Chris Weimer

Hrm, 42, the same sacred number used to represent God striking down those who mock or curse him? How many children again were killed by the bear?

Vinnie

"""""""""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?
""""""

On one level, sure but you must think God inspired Genesis to be an allegory or story teaching theological truths. Its kind of like a parable or allegory teaching theological truths. But of course ANYTHING can become non-literal in the Bible now. Its a slippery slope once you get on it.

Of course it falls apart when Jesus is seen referencing Adam and Eve (in the beginning God made them male and female) when arguing over interpretation of the law on divorce, Paul says in Adam all died (apparently Adam is a real historical person which is NOT consistent with theistic evolution) and in Christ all live. Abraham is called a man of faith, Moses is assumed historical abnd so is Noah and company throughout the NT in various spots.

So I don't think you can be an inerrancy advocate and accept theistic evolution. The "creation story is mere allegory" is simply ad hoc manuevering. Force-fitting of data when better interpretations are available. Namely that virtually every world culture has concocted a scientifically dubious creation story. Why is this one different or special?

Vinnie

""""""""""""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?"""""""""""""

Several criteria are used by qualitative inspiration advocates:

Jesus = God incarnate. If Jesus said it we can place extreme measures of confidence on it as we are in no poisition to become questioning our Lord and Savior on doctrinal issues.

Plurality = Any recurring themes in the bible must be accurate. A single passage on something is not that strong but anything occurring over and over should be treated as God's message to us.

That is about it as far as criteria for accuracy.

Criteria for error?

Violates modern science or known history or is contradictory or is inchoherent, looks archaic and primitve, is no longer meaningful, appears morally questionable (e.g. killing modern wiccans), etc.

But basically you will end up "picking and choosing" like everyone else. QI is grasping at straws. Its trying to intellectually keep what you should be dropping. Its a long and slow process.

You might as well just grant natural inspiration and say the Bible authors were inspired by God to write down stuff just as an artist is inspired by a mountain to paint it. This is granted the obvious fact that the Bible was penned by various humans and has all the earmarks of being a human written mosaic.

Vinnie

manimal2878

or maybe you need to read Douglas Adams.

...but that could be the reason he chose that number.

Chris Weimer

Most likely that is the reason, since the Bible is chock-full of 42s when God smites those who mock and curse him. I don't have the verses on hand, but there's at least two in the Apocalypse of John.

TrueMyth

42 months = 3.5 years = 1/2 of 7 years, which is a sacred number in numerous ancient cultures. It is referred to specifically regarding the Tribulation.

Actually, 40 is much more sacred. Days of the Flood, years the Israelites wandered in the wilderness, numerous dimensions in teh Tabernacle, etc.

TrueMyth

Thanks for the reply!

I would challenge both of your assertions. The Bible has very very rarely ever been used as a textbook in any sense we would recognize. It has been believed to contain truth, and scientific truth has been contained in this belief, but I have yet to find an instance wherein a group of Medieval (or any other time) students have sat around in a class room and opened their King James Version and tried to plot the movements of the stars from Psalms. Perhaps I'm wrong. Like I said, I have yet to find it.

As far as the Bible being a moral standard, I charge you that the Bible does not advocate slavery, incest, genocide, cursing anyone, or witch killing IN OUR TIME (important), despite how it has been used as a hammer in those situations. It does advocate for freedom of expression, basic human rights, intelligent thought, and the search for truth. This is definitely off topic, so I refer you a book I found very illuminating:

Christianity on Trial: Arguments Against Anti-Religious Bigotry, by Vincent Carroll and David Shiftlett

In general, I would caution you not to see Pope Pius XII at the expense of Mother Teresa, and miss the Evangelical push to abolish slavery because you're looking too closely at the Crusades. Religion has been used as a horrible club throughout history, yes. But it also has worked great and incalculable good. The same could be said for government and patriotism.

King Rat

I have no interest in a discussion with these arbitrary parameters. I'll leave it to the regular denizens of The Bible Funhouse.

Vinnie

""""""""As far as the Bible being a moral standard, I charge you that the Bible does not advocate slavery, incest, genocide, cursing anyone, or witch killing IN OUR TIME (important), """""""""

Some guy named Jesus whom your religion is ONLY founded off of claims --according to an anonymous gospel text written 60 years after the fact now bearing the title Matthew-- that he did not come to abolish the law. That every tiny dot of it is binding till ALL is fulfilled. Not to mention Jesus continually appealed to the OT. You can't just read the gospel of John and build your religion off of that. You actually have to read and study all the extant literature before making such claims.

The Bible says "suffer not a witch to live". All those "good" Christians got it right. They believed people were witches, they believed them to be evil and in league with the devil. They would cast spells, kill their children and do all sorts of bad things to their neighbors. You are supposed to kill such people right? I mean if a demon appeared out of the ground and started eating or hurting people we would slay it right?

The Bible, has countless versus supporting slavery. The Bible does not EVER ABOLISH SLAVERY. It regulates it. The closest it comes is that egalitarian saying from Paul but this same icon of morality is later telling slaves to obey your masters. If they were no longer really slaves he woul have said "walk off your plantation and start a new life". See, Paul made three distinctions: male/female, Jew/Gentile, Slave/Free. But as anyone who has read Crossan knows, Paul was inconsistent with his application of these. He took the Jew//Gentile thing to supreme court. He opposed Peter to his face over Jews eating with Gentiles and so on. But as for women, well they are told to be silent, to always obey their husbands. He can claim "spiritually" they are equal but in reality this distinction never filtered through in his writings. Furthermore, he could claim "slaves are free in Christ" but their "shackles" showed how "theoretical" this statement was. Paul never told slaves to just leave their masters, or to move on.

He made three distinctions but appears to have only taken one of them to the streets and actually endorsed the other two social practices (ala active participant).

Furthermore you mention "incest" like it some horrible crime. We have an evolutionary aversion to it because its not healthy for our offspring. Morality has little to do with it. The religious decided to codify this into a rule.

Not to mention your COMPLTELY arbitrary "in our time". Progressive revelation? Its obvious you have no concerns at actually understanding the meaning of these historical texts in the context they were written in. If you did you would employ the historical critical method rather than the eisegetically backreading of contemporary ideology (your own moral views and outlooks) onto the word of God. The word of God is supposed to stand as conscience and corrector for a Chritian like you but how can it when you have made it the word of TrueMyth. When you are free to change, ignore, reinterpret or say anything at any time is no longer binding or applicable why use the Bible? Just get a highlighter. Go through it and everything you agree with highlight. Then take all the highlighted passages and get a type writer and print them. Then you can assume the position of cult leader and/or God and have your own Bible.

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

Vinnie: Why not? Does a religious person have to follow the church's canon?

best wishes,
Peter Kirby