Freethought & Rationalism Archive

matthewthomas · 09-19-2007, 04:41 AM

Robert Price argues some points on this theme:
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_inspir.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Price

I want to suggest that, first, the claim that the Bible is divinely inspired is spurious; second, that it is pernicious; and, third, that it is moot. The Bible and our study of it will be better off without that claim.
...

Finally, claims about biblical inspiration are moot. Even if we had reason to believe the whole canon was equally inspired, this should not make any real difference to our understanding of the text. Would an inspired book necessarily be historically and scientifically inerrant? There is no particular reason to think so. One could not be sure, as fundamentalists would like to think, that an inspired book would not contain inspired myths and legends, even fiction. There are other non-factual genres in the Bible, after all, like the Psalms. Who is the theologian to tell God that he cannot have included certain genres in his book? If we know God’s literary tastes in such detail, then I suggest the Bible is altogether superfluous. We already know the very mind of God before we even open the Bible! Aren't we clever?

Best wishes,
Matthew

Antipope Innocent II · 09-19-2007, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forty2oz

If the explanation of the universe really lies in a book, certainly said book would claim to be the explanation - without the claim (or an author for that matter) why not dismiss it as fiction?

Do you understand that the Bible isn't a book, it's a collection of different types of texts from various periods? It's a shelf of different books one that just happens to have been usually published in single volume form in the last 500 years.

So how would any of the books of the collection of texts we call "the Bible" have a statement about "the Bible" in it when that collection didn't come into existence until centuries after even the latest text in it was written? "The Bible" didn't exist when the texts that make it up were written.

forty2oz · 09-19-2007, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

Quote:

Originally Posted by forty2oz

If the explanation of the universe really lies in a book, certainly said book would claim to be the explanation - without the claim (or an author for that matter) why not dismiss it as fiction?

Do you understand that the Bible isn't a book, it's a collection of different types of texts from various periods? It's a shelf of different books one that just happens to have been usually published in single volume form in the last 500 years.

So how would any of the books of the collection of texts we call "the Bible" have a statement about "the Bible" in it when that collection didn't come into existence until centuries after even the latest text in it was written? "The Bible" didn't exist when the texts that make it up were written.

My bad. What I meant to ask was...if the explanation of the universe really lies in a whole bunch of books, certainly one of those books would claim to be the explanation - without the claim (or an author for that matter) why not dismiss it as fiction?

driver8 · 09-19-2007, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forty2oz

My bad. What I meant to ask was...if the explanation of the universe really lies in a whole bunch of books, certainly one of those books would claim to be the explanation - without the claim (or an author for that matter) why not dismiss it as fiction?

That presents another problem with the bible. Other than the ridiculous genesis account and the equally ridiculous saviour jesus account, what in the bible has anything to do with an "explanation of the universe?" If the bible did make an attempt at explaining this, we should have harmony between faith and science, or at least logic, which obviously is not the case. I do dismiss it as fiction, in part. It is also a record of a religious and cultural power play, among other things. It is in no way an "explanation of the universe." That above all is what it is not.

Ray Moscow · 09-19-2007, 07:48 AM

Quote:

driver8: It is in no way an "explanation of the universe." That above all is what it is not.

Genesis 1 is an attempted explanation of the universe, though. It just didn't hold up once the evidence started to come in.

Clouseau · 09-19-2007, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

Quote:

driver8: It is in no way an "explanation of the universe." That above all is what it is not.

Quote:

Genesis 1 is an attempted explanation of the universe, though.

So now we know why snakes are such good conversationalists.

Ray Moscow · 09-19-2007, 08:21 AM

As I think JM Roberts put it, the Genesis account "satisfied educated Europeans for a thousand years".

But fortunately science came back.

Clouseau · 09-19-2007, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

As I think JM Roberts put it, the Genesis account "satisfied educated Europeans for a thousand years".

Few Europeans ever read it. But those who did had a lively interest in sabbatarianism. Of course they were satisfied!

And don't bother reading JM Roberts, btw. It's very bad for the health.

Julian · 09-19-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

To be fair, I wasn't saying that nowhere in the Bible does any author assert that what they are writing is fact. That would be a bizarre thing for them to assert.

After all, if I wish to say that my name is Dean Anderson, I simply say that my name is Dean Anderson rather than asserting that it is a fact that my name is Dean Anderson.

Well, it seems to me that someone who goes out of their way to assure you that they are, indeed, telling you the facts is going to be instantly suspected of not actually telling you the facts. Hence my instantly heightened level of suspicion from the first paragraph of Luke. He seems to do exactly what you just described as 'a bizarre thing.' I agree with your classification, certainly, and it makes Luke look quite bizarre, indeed.

Julian

John Kesler · 09-26-2007, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

A verse from psuedo Paul:

2 Timothy 3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Even this cannot apply to the whole Bible, since part of it was not written yet...

Not only that, but this passage never states what is considered "scripture" among the texts that had been written. Also notice that just 8 verses earlier, the author makes reference to an extrabiblical tradition, which may indicate that "Paul" considered "scriptural" texts not in the current canon:

Quote:

6 For among them are those who make their way into households and captivate silly women, overwhelmed by their sins and swayed by all kinds of desires, 7 who are always being instructed and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. 8 As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these people, of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith, also oppose the truth.

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

09-19-2007, 08:21 AM	#17
Ray Moscow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 1,255	As I think JM Roberts put it, the Genesis account "satisfied educated Europeans for a thousand years". But fortunately science came back.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.