Freethought & Rationalism Archive

George S · 01-10-2008, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

Because it claims to be inerrant. The Word of God.

The claim is that God moved certain men to write, and these writings were then collected to form the Scriptures, so that the Scriptures are that which God has spoken, through His prophets, to men. Since God does not lie, and has no reason to lie, those Scriptures must be truth and therefore inerrant.

So God is the Muse that inspired only some to prophesy?

There is a theory I saw proposed that the word "prophet" should be read as "poet." Those poets enthralled by the Muse.

The psalms are a good example of good poetry. Even the beginning of Genesis is a responsive reading of poetry:

Priest:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night."

Congregation: And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Priest:

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky."

Congregation: And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Etcetera.

rhutchin · 01-10-2008, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Knowledge can be gained because a person is the source of knowledge (God made all things, so He knows all about what He made) or through experiencing an event.

When Christ referred to "...that day and hour..." He was referring to judgment day and the experience of living through that time. This points to one distinction that Christ displays as a human. While He certainly must know all about judgment day because He is God, He will not know judgment day as a human because he will not be subject to judgment as humans will be. Judgment day is not for Jesus or the angels but for man alone. Thus, Jesus is telling people that they cannot conceive beforehand what it will be like to experience judgment day and that He will never know (or experience) what humans will on that day since He will not have to live that day as a human.

Spin it as you will, but it literally says "my Father only" who is not himself.

Yeshua of Nazareth was an apocalypse preacher. The end is near! Repent!

All of what he said makes more sense when seen in this light. You are about to die, repent and just be nice while the little life you have remains.

He was neither the first nor the last to preach Apocalypse Now.

Regardless, God (Jesus) can know about something because He created it and not because He experienced it. Christ can say that He does not know (because He will not experience) that day even though He can know (because He made) that day.

rhutchin · 01-10-2008, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The claim is that God moved certain men to write, and these writings were then collected to form the Scriptures, so that the Scriptures are that which God has spoken, through His prophets, to men. Since God does not lie, and has no reason to lie, those Scriptures must be truth and therefore inerrant.

So God is the Muse that inspired only some to prophesy?

Is it necessary to inspire all to prophesy in order to transmit your word to people? God had only to tell Adam how He created the universe and Adam could then write it down as well as tell people what God had said. Thus, we can know what Christ said through those who recorded that which Christ said and it is not necessary that God repeat it again.

Dogfish · 01-10-2008, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

The answer to your last question is embedded in the question. People have been quite dogmatic absent literal god-belief. Members of all religions that know they have the truth want to spread it around. They really believe it, strange as that is.

Some feel they are spreading morality, holding that the only way to be moral is by following god-given rules. Muslims are especially certain the rules in the Qu'ran are god-given and are of the opinion that non-believers should be converted ... or killed.

Modern Christian missionaries are by and large well intentioned.

The problem is that literal interpretation of the rules have led to Jihad, Inquisition, suicide bombers, Crusades, aggressive conquest of a god-promised land, assassinations, denial of life-saving medical procedures, and much, much more.

They often do it for themselves to make brownie points with their god.

When they propose god-given rules for people and claim that morality is impossible without them, they project their feelings that they themselves would be immoral without those rules to guide them. Their theory seems to be that since they would be immoral without rules, everyone would.

It is a theory that a god is the father of a family and all humans are children who simply must obey the parent even when the rules don't make sense. This is right and proper for a child, isn't it. A child has no choice but to accept the rules of the parent or parent-surrogate. This theory denies that adults are adults and moral agents who are free to know what is right and wrong by reason and logic (which suffice).

Passion does not indicate correctness. It only indicates arrogant conviction that there is only one way to be right -- my way.

OK. Those are good points. However, passion is not necessarily arrogant conviction. Mormons can certainly be passionate about Mormonism and that which it teaches about family values because they have experienced in it their families. Passion can be a conviction that something is right and good because people have tried it and it worked. Jack LaLanne can be passionate about exercise because he knows, through experience, that it works.

People can also be passionate because they have something to gain. Muslims will blow themselves up because they think that they gain heaven by doing so. Salesman can be passionate because they want to make money.

Christians seem to be passionate for no real reason. They have nothing to gain and voluntarily forgo many of the world's "pleasures" for no apparent gain. The apostles faced ridicule and abuse and death to tell others about Jesus. Why?

Because they arrogantly feel they have the "inside scoop" and selfishly believe they will be repaid with eternal bliss?

rhutchin · 01-10-2008, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

Another, just for grins:

JESUS' GENEALOGIES--One of the most discussed contradictions in freethought literature is the clash between the genealogies of Jesus found in Matt. 1 and Luke 3. One need only read the text to see that Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus from Jesus back to Adam and God while Matthew begins with Abraham and tracks it to Jesus. Luke lists 77 generations while Matthew has only 44. In order to see the problem in proper perspective one should create a chart listing the names in correct sequence in parallel columns. If horizontal lines are drawn to connect the same names, one can easily see that the lists are almost identical from Abraham to David. However, from David onward there is no similarity despite the fact that they both conclude with Joseph as the father of Jesus. The major reason for the contradictory names given after David is that the account in Luke traces the genealogy through David's son, Nathan, while that in Matthew traces it through another son, Solomon. This would easily account for the wide divergence in names following David but raises a couple of crucial questions: (a) How could Joseph and Jesus be descended from two different sons of David. How could two sons of David father two completely different genealogies which merge together with the last two individuals and (b) How could Jesus have contradictory genealogies?

Thousands more at http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/

The Greek text does not prevent the one genealogy (Matthew) being that of the father, Joseph, and the other (Luke) being that of the mother, Mary.

George S · 01-10-2008, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

Because it claims to be inerrant. The Word of God.

The claim is that God moved certain men to write, and these writings were then collected to form the Scriptures, so that the Scriptures are that which God has spoken, through His prophets, to men. Since God does not lie, and has no reason to lie, those Scriptures must be truth and therefore inerrant.

You assert that "God does not lie."

Joshua 7:1 says, "The people of Israel broke faith in regard to the devoted things; for Achan...took some of the devoted things; and the anger of the Lord burned against the people of Israel" and God responds by saying in the 11th verse, "Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant...." Yet, God did not tell the truth. Only Achan sinned, not all Israel, and Achan admits as much in the 20th verse by saying, "Indeed I have sinned against the Lord God of Israel...."

And...

"He [David] shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever" (2 Sam. 7:13) and to David God says, "thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever: thy throne shall be established for ever" (2 Sam. 7:16). God's prophecy failed. He didn't tell the truth. The Davidic line ended with Zedekiah and there was no Davidic king for 450 years when the Maccabeans established a dynasty, the first king being Aristobulus. Since the end of the Maccabean dynasty there has never been a king of the Jews. Second Kings 24:14 proves as much by saying, "He carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths. None remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land."

And...

If viewed together the following verses also show God engaged in prevarication. "...of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eat thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:17), "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die" (Gen. 3:3), "the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die" (Gen. 3:4), and "all the days that Adam lived were 930 years and he died" (Gen. 5:5). God said Adam and Eve would die on the day they ate of the tree and the devil said they would not. They ate of it and Adam lived to be 930 years old. In other words, God lied and the devil told the truth. Yet, according to Titus 1:2 "God never lies."

And finally...

In Gen. 3:14 God said to the serpent, "...upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life...." Serpents do not now and never have eaten dust. If the serpent represents the Devil, he does not eat dust either; so, in either case God did not tell the truth.

And, of course, Jesus prevaricates as well:

John 7:8-10 "You go to the Feast. I am not yet going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come." Having said this, he stayed in Galilee. However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.

Jesus is accused here of lying to his brothers. (Most recognize "yet" as a later addition here.)

George S · 01-10-2008, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

Another, just for grins:

JESUS' GENEALOGIES--One of the most discussed contradictions in freethought literature is the clash between the genealogies of Jesus found in Matt. 1 and Luke 3. One need only read the text to see that Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus from Jesus back to Adam and God while Matthew begins with Abraham and tracks it to Jesus. Luke lists 77 generations while Matthew has only 44. In order to see the problem in proper perspective one should create a chart listing the names in correct sequence in parallel columns. If horizontal lines are drawn to connect the same names, one can easily see that the lists are almost identical from Abraham to David. However, from David onward there is no similarity despite the fact that they both conclude with Joseph as the father of Jesus. The major reason for the contradictory names given after David is that the account in Luke traces the genealogy through David's son, Nathan, while that in Matthew traces it through another son, Solomon. This would easily account for the wide divergence in names following David but raises a couple of crucial questions: (a) How could Joseph and Jesus be descended from two different sons of David. How could two sons of David father two completely different genealogies which merge together with the last two individuals and (b) How could Jesus have contradictory genealogies?

Thousands more at http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/

The Greek text does not prevent the one genealogy (Matthew) being that of the father, Joseph, and the other (Luke) being that of the mother, Mary.

If he is a descendent of Joseph, that denies the virgin birth. You cannot have it both ways.

And the genealogies are simply different. How can the same person have two contradictory sets of ancestors?

rhutchin · 01-10-2008, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

Christians don't have to believe the Bible is inerrant, since it obviously contains errors and contradictions. The overall message, found believable, is what Christians have to base their faith on.

Why does the Bible have to be inerrant from cover to cover for you to believe the Christian message of the NT?

Christians have every right to believe that the Bible is inerrant as the alleged errors and contradictions are few.

The overall message of the Bible is straightforward but many hope that it is not true. Such people rail at the Bible claiming all sorts of errors in hopes that their railing can somehow nullify the message of the cross and their eventual destruction if they ignore that message.

George S · 01-10-2008, 04:52 AM

The alteration of John 7:8-10 by some translators is one of the classic cases of apologetic expediency in action. The problem is quite simple. Jesus said he was not going to a feast but he later went secretly. In other words, he lied. In order to elude this dilemma many apologists have concluded that the most viable approach is to rewrite the script. When Jesus says in verse 8, "Go to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast" some have chosen to insert the word "yet" into the text. It would then say, "I am not going up yet to this feast" which clearly implies he would be going later and, in fact, that's what happened.

There are textual conflicts between the various versions on the market. Versions such as the RSV, the JB, the ASV, the NEB, the NAB, the TEV, and the NASB are candid enough to admit the word "yet" has no business in the script; they don't have it. While those who created the the KJ, the ML, the NIV, the NWT and the LV opted for expediency.

rhutchin · 01-10-2008, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

...how can a person be a Christian and not be an inerrantist?

Good question. If a person believes that God inspired men (moved them by His spirit as Peter tells us) to write the scriptures, then what passage would a Christian point to and say, God lied here, or God never inspired this person to say this, and what would they offer as proof (or what argument would they advance to show) that God had not inspired the passage?

01-10-2008, 04:52 AM	#169
George S Contributor Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Austin Posts: 16,498	More about that "yet" The alteration of John 7:8-10 by some translators is one of the classic cases of apologetic expediency in action. The problem is quite simple. Jesus said he was not going to a feast but he later went secretly. In other words, he lied. In order to elude this dilemma many apologists have concluded that the most viable approach is to rewrite the script. When Jesus says in verse 8, "Go to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast" some have chosen to insert the word "yet" into the text. It would then say, "I am not going up yet to this feast" which clearly implies he would be going later and, in fact, that's what happened. There are textual conflicts between the various versions on the market. Versions such as the RSV, the JB, the ASV, the NEB, the NAB, the TEV, and the NASB are candid enough to admit the word "yet" has no business in the script; they don't have it. While those who created the the KJ, the ML, the NIV, the NWT and the LV opted for expediency.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.