NOGO

When I think of "fringe groups" I think of Biblical inerrantists and young earthers.

Why do you people waste your time with people who start all arguements with the assumption that the Bible is without error?
Most Christians will concede that the Bible has errors.
They do so because it is hard to argue against the obvious.
Yet some fringe goups have a profound need for an inerrant Bible.
So why take it away from them.

When a babe is hungry and breast-feeding you don't go and take the nipple out of his mouth.

Celsus

To all involved,

If you cannot improve the standards of discourse in this thread, it will be locked.

Joel

Doctor X

Beauty is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. My perspective is quite kinder.

NOGO raises a very good point that one should not overlook whilst wracked by self-righteous indignation.

Biblical scholars do place themselves a bit in the Ivory Tower. Scholars pretend what they study has nothing to do with current religion. Excuse me whilst I step over these strawmen . . . there. Those who have a faith may recognize the "errors" and accept that the book contains stories of a politicosocioeconomic nature. A NT scholar, for example, may recognize all of the textual issues and, deep down, believe some guy said something truly divine 2000 years ago.

Those who do not believe or have faith can still elevate themselves above theology--"I am studying literature, history, language!"

Balderdash! Deeper inside both lurks the natural curiosity of "what" does their research "say" about religion.

Even if the scholar proves a Zen master, the public has the same question. For better or for worse, much of the planet regards the texts as a bit more important than, say, the latest Stephen King novel. The importance depends on the person.

Why Argue?

The simplest answer is this is a debate board. People come here to argue about things biblical. Now, if I believe Einstein is "wrong" I am free to this delusion. However, if I wander over to a science or physics board and spout it I should not be surprised if the Readership comes down upon me as a proverbial collection of building materials.

Very well, but is it anyone's responsibility to "educate?" That depends on the next question:

Why Must it be Inerrant?

The simplest answer, again, is that some need to tie their faith to something objective. This is a normal thing. I often think "faith" is a "misnomer" or an artificial construct. People do not think they have faith, generally, they think they believe what is true. Just as I would like to find an experiment that disproves Einstein, people want the Bible to serve as that evidence.

Now, some simply were brought up that way--an assumption that "it must be true."

Most grow out of it and shift to something else--faith in the "intent" rather tha the actual words or whathaveyou.

However, some have a problem with doubt. Martin Gardner describes this well in his wonderful The Flight of Peter Fromme--an evangelical teenager who attends divinity school only to have his faith deteriorate. He begins a young earth creationist . . . until he tries to convince a geology professor.

One he doubts the "Truth" of the story, everything begins to unravel.

This is not necessarily so. Unfortunately, some make it so.

Why Bother?

Well, if someone bring inerrancy into a discussion, they rather invite argument. At some point you wonder if you are screaming back at the people who sit at card tables in airports--to what point? The "wrestling a pig" analogy holds.

Fine. However, for what it is worth, sometimes you open someone's mind. Furthermore, you may not educate the person screaming at you, but you may enlighten his audience.

Thus:

For some, to recognize the impossibility of a global flood brings their entire view of the universe to question. This does not have to be the case, but for some it is. Whilst scrawling this verbage, I wondered about the reason for the myth in Genesis. Why is it there? It does fit the patterns of its souce myths, but why should the writers and redactor include it? Perhaps simply because the Babylonian myth was known well enough?

Rather odd, then, that it is elevated now to such importance that people search for the Ark.

--J.D.

contracycle

Jomon pottery can be dated to quite long ago - I can find dates as far back as 10,500 BC. None the less, the inhabitants of the Japanses islands appear to have survived the flood rather well.
Odd, eh?

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/jomo/hd_jomo.htm

Cross Examiner

Good weekend. Where were we?

Mullibok,
That 'one spot' is the difficulty of Doctor X's advice -- that if I were to 'read scholarship' (he assumes that I don't -- another bad assumption on his part) I would somehow learn that Doctor X, whoever that is, was not in agreement with the Society of Biblical Literature (a group he feels that substantiates his views, nevertheless). If you still don't see the difficulty in Doctor X's advice, simply let me know how you'd go about researching the views of one 'Doctor X,' exactly.

Doctor X.,

Nice try. Fortunately, we have video (i.e. record) of you starting the fireworks.

Bon. On parle latin et francais. Cependant, on dit que 'tout est perdu ce qu'on donne à fol.'

Woops. If the Society of Biblical Literature is a "fringe group," as you maintain above, and a certain associate within the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) were to dissent against his colleagues, he, himself, would be a member of a sub-faction within a "fringe group."
[QUOTE]We don't know how I align with the SBL. We do, however, know that the SBL does not agree with you, as you've informed us.

An individual whose divergent views buried within a faction internal to one Society out of many within the general discipline of Biblical scholarship is a perfect example of the 'fringe,' however.

Well, of course 'scholars recognize that the flood myth was a myth.' And, likewise, logicians generally agree that A = A. The trick in the above is deciding whether or not the Genesis Flood is a myth and if so, what sort of myth it is. It is certainly not of the (commonly observed in Pagan literature) type of ludicrous myth where, for example, a Chief god's daughter is birthed directly from his brain after the consumption of the child's mother. So, for the distinguishing mind, distinction must be made. And, as mentioned multiple times now, Christians need not take Genesis 100% literally in order to maintain rationality/consistency. The Gospels, for example, are a different type of literature than Genesis and are heeded accordingly.

As mentioned numerous times, I do not particularly care to debate the Flood, so please stop asking. Similarly, I do not particularly care to debate how many angels can dance upon a pin or whether or not Joseph Stalin was the quintessential atheist (not in a box with a fox). I do, however, care to resolve that irrelevant-to-the-OP, self-initiated, unprovoked troll that I '...unceremoniously fled from previous threads that demonstrated biblical errors' and, when I asked you for examples of 'errors' and 'fleeing,' your pointing to my disengagement from a two-month old thread that I successfully managed until the birth of my son whereupon I withdrew to attend to family matters. I thought with such a strong claim you'd have more. No ‘mea culpa’ forthcoming? No problem. Moving on. Anyway, for what its worth, I've enjoyed reading your thoughts on inerrancy and faith; certainly a more fruitful topic of conversation. I might comment to that end if I find time. Take care.

Regards,
BGic

NOGO

Here is an example of error. Please explain this one.


Hebrew Bible -------------------------New Testament
I Chr. 3:10-16 .............................Matthew 1:6-11
Solomon ......................................Solomon
Rehoboam ...................................Roboam
Abia ............................................Abia
Asa..............................................A sa
Jehoshaphat .................................Josaphat
Joram ..........................................Joram
Ahazia .........................................??
Joash ...........................................??
Amazia ........................................??
Azaria .........................................Ozias
Jotham ........................................Joatham
Ahaz ...........................................Achaz
Hezekia .......................................Ezekias
Manasseh.................................... Manasses
Amon......................................... Amon
Josia............................................J osias
Jehoiakim.....................................??
Jeconia........................................Jec honias

In the genealogy in the Book of Matthew we are missing four names that are clearly listed in the Hebrew Bible. So according to the Old Testament there are 18 generations between King David and the Babylonian exile, whereas the New Testament states that there are 14.

Mt 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.

So Mt 6:11 lists 14 names and Mt 1:17 states that there are 14 generations. The author of Matthew had trouble copying.

Cross Examiner

NOGO,
Do you think Matthew's intent was to merely reproduce (scribe for a day) that which was widely available and already well-known to his audience? (Hint: yes, Matthew had an an original intent and original audience). That is, did Matthew have trouble copying, as you conclude?

Regards,
BGic

Doctor X

Mullibok:

Given his reliance on ipse dixit and absence of scholarly evidence, would seem a rather valid assumption. However, I recommended the individual familiarize himself with the scholarship on the flood myth.

The error remains the individual. Just because he starts a conflict but cannot finish it does not transfer blame to his victim.


Note now the attempted shift. The individual tries to distill all of scholarship that disagreed with him as a "fringe group." Realizing, perhaps, the hoplesses of this position--when demonstrated that it included such a professional society--he now tries to state that I consider them a fringe group.

I, too, have video . . . unfortunately it is beta but, then again, no CD can beat the depth of 8-track either. . . .

Furthermore, he has ducked the kind suggestion he submit his theories--which he tried to paint as mainstream--for peer review.

"Answer came their none."

Would help if the individual would read with a bit more responsibility and cease this argumentum ad vertatem obfuscandam. Again, he has made a snipe, an attempt to paint all who disagree with him as a "fringe group." It would be more honest if he simply acknowledge the error and moved on.

Or . . . he could even read the scholarship.

Heavens to Betsy.

The individual continues to waffle in this misrepresentation for a bit.

Now . . . at last . . . we come to some substance:

It is.

Really? Having large container of water floating in space? Having the sons of the gods come down and mate with the Teens Gone Wild? Having a ship filled with so much excrement-producing body mass that the inhabitants could not, possibly, keep it clear? This is not "ludicrous?"

As with "fringe group" the individual continues with his singular definition.

Ah . . . but after this happy attention to the subject, a scurrying away:

The individual made extraordinary claims. He demanded evidence to the contrary. He received it. He continues to ignore it. Now he wishes to blame those who remind him of it.

Now, certainly one can understand having a life beyond a bloody message board . . . one would hope. However, this does not absolve the individual continuing as if he had not received evidence to the contrary. A simple, "interesting evidence, unfortunately, I will have to attend to it later--new child/girlfriend/bodies piling up in the crawlspace" would suffice.

I have done it.

It does not absolve him now pretending that he has not been shown contraditions.

Very well, then, he could even respond with a "I do not have an explanation for those contradictions, but I do now feel . . . et cetera . . . et cetera. . . ."

Fine.

Climbs up on the large cross he had built . . . mahogany, of course. . . .

Nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone on a board and not having an answer. There are quite a few posters in this section I do not agree with but, frankly, they have done far more research in their respective areas than I have. Either:

1. They are full of shit.
2. I have no clue what they are on about. [Most likely.--Ed.]

Which is fine. A "I-am-not-sure-I-agree-with-that-but-I-do-not-have-the-evidence" or even a "sounds-interesting-but-I-am-not-sure" is perfectly fine.

Seed shakes him off the cross, takes it down, mumbles something about "needing the firewood." As his senses dance, sees a Vision of Uma . . . wonders why she is holding a meat-hook. . . .

--J.D.

Soul Invictus

Are you inferring that Matthew didn't intend to state factual evidence? I don't know if your statement is a defense for the glaring omissions, however he had one of two choices when it comes to deciding whether to state the lineages - state them or not.If he didn't intend to reproduce what was widely known, than there is no reason for them to be stated at all, because according to you, his audience is well aware of this information, so his act accomplishes nothing.

If he did have a reason to state the lineages (that are already known) , run that by me again why he wasn't able to correctly state the lineage as it was recorded?

contracycle

Actually, the flood myth is of exactly that ludicrous type.