of a messiah (what is he/she supposed to do for mankind?)
3. history (if Jesus loved the church, there is no evidence anywhere)
4. the election of a chosen people
etc, etc.

WILLOWTREE

Darwinian ad hom rant. <edit> Not to mention all of these invents are unsupported.

Dr. Scott was the eminent Biblical scholar and never used James Strong as a source. Unlike Darwin <edit> he is a real scholar who mastered every ancient Biblical lanaguage.

I am sorry you are so upset Darrel <edit>.

Because you are an atheist-Darwinist - your disapproval of the greatest scholar of all time supports his rightness. Your approval would have supported his wrongness.

Darrel is an <edit> Darwinist at Talk Origins who has been routed in debate so many times by myself <edit>.

Ray

FatherMithras

Science has shown no such thing. Backup your assertions mayhap?
Hares don't chew cud and bats ain't birds. Also, the exodus never happened and there wasn't a "slaughter of the innocents". IE unsubstantiated faith. Cognitive dissonance? =)

I thought we stopped the whole "I'm rubber and your glue childishness in elementary school. You fail to read anything we post apparently! Since we never claim to know, and you do, I don't see that statement as anything more then you being belligenerent AGAIN.


Another ad hominem attack with broad generalizations! When completely unable to refute one of our claims he simply attacks us, then claims that's what we're doign without any support. Mods?

darstec

This is not the time for the Mods. Nobody proves the case against Ray as well as Ray himself does. Please give him all the rope he wants. There is only one thing he knows to do with it. :wide: