Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Spenser · 11-12-2003, 03:07 PM

I read this then noticed the person in question hasn't been here before (at least not in his/her last few hundred posts). I'm offering a challenge and placing this here with the pros since I am not as acquainted with the bible as some:

Quote:

Originally posted by spurly
Nope, I believe they are trustworthy because I have studied them over and over again and I have found that they are trustworthy and their author is trustworthy as well.

Yes, there are some discrepencies that come about because of mistranslations or copyists errors, but these are few and far between and do not negate the trustworthiness of God and his original manuscript.

Perhaps some would like to start with discrepancies? Have at it.

Spenser · 11-12-2003, 03:17 PM

I think Dan Barker's Easter Challange is a good place to start!

Lanakila · 11-12-2003, 03:31 PM

Me too. Then look at the warring passages in the OT specifically Psalm 137:9.

Try that the God of the OT Jews is a different God then the God of the NT. They just don't line up. No matter how hard the Christian tries to make them do so, and justifies evil behavior of this supposed God of the OT, it can't be reconciled with the loving humble and meek Jesus of the NT, except of course for the book of Revelation.

spurly · 11-12-2003, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spenser
I think Dan Barker's Easter Challange is a good place to start!

I have studied this before and the so-called discrepencies are not hard to explain.

Sensei Meela · 11-12-2003, 08:53 PM

Please do elaborate.

Dargo · 11-12-2003, 09:03 PM

Spurly if you are really serious about refuting the Easter Challenge perhaps you might want to arrange a formal debate with one skeptic. I'm sure someone here would be willing to tackle this topic in the Debate Forum.

Vinnie · 11-12-2003, 09:11 PM

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/biblieerrors.html

Six quick errors.

I treated the infancy narrative error and GJohn vs the synoptics in depth. The John article is still being transferred. The infancy narrative one is here:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/infancyerror.html

Vinnie

Sensei Meela · 11-12-2003, 09:43 PM

"Marge, If I may play Devil's Advocate for a moment..."
[pinball noises]

Anyway, while I can see that Mr. Baker's refutations highlight Biblical discrepancies, I don't necessarily think that the exact account of 'the day that their most important doctrine was born' is as important as the doctrine itself. For example, what happened the day that Darwin conceived (or unleashed, perhaps) the theory of evolution? Certainly, that didn't happen in a day, nor are the events of that hypothetical 'day' as central to the ideolog(ies) it spawned. [Neither is the theory truly an equivalent of the doctrine]

To relate this more specifically to the topic at hand, I guess my question is, 'why should Biblical errancy really be so big a deal?' This I pose to the Biblical inerrantist (spurly) and the Biblical interpreter ('moderate' Christians?) or even the Biblical skeptic (like myself).

I suppose my reply would be that it's only a problem for the inerrantist -- all others can appeal to the imperfect abilities of humankind. The 'truth' should exist regardless of our abilities to discern and report it. As such, I am very curious to know how spurly -- and others who've professed as he(?) -- have gone about verifying the (often 'imperfect') Biblical testimony.

spurly · 11-13-2003, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sensei Meela
"Marge, If I may play Devil's Advocate for a moment..."
[pinball noises]

Anyway, while I can see that Mr. Baker's refutations highlight Biblical discrepancies, I don't necessarily think that the exact account of 'the day that their most important doctrine was born' is as important as the doctrine itself. For example, what happened the day that Darwin conceived (or unleashed, perhaps) the theory of evolution? Certainly, that didn't happen in a day, nor are the events of that hypothetical 'day' as central to the ideolog(ies) it spawned. [Neither is the theory truly an equivalent of the doctrine]

To relate this more specifically to the topic at hand, I guess my question is, 'why should Biblical errancy really be so big a deal?' This I pose to the Biblical inerrantist (spurly) and the Biblical interpreter ('moderate' Christians?) or even the Biblical skeptic (like myself).

I suppose my reply would be that it's only a problem for the inerrantist -- all others can appeal to the imperfect abilities of humankind. The 'truth' should exist regardless of our abilities to discern and report it. As such, I am very curious to know how spurly -- and others who've professed as he(?) -- have gone about verifying the (often 'imperfect') Biblical testimony.

Here's where I stand on inerrancy. Do I believe the word of GOd to be inerrant? Yes, but only in the original manuscripts, which unfortunately we do not have. Maybe one day an archeologist will discover one, but right now we don't have any of them.

After the original manuscript, in the copying process, is where some discrepencies have entered the text. These are all rather minor and do not really make a difference in Biblical docrines.

So yes, I believe there may be errors in the translations and in the copied documents. That's why a serious student will do some serious study to get to the heart of the matter.

Jogyo · 11-13-2003, 06:49 AM

But the bible is so grossly in error on prophecy, philosophy, geography, history, biology, ....etc. were all of these translation errors and if so, what practical use does the bible have (now) as the christian doctrine. If the christian attitude is to believe in spite of all the obvious errors why not just write the word believe in a book and use it for doctrine?

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

11-12-2003, 03:17 PM	#2
Spenser Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Don't you wish your boy friend got drunk like me, Posts: 7,808	I think Dan Barker's Easter Challange is a good place to start!

11-12-2003, 03:31 PM	#3
Lanakila Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,858	Me too. Then look at the warring passages in the OT specifically Psalm 137:9. Try that the God of the OT Jews is a different God then the God of the NT. They just don't line up. No matter how hard the Christian tries to make them do so, and justifies evil behavior of this supposed God of the OT, it can't be reconciled with the loving humble and meek Jesus of the NT, except of course for the book of Revelation.

11-12-2003, 08:53 PM	#5
Sensei Meela Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: AZ, u.s.a. Posts: 1,202	Please do elaborate.

11-12-2003, 09:03 PM	#6
Dargo Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 713	Spurly if you are really serious about refuting the Easter Challenge perhaps you might want to arrange a formal debate with one skeptic. I'm sure someone here would be willing to tackle this topic in the Debate Forum.

11-12-2003, 09:11 PM	#7
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/biblieerrors.html Six quick errors. I treated the infancy narrative error and GJohn vs the synoptics in depth. The John article is still being transferred. The infancy narrative one is here: http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/infancyerror.html Vinnie

11-12-2003, 09:43 PM	#8
Sensei Meela Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: AZ, u.s.a. Posts: 1,202	"Marge, If I may play Devil's Advocate for a moment..." [pinball noises] Anyway, while I can see that Mr. Baker's refutations highlight Biblical discrepancies, I don't necessarily think that the exact account of 'the day that their most important doctrine was born' is as important as the doctrine itself. For example, what happened the day that Darwin conceived (or unleashed, perhaps) the theory of evolution? Certainly, that didn't happen in a day, nor are the events of that hypothetical 'day' as central to the ideolog(ies) it spawned. [Neither is the theory truly an equivalent of the doctrine] To relate this more specifically to the topic at hand, I guess my question is, 'why should Biblical errancy really be so big a deal?' This I pose to the Biblical inerrantist (spurly) and the Biblical interpreter ('moderate' Christians?) or even the Biblical skeptic (like myself). I suppose my reply would be that it's only a problem for the inerrantist -- all others can appeal to the imperfect abilities of humankind. The 'truth' should exist regardless of our abilities to discern and report it. As such, I am very curious to know how spurly -- and others who've professed as he(?) -- have gone about verifying the (often 'imperfect') Biblical testimony.

11-13-2003, 06:49 AM	#10
Jogyo Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Monroe, NC Posts: 184	But the bible is so grossly in error on prophecy, philosophy, geography, history, biology, ....etc. were all of these translation errors and if so, what practical use does the bible have (now) as the christian doctrine. If the christian attitude is to believe in spite of all the obvious errors why not just write the word believe in a book and use it for doctrine?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.