TrueMyth

Hello all you athiests, theists, seekers, agnostics, and superintelligent pandimensional hypergalactic beings!

I have encountered in another thread the question of Biblical inerrantism (or infallibility, or literalism) and what this means. Namely, I stated that I was not a Biblical inerrantist (which makes me not a fundy), and a fellow lover of truth pointed out to me that this made him/her wonder why I believed any of the Bible. How do I pick and choose? What is my criterion?

As a side issue to this, I would also like to explore what it means to be an inerrantist. What constitutes an error in the Biblical record? For example, can one be an inerrantist and still adhere to theistic evolution which took more than 7 (or 6, depending on who you ask) literal 24-hour days?

Any takers? :Cheeky:


--The answer is 42

King Rat

At the risk of being pithy, why go for the small stuff?

The utter lack of evidence for ghosts, demons, angels, talking asses, solar motels, flat earths, solid skys, 1000 year old men, giants, global floods, talking snakes, mighty morphin' power rangers, etc.; ought to be a few big red flags.

Toto

Well, what are your criteria? In that other thread, you indicated that the fact that Christians accepted difficult rules about sexual restraint but rejected rules on headcoverings indicated that they must have the Truth. I don't think this is a viable criterion. Most modern Christians also reject the commandment to observe the Sabbath and Keep it Holy, which in modern football loving cultures is probably more difficult that avoiding adultery.

Your move.

TrueMyth

Thank you very much for entering the discussion!

Actually, what I meant (I'm sorry if it came off differently) was not that their strictures being against their natural desires GUARANTEED they had Truth, but that this fact made it MORE PROBABLE that they had Truth. This is more or less identical to the Criterion of Dissimilarity used by the Jesus Seminar. It does not show the removal of ALL bias, but some (perhaps most) of it. I also was making a point solely about those specific prohibitions, not all Christian prohibitions in general.

What are my criteria for determining what might be an error? Oh, boy. Can I get back to you on that one? I need to formulate this more fully and think about it before I reply... (I should have an answer in a day, maybe less)

Sorry I haven't been more helpful-- I promise I will be soon!

Toto

Take your time.

manimal2878

I'd be very interested to hear your criteria for making this Judgment. I belive the diffuculty with this answer is the reason many cling to the idea of inerrancy. Once there is one crack in the truth, you have to question all of it and that is just too scary and difficult for many who base everything in their lives on their religious beliefs, from voting, to tv shows, to music, to choice of friends, to well, everything...

There is a book though called "If grace is true" which delves into their thoughts on universalism. They give their basic ideas on inerrancy basically as: if it is not more compassionate and filled with love and forgiveness than his idea of what a perfect and loving person would be then he rejects it as being an error. He still believes in the resurrection but I guess that passes the love and forgiveness test.

Just some thoughts.

TrueMyth

Hello King Rat! Welcome to my attempt at a thread!

I'm a bit confused by your reply. You have a rather hodge-podge assortment of items here which all require different responses. Some I don't believe are found in the Bible, some are but are nearly impossible to find evidence for even assuming they existed, some are not accessible to sensory input, some I don't believe there is any evidence for b/c they are not meant to be literal events or things, and some I believe there is evidence for. For this reason, I will address what I believe to be the heart of your question:

It seems you believe the Bible is full of events, persons, places, and things, which don't exist and never did, and it also advances theories which have since been disproven. Given these errors, how can the Bible be trusted at all? (Am I right in my formulation?)

Let me make an analogy: science has advanced several theories throughout the ages regarding the nature of the world and the things in it. Some have been outrageous, some have been understandable but wrong, and some have not been proven wrong yet (Science exposes trends, not laws). However, we still have faith in its overall work and goal, do we not?

In everyday life, we trust sources of information based two major criteria: 1)their qualifications on the subject, and 2) their track record of truth overall. This relates to teh Bible in that I do not believe it was ever intended and rarely throughout history has it been used as a astronomy or zoology textbook. This is a creation for the most part of North American white fundamentalist Evangelicals, and that only in the past 100 years at most. Therefore, its qualifications as such are not something I care about. However, it does claim to be qualified to speak on the question of how human beings should live their life, and that is in what sense its truth is to be evaluated. Secondly, its track record of truth overall is trustworthy. Regarding how we are to live our lives, it has the most satisfactory answers (I understand this is a personal decision, influenced by many factors: you asked MY opinion, and I am giving it). If you are concerned by the number of errors the Bible might contain, I point first of all to the number of errors science has made, and second of all point out that now we are in the domain of particular issues, not inerrancy in general. I would be happy to discuss with you any particular issues you might have with the contents of the Bible, but this is not the thread for it.

I hope this helps you understand my position! Thanks again for your thoughts.

manimal2878

But what is the question to this answer...

TrueMyth

Thanks for the tips!

Yes, I know. It can be scary to give up absolute certainty, and no sooner does one do so when the yawning maw of absolute relativism opens wide. However, I refuse to believe that these are the only two alternatives. I seek to forge a middle ground which acknowledges the sufficiency of the Bible for living our lives, but recognizes its cultural and human author limitations.

I'll let you know what success I have in coalescing my beliefs on this topic

King Rat

It is good that you added a qualifier. Because that is pecisely what it was used for. It was the textbook for a lot longer than it wasn't. I'm sure Galileo would have some choice words about the use of the bible as textbook.

This is frightening. I see more wrong with these little things you are proposing than the big ones. As a moral standard, it, well, sucks. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, slavery, incest, genocide, generational curses, I'm not sure we are talking about the same bible.