peanutaxis

How many more times will inerrantists claim their tome is absolute, only to be crushed by unrelenting science? Are these people too blind to learn from history?

YEC people, like anit-evolutionists, or IDists are easy to spot. They have absolutely NO input into science and learning except to try to tear down others' work, and any assertions they make -if adhered to- lead to an end to questioning. (If these people are correct why doesn't the Templeton foundation or someone go and prove that our dating is incorrect - by writing a paper!?) If there is one thing we have learned from the history of science it is that the more we discover the more questions we have, and that when Revelation has replaced Reason (e.g. Arabic empire 1200AD) the development of society has taken huge blows, scientifically, and morally.

Watch session 2 - first speaker: deGrasse Tyson
http://beyondbelief2006.org/watch/

Merlin

There is no problem with assuming an inerrant Bible.
The problem comes when people make assumptions based on what they think the Bible says.

Johnny Skeptic

I agree. Since no one knows what the originals said, and how many times they might have been changed, no one should assume what they said.

Is it your position that God is obligated to provide Christians with inerrant texts?

If a moral God exists, he would not depend upon inept humans to advertise his existence and will by using the grossly inefficient prevailing human means of communication, transportation, printing, and translation of a given time period. He would personally take care of doing his own advertising in a timely fashion, and he would personally advertise his existence and will to everyone in every generation. It that doesn't happen, then the result is what we have had during human history, which is many religions, many worldviews, hatred and wars among Christians, and a world that is in constant chaos, all caused by a God who refuses to do his own advertising in person to everyone in every generation, with no apparent benefits for himself or for anyone else.

Merlin

That is based on your box that you put the concept of God in.
Not necessarily His way of doing things.

skepticalbip

I think this is a bad assumption on your part. A couple points:
1. Very ancient texts have been found and translations of these "originals" compare quite well with current texts.
2. Jewish tradition did (and does?) require all copies of the Torah to be exact.

Neither of these, however, mean that what is written is true, only that we do have fairly accurate knowledge of what the original writings claimed to be truth.

peanutaxis

Could you give a specific example?

Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following:

http://www.awitness.org/essays/torahrf.html

There are two points of view expressed on the Torah in Matthew's gospel (for Torah reform and a reactionary defiance which declared the 'infallible inerrancy' of the Bible). This reactionary element stood outside the radical stream of tradition found in both the radical Jewish prophets and in the radicalism found in the early church. As just one example of what I mean, you can consider the protest writings of the prophet Jeremiah, who insisted that the Torah regulations were not given to Moses and that the scribes were falsifying the laws of God.

"Thus says YAHWEH of hosts, the God of Israel: "Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh yourselves. For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your ancestors or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices ... How can you say, ‘we are wise, for we have the law of Yahweh, when, actually, the lying pen of the scribes has worked falsely?" (Jeremiah chapter 7 verse 21 , chapter 8 verse 8)

This radicalism was characteristic of the school of thought found in Mark's gospel and also in the letters of Paul, and the radical school of thought that carried on his traditions. For example, in the following passage Paul is discussing the Torah regulations regarding circumcision and insists that to keep that rule means you then must keep every rule. He continues:

"You are cut off from Christ, you who would be justified by the Torah; you have put yourselves outside of God's grace ... the only thing that matters is faith, working through love. You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion did not come from him who calls you. A little yeast raises the whole lump of dough. YAHWEH gives me confidence that you will take no other view than mine, but whoever is troubling you must bear God's judgment. But if I am still preaching circumcision, then why I am being persecuted. To do that would be to remove the offence of the cross. I wish that those who upset you would go all the way and mutilate themselves. For you were called to freedom." (Galatians chapter 5 verse 4)

Paul's radicalism was characteristic of the stream of radicalism found in both the earlier prophets and in the early church (it was only later that the church became so oppressive and reactionary and left their radical roots behind). Mark's gospel shows that he was in the mainstream as far as this radicalism was concerned, but Matthew's gospel shows that certain elements of the Jewish community were out of step with those churches, and were reactionary and conservative in their point of view, and rejected the radicalism of Jewish prophecy. In the following passage the Matthew gospel insists that not even a single dot over one letter ‘i' could ever be abolished from the Torah, and he also makes the incongruous statement that both the law and the radical prophets who condemned the law would be ‘fulfilled' (an impossible ‘harmonization' if there ever was one, something that Paul certainly recognized.)

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew chapter 5 verse 17)

So you can see here that this element of the Jewish community belonged to the reactionary movement in the early church, and you can also tell how little they thought of Paul (it turns out that this denigrating of Paul's radicalism is also a characteristic they share with Luke, but that is a subject for another page.)

These inconsistencies in the gospel of Matthew leave one to ask which point of view was original and which was a later addition. It would seem to me to be the best explanation of the gospel to assume that originally the Matthew gospel was 'pro-Gentile' as a way to 'shame' elements of the Jewish community who were not believers, and it also makes sense that the original gospel was for Torah reform and the reactionary elements were added later. This would explain why in Matthew's gospel, Joshua is 'sent to the Jews only' and yet Matthew follows the basic outline of Mark's gospel, by opening Joshua's ministry in northern Gentile territory It would also explain why Matthew follows Mark's attack on the ritual washing laws, and the 'clean and unclean' regulations. If the Torah was 'infallible' in the original Matthew gospel, Matthew's inclusion of Mark's attack on these regulations needs to be explained.

"How right Isaiah was when he prophesied concerning you, saying, 'this people pays me lip service, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain, for they teach as doctrines the commandments of men.' You neglect the commandments of God, in order to maintain your human traditions. How clever you are at setting aside the commandment of God in order to maintain your traditions...In this way by your traditions, handed down among you, you make God's word null and void. And you do many other things just like that. After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, "Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear." When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. And He *said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)" (Mark chapter 7 verse 6)

End of quotes

Johnny: As you can see, your Torah argument does not work.

skepticalbip

^^I think what you are illustrating is the changing or evolving thoughts and opinions, the disagreements, and interpretations between sects not an example that the original texts (and later new contrary texts) were changed through translations. There is the Torah and its contents are the same today as it was thousands of years ago then the Talmud and other writings were added later as new concepts and thoughts. However if you want to know what was said in the Torah it is still there.

For New testament writings, the recently found "Dead sea scrolls" and other finds that were written two thousand years ago are very close when translated to what the church uses for a Bible today. Of course a lot more has been added over the years in other writings but that is additions to the original writings, not changes to the original.

Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following:

"Thus says YAHWEH of hosts, the God of Israel: "Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh yourselves. For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your ancestors or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices ... How can you say, ‘we are wise, for we have the law of Yahweh, when, actually, the lying pen of the scribes has worked falsely?'" (Jeremiah chapter 7 verse 21 , chapter 8 verse 8)

Regarding "I did not speak to your ancestors or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices," the Torah mentions commands concerning burnt offerings and sacrificies. Didn't Jeremiah mean that that was not a part of Scripture?

Who is the correct arbiter of what was or was not origianal Scripture? Was it arrived at by vote? Were there any disputes regarding what was and was not Scripture? Was original Scripture ever altered as the result of innocent but inaccurate revelation?

At any rate, inerrancy is not nearly as important a topic as the truthfulness of the Bible, and there are not any good reasons for anyone to assume that the Bible always tells the truth.

skepticalbip

WTF... You are looking for consistency (and absolute truth) in a religious text? I never implied any such thing, only that what was written (whether it makes any sense or not, whether it contridicts itself or not) has been fairly well retained through the centuries.