Magus55

No there really isn't. Lets assume the original Bible was infallible, the humans that copied and translated that original over the years could put in errors in their translations; that doesn't change the infallibility of the original.

jbernier

The infallibility of the "original" is precisely irrelevant because we do not have the "original." First, there is the fact that for the vast majority of the Biblical texts there was never an "original" as they all went through an extended period of redaction and editing; thus the very notion of an "original" is highly problematic. Beyond the fact that no such "original" ever existed for most of the Biblical texts it can said with certainly that we do not have a copy of the "original" of those few books that probably did have some sort of "original" (i.e. some of the epistles, perhaps Revelation, a few others). Theology must not make historical or historiographic claims that history or historiography cannot substantiate or, even worse, which history and historiography flatly contradict.

Gregg

And in any event, why couldn't God in his infinite wisdom and power preserve the "originals?"

jbernier

This is "If I was a horse" thinking: "If I was a horse I would do X in situation Y." It contains an inherent problem, though: It assumes that a horse gives a darn about the things that would normally concern you or I.

Likewise, the above statement assumes that God would give a darn about preserving the "originals" (if they indeed ever existed as some sort of identifiable documents), which in turn is predicated upon a questionable theology of Biblical inerrancy. I would argue that Biblical inerrancy is not necessary to Christian theology and thus neither are the "originals." Therefore I do not need to concede that this is something God would give a darn about. Therefore it presents precisely no problem in my way of thinking.

Sven

Well, at least most Christians claim he is. If you don't agree, discuss this with them.

Nice "hypothesis". Do you also think that god is not omnipotent (as most Christians argue)? If he were omnipotent, there certainly was an easier way to prepare humans for afterlife with much less suffering.

If only this were right... lots of people get depressed because of suffering, just as one example.

How about a more direct way without so much suffering? Your god reminds me more of an incompetent and/or malevolent human than of a supernatural entity.

Indeed? Then why doesn't he appear to hug me or at least shake hands with me?

Or with their own wishful thinking. Many years ago, I prayed regularly - I never got something even remotely resembling a personal relationship.

Care to do a double-blind study on this? There's someone with a million dollars out there for you.

Do you reject or deny Santa Claus?

jbernier

This works all fine and well until one reaches the Shoah. Was Auschwitz just "some trials and tribulations" in a few people's lives?

Seven million European Jews were "having their character shaped" as they were being executed simply for being Jewish?

How very Nietzschean of you.

I have no problem accepting that suffering can lead one to develop greater character (although this is not necessarily a given; as Sven noted sometimes people who suffer become nasty, mean, people. For instance, just watched Monster: Wournos suffered and she become a serial killer. Ain't a hard and fast rule here). I know that in my own case I grew the most through the lowest points in my life. However, I will blunt: What I went through is nothing compared to the Shoah. In the face of Auschwitz I cannot make glib statements about suffering.

blt to go

Ahh, converted. What a GREAT answer! This could go in so many directions (all of them wrong) that I hardly know where to start.

Asha'man is right, this is one where the aplogetic is worse than the bible itself.

So, let's begin.....

Please explain where the application of James 5 "ignores" the general theme/message of the Bible. (Look, Ma, I now have Christians looking for contradictions for me! )

Please explain what the general "theme/message" of the Bible is. (I had thought the general message was soli deo gloria [the glory to God] or that man ought to trust in God, not themselves.)

Biff the Unclean brings up a good point that another general theme/message was that Jesus hated disease as much as he hated sin. Note that an entire denomination (Christian Science) developed from just this idea. How does James 5 NOT fit into this theme/message.

Is James 5 still authoritative?

If Not, what else is not authoritative? All of James? All of the writings of Jesus' brothers? Where do you stop?

If still authoritative, can you go to a doctor if you are sick?

If Not, then you have proven my point.
If Yes, do you go to the doctor before or after the prayers of faith. (No win situation for you. Either answer goes bad on you.)

Good luck!

blt to go

As always, your apologetics make sense, are applicable and practical. Makes it hard to argue against without looking like a fool!

However, I have two questions for one.

The First is simple - do you believe the canon closed in the 1st or 2nd Century? Or is the "word of god" still developing? I am looking to see if god, speaking to man through written word has stopped, and if so when? If not, what should be included in the canon now? Or is there no definitive canon?

The second is becoming the $64,000 question with you, jbernier. You make a good point as quoted above. But do we need christianity for that? I would think christians and non-christians alike would hold to this sentiment.

You make the points of a skeptic, yet at the bottom line you state you believe in christianity? Why? is it blind faith?

winstonjen

What about ignoring god (if he exists)? Is that OK by him?

jbernier

I appreciate you saying so.

I would opt more or less for the final given answer. I would argue that we, whether we like it or not, we are stuck with the canon we got in the sense that it is this (or, I should say, these) canon(s) that have shaped the faith and had such a formative impact upon the world. Yeah, I have a deep interest in (say) 1st Enoch and a deep respect for (say) Karl Barth; however, they have not had the formative impact of the canon. These are the books with which Christians must come to terms in our theology; we cannot get away from these books (even if sometimes we might want to.

Fair question. First, I must say that I do not see myself making the points of a skeptic; rather, I see myself saying the points that I feel are justified by everything we know from Biblical scholarship, church history, etc. In short I see no theological value in saying something about the Biblical text or the history of the faith if that statement is untrue. Or, to be more precise, I think that theologians have a responsibility to not base their arguments upon data that there is strong reason to believe incorrect. That, to me, is no different than situations in which a research scientist falsifies lab reports or fudges his/her numbers.

That clarification in mind I have absolutely intention to resort to ontological arguments, cosmological arguments, etc. (the only such argument that might hold weight is maybe the one which points out that there ultimately must be an Uncaused First Cause and that God is a reasonable hypothesis for what that Uncaused First Cause would be; however, I think that such an argument is far from unproblematic and, quite simply, I do not have the background in physics to back up such a claim). I think that the best answer is not one I would give as a "proof" for the existence of God or the validity of the Christian message. I would say that I affirm believe in Christ and the God revealed in Christ for essentially the same reason as St. Paul. Now, do not get me wrong: I did not hear a voice on the road to Damascus. But I do have a steadfast conviction that this Christ, as preached by Paul and the other New Testament writers, is the most solid foundation for an ethical life that I have yet encountered. This is not a "rational" conviction in the sense that I am saying that the ethics found in life with Christ are rationally or intellectually superior to all others; it is really an existential conviction, one that I feel at the very root of my being. If you are looking for a rational, logical, argument for why one should accept Christianity over anything else you will not find it here; I can only witness to my own existential experiences with Christ.