Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 12-22-2007, 08:34 PM

It is my observation that fundamentalist and the non-literalist are all seeking to make a claim that the Bible is inerrant. The only difference is their approach to make the claim.
If we take the Genesis account of Creation, the fundamentalist will say that creation occurred just as stated because the Bible is without error, however, the non-literalist will claim that the creation story should not be taken literally, but when the story is interpreted correctly, it is free of error.

The non-literalist it would seem always try to come up with an alternative interpretation of any difficult passage that appear implausible or contrary to science to show, in effect, that the Bible is not contradictory or inconsistent, but is indeed true.

So, do you agree that both fundamentalist and non-literalist believe the Bible is free of error?

GakuseiDon · 12-22-2007, 09:46 PM

In fact, I address this point in the debate I had with TySixtus recently on Liberal Christianity. I wrote:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=222543

Quote:

Wiki gives what I think is an excellent concise explanation of modern LC (italics in the original):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity

"The theology of liberal Christianity was prominent in the biblical criticism of the 19th and 20th centuries. The style of scriptural hermeneutics within liberal theology is often characterized as non-propositional. This means that the Bible is not considered an inventory of factual statements but instead documents the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing—within an historic/cultural context. Thus, liberal Christian theologians do not discover truth propositions but rather create religious models and concepts that reflect the class, gender, social, and political contexts from which they emerge. Liberal Christianity looks upon the Bible as a collection of narratives that explain, epitomize, or symbolize the essence and significance of Christian understanding."

I'd like to highlight one sentence from above: "This means that the Bible is not considered an inventory of factual statements but instead documents the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing—within an historic/cultural context." I doubt that anyone -- secular or LCer -- would disagree that this is a sensible way of viewing the Bible. Yet TySixtus reproduces some common misconceptions about how LC approach the Bible, as I will demonstrate...

LCers AREN'T trying to "save" the Biblical accounts by making them immune to rational criticism. Almost the opposite, in fact. LCers USE rational criticism to view the Biblical accounts within their historic/cultural context. For example, if the evidence shows that the writers of Genesis took the 6 day creation myth literally, then so be it. LCers can accept it as part of the cultural context in which the authors wrote. OTOH, if the writers took the myth metaphorically, then again, so be it. As per the Wiki article, the LCer doesn't NEED to save the "truth propositions" in the Biblical account. So, who does? In fact, it is the FCer. Trying to reconcile the Bible against modern science is a concern for the Fundamentalist.

Some atheists become upset when Christians don't try to "save" the Bible. I call such atheists "fundy atheists", since their focus is that the Bible has to held as "true" in some sense, even if metaphorically true. But the LCer does not have this concern.

aa5874 · 12-23-2007, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

In fact, I address this point in the debate I had with TySixtus recently on Liberal Christianity. I wrote:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=222543

Quote:

Wiki gives what I think is an excellent concise explanation of modern LC (italics in the original):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity

"The theology of liberal Christianity was prominent in the biblical criticism of the 19th and 20th centuries. The style of scriptural hermeneutics within liberal theology is often characterized as non-propositional. This means that the Bible is not considered an inventory of factual statements but instead documents the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing—within an historic/cultural context. Thus, liberal Christian theologians do not discover truth propositions but rather create religious models and concepts that reflect the class, gender, social, and political contexts from which they emerge. Liberal Christianity looks upon the Bible as a collection of narratives that explain, epitomize, or symbolize the essence and significance of Christian understanding."

I'd like to highlight one sentence from above: "This means that the Bible is not considered an inventory of factual statements but instead documents the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing—within an historic/cultural context." I doubt that anyone -- secular or LCer -- would disagree that this is a sensible way of viewing the Bible. Yet TySixtus reproduces some common misconceptions about how LC approach the Bible, as I will demonstrate...

LCers AREN'T trying to "save" the Biblical accounts by making them immune to rational criticism. Almost the opposite, in fact. LCers USE rational criticism to view the Biblical accounts within their historic/cultural context. For example, if the evidence shows that the writers of Genesis took the 6 day creation myth literally, then so be it. LCers can accept it as part of the cultural context in which the authors wrote. OTOH, if the writers took the myth metaphorically, then again, so be it. As per the Wiki article, the LCer doesn't NEED to save the "truth propositions" in the Biblical account. So, who does? In fact, it is the FCer. Trying to reconcile the Bible against modern science is a concern for the Fundamentalist.

Some atheists become upset when Christians don't try to "save" the Bible. I call such atheists "fundy atheists", since their focus is that the Bible has to held as "true" in some sense, even if metaphorically true. But the LCer does not have this concern.

So, based on your post, you are not really interested in whether the belief about God was actually erroneous at the time of writing, or that you may be wrong about the author's belief, that is, the author may have known that his writing at the time was really fiction, you just want to "save the Bible".

The fundamentalists believe God can do everything that is claimed in the Bible, you believe, it would appear, that it doesn't matter if God cannot or does not do anything, provided, it is believed that God can.

But how can you truly show that any event written about in the Bible was actually believed by the author to be true at the time of writing, when some of the events recorded in the Bible are virtually impossible?

Ray Moscow · 12-23-2007, 10:06 AM

Quote:

So, do you agree that both fundamentalist and non-literalist believe the Bible is free of error?

No, not really. Some churches openly admit that the Bible contains errors. For example, I have one book (buried away somewhere) by a Catholic theologian that discusses some of the Bible's historical, factual, and moral errors.

However, most Christian doctrines seem to come from a time when the assumption was that the Bible did not contain error.

GakuseiDon · 12-23-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

In fact, I address this point in the debate I had with TySixtus recently on Liberal Christianity. I wrote:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=222543

So, based on your post, you are not really interested in whether the belief about God was actually erroneous at the time of writing, or that you may be wrong about the author's belief, that is, the author may have known that his writing at the time was really fiction, you just want to "save the Bible".

I can't understand this, I'm afraid. If you want to put words in my mouth, they'll need to be clearer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The fundamentalists believe God can do everything that is claimed in the Bible, you believe, it would appear, that it doesn't matter if God cannot or does not do anything, provided, it is believed that God can.

This doesn't help, I'm afraid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But how can you truly show that any event written about in the Bible was actually believed by the author to be true at the time of writing, when some of the events recorded in the Bible are virtually impossible?

You can't truly show anything. That's why it's best to study it with as much knowledge as possible, which allows you to make the best guesses possible with regards to the authors' intentions.

mountainman · 12-23-2007, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

However, most Christian doctrines seem to come from a time when the assumption was that the Bible did not contain error.

Momigliano makes a similar comment,
regarding the history of belief and the
history of "different versions" (ie: error)
of the Bible...

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM

"p.20
"What Josephus seems to have missed
is that the Greeks had criteria by which
to judge the relative merits of verious
versions (of public records and documents)
which the Jewish historians had not.

The very existence of different versions
of the same event is something which,
as far as I can remember, is not noted
as such by the biblical historians.

The distinction between various versions
in the Bible is a modern application of Greek
methods to biblical studies. In Hebrew
historiography the collective memory about
past events could never be verified according
to objective criteria.

If priests forged records - and priests are
noriously inclined to pious frauds in all centuries -
the Hebrew historian did not possess the
critical instrument to discover the forgery.

In so far as modern historiography is a critical
one, it is a Greek, not a Jewish product."

The Classical Foundations
of Modern Historiography
-- Arnaldo Momigliano

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Johnny Skeptic · 12-23-2007, 08:55 PM

More importantly, are either fundamentalists' or non-literalists' beliefs about God true, or Hindus' or deists' beliefs about God for that matter?

Toto · 12-23-2007, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

More importantly, are either fundamentalists' or non-literalists' beliefs about God true, or Hindus' or deists' beliefs about God for that matter?

When you get to questions about God, it is virtually impossible to prove or disprove any particular belief, especially when the concept of "God" can be redefined at will, or placed beyond the very concept of existence. That's why we don't discuss such things in this forum.

aa5874 · 12-23-2007, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Some atheists become upset when Christians don't try to "save" the Bible. I call such atheists "fundy atheists", since their focus is that the Bible has to held as "true" in some sense, even if metaphorically true. But the LCer does not have this concern.

Well, let's take the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, as stated in the NT, the FCer would claim that these events really occurred as written. Would the LCer claim it doesn't matter if these things never happened and have no concern for their truthfulness?

Chris Johnston · 12-26-2007, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, let's take the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, as stated in the NT, the FCer would claim that these events really occurred as written. Would the LCer claim it doesn't matter if these things never happened and have no concern for their truthfulness?

The liberal Xian would say that the historicity is not as important as the power of the myth ("myth" used in its technical sense). In other words, to quote a great newsman of this century, its "truthiness."

12-22-2007, 08:34 PM	#1
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	inerrancy and non-literalism It is my observation that fundamentalist and the non-literalist are all seeking to make a claim that the Bible is inerrant. The only difference is their approach to make the claim. If we take the Genesis account of Creation, the fundamentalist will say that creation occurred just as stated because the Bible is without error, however, the non-literalist will claim that the creation story should not be taken literally, but when the story is interpreted correctly, it is free of error. The non-literalist it would seem always try to come up with an alternative interpretation of any difficult passage that appear implausible or contrary to science to show, in effect, that the Bible is not contradictory or inconsistent, but is indeed true. So, do you agree that both fundamentalist and non-literalist believe the Bible is free of error?

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

12-23-2007, 08:55 PM	#7
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	More importantly, are either fundamentalists' or non-literalists' beliefs about God true, or Hindus' or deists' beliefs about God for that matter?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.