Johnny Skeptic

The words "the Bible" are misleading. No one know what writings originally comprised the Bible, whether or not God had anything to do with which writings originally comprised the Bible, how frequently the writers spoke for God and not for themselves, and how frequently the Bible may have been changed. There were disputes over the formation of the New Testament Canon. Who knows how many disputes there might have been over the formation of the Old Testament. Inerrantists like rhutchin have created a nice orderly God who appeals to their emotions. If you ask rhutchin why the Bible is true, he will tell you because it says that it is true. Ain't that cute?

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../4evide92.html

Farrell Till

I commend Mr. Miller for an excellent definition of the Bible inerrancy doctrine and perhaps an even better explanation of the importance of the doctrine to Christianity. Maybe it is a carry-over from my own fundamentalist background, but I have a much deeper admiration for Christians who believe in a divinely inspired inerrant Bible than those who believe in a divinely inspired errant Bible. To the latter, I can only repeat what Mr. Miller said in the foregoing article: "If the Holy Spirit is responsible for what the biblical writers wrote, and if the Bible contains errors in historical details, then the Holy Spirit is the author of error" (p. 2). As Mr. Miller effectively argued, for the Bible to be authoritative, it must be inerrant; otherwise, man is left with an impractical moral guide, for what good is a moral guide that is blemished with errors? If the Bible says X, and one can establish that X is an untruth, then how can he trust anything else it says?

Miller listed three categories of "alleged"errors in the Bible and declared that the Bible has "weathered" all attempts by skeptics to prove that these are actual errors. "(T)he Bible has consistently been vindicated," he boldly asserted, "and demonstrated to possess the unequaled characteristic of internal harmony, accuracy, and consistency."

Miller asserts that the Bible possesses an "unequaled characteristic of internal harmony" (p. 3). This is a familiar claim that makes good sermon fodder for gullible pulpit audiences, but it simply isn't true. Admittedly, there is considerable harmony in the Bible, but there is no reason to see divine intervention in this. The so-called canonical books were selected by committees and councils of rabbis, clerics, and "church fathers," who discussed and debated various books and finally selected the ones that were to be considered "inspired" or canonical. Quite naturally, the theological themes and doctrines of these books were considered before they were selected, so a high degree of harmony and consistency of themes would be expected in a compilation that had gone through such a rigid editing process. Anyone who doubts that the books of the Bible were selected in just a manner as this should read volume one of The Cambridge History of the Bible. If he should bother to read it, Mr. Miller would find historical facts about the evolution of the biblical canon that would reduce his miracle of internal harmony to nothing but sheer ordinariness.

Despite the editing process by which the canonical books were selected, the biblical text is still fraught with inconsistencies that make Mr. Miller's claim of "unequaled internal harmony" a myth that is believed only by gullible bibliolaters who haven't bothered to investigate the claim. As noted in an earlier article ("A Perfect Work of Harmony?" TSR, Spring 1990, p. 12), whoever wrote 2 Kings 10:30 obviously believed that Jehu's massacre of the Israelite royal family was the will of Yahweh, but the prophet Hosea just as obviously disagreed and pronounced a curse upon the house of Jehu to avenge the "blood of Jezreel" that Jehu shed in the massacre (Hosea 1:4). Apparently, the "inspired" prophets and biblical writers had their theological and political differences as much as modern-day religious leaders.

Johnny: I suggest that readers who are interested in inerrancy read the entire article. Rhutchin has conveniently avoided discussing inerrancy for a long time, but the time is past due for at least a few months of debates about inerrancy. The Secular Web has hundreds of articles on inerrancy, and Google has hundreds if not thousands more. Rhutchin does not like to conduct detailed research, but now he will have to if he does not wish to embarrass himself, that is, embarrass himself more than he already has on numerous occasions. One of rhutchin's many blunders was at the EofG Forum where he said that people can test God by honoring their parents and by tithing. I made a reply and rhutchin had no more interest in discussing those absurd claims. Another blunder was when he said the there is empirical evidence that God is good. In a debate on homosexuality at the GRD Forum, rhutchin used some secular arguments against homosexuality, only to later claim when he got into trouble that the only evidence against homosexuality was the Bible. A few months ago at this forum, rhutchin said that he never used any secular arguments at the GRD Forum. He didn't know that I have most of my debates with him as Microsoft Word files. I found and posted comments by him from the GRD Forum where he specifically used secular arguments.

Now here is a good one: At this forum, rhutchin has said on a number of occasions that if people need help, they should ask God to help them. I doubt that he was referring to amputees because we know that God discriminates against amputees. We also know that it would be useless to ask God to stop killing people with hurricanes. I told rhutchin that God has ensured that people commit sins at least some of the time. He disagreed, but he was wrong. After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, somehow, by genetics or by some other means, God caused a sinful nature to be transmitted to all successive generations. The Bible most certainly does not teach that it is possible for people to be perfect in this life. As any Christian spouse will tell you, his or her spouse is not perfect, including rhutchin's wife if he has a wife.

Johnny Skeptic

So do all decent people. God ordered the death penalty for a Jew who killed a Jew, but not for a Jew who killed a slave. God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11. God punishes people for sins that their ancestors commtted, reference Exodus 20:5. God kills people with hurricanes, including some of his most devout and faithful followers. God is so vicious and hateful that he even injures and kills innocent animals. One million people died in the Irish Potato Famine, most of whom were Christians because God refused to give them food, even though he told Christians via James that if a man refuses to give a hungry person food that he is vain, and his faith is dead. Rhutchin needs to tell us why God refused to give food to those people. No decent person could ever love the God of the Bible.

Johnny Skeptic

I am no more free to endorse God's numerous atrocities against mankind than you are to endorse lying. Why do you assume that lying is worse than the many atrocities that God has committed against mankind? Why do you believe that God created Hurricane Katrina and sent it to New Orleans? Do you know of any significant benefits that God or mankind derived from Hurricane Katrina? You would prevent hurricanes from going ashore in populated areas if you were able to, right? Are you aware that there is not any tangible benefit that you can ask God for and be assured that you will receive it? Why does God discriminate against amputees? Why did God order the death penalty for a Jew who killed a Jew, but not for a Jew who killed a slave? Why does God make people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11? Why does God punish people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5?

Because of rewards and risks, just as any mentally competent person would want to know that microorganisms exist, and which are helpful, and which harmful, if eternal rewards and punishments exist, any mentally competent person would want to know about it, in fact, much more so than they would want to know about the existence of microorganisms. If the God of the Bible exists, he could easily prove to skeptics that heaven and hell exist. It is a question of the extent that he is willing go to in order to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. God reveals himself to some people who he knows will reject him, and deliberately withholds information from some people who he knows will accept it if they are aware of it. That shows that God is not fair.

Has God committed many atrocities against mankind or not? That is what we need to debate. For your information, a web definition for the word "atrocity" is "the quality of being shockingly cruel and inhumane". The Merriam-Websters's Online Dictionary defines the word "atrocious" as " 1 : extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel : BARBARIC

2 : APPALLING, HORRIFYING <the atrocious weapons of modern war>

3 a : utterly revolting : ABOMINABLE <atrocious working conditions> b : of very poor quality <atrocious handwriting>

Johnny: That pretty much describes God. Under our legal system, many of God's actions and allowances are punishable by life in prision or death. You would never endorse those actions and allowances if anyone other than God committed them. Why have you made an exception in God's case? You recently said "Let's look at the evidence". Well by all means, let's look at the evidence regarding God's character. What evidence do you have that injuring and killing people with hurricanes, and allowing them to die of starvation, are examples of good character? Only a mentally incompetent being would help people AND kill people and allow them to die of starvation. James says that if a man refuses to provide food for a hungry person that he is vain, and his faith is dead. If feeding hungry people is a worthy goal for humans, it is also a worthy goal for God.

rhutchin

You are free to to believe. Your argument seems to be that you have looked at the information available to you and decided that you cannot do so (recognizing that you may have misinterpreted that information and can be making a bad decision).

rhutchin

Aren't all people "decent" by their own evaluation? I am a decent person and I love the God of the Bible. Of course, you may have some unique definition of "decent" that you are using (but not telling anyone about).

JPD

It would be Biblegod specifically, but Allah aswell - you're showing your bias. On the basis of the foul society that you would deem acceptable. All of your reasoning comes from nothing more than a text that you can't verify to bear any relationship to reality. I'm not asking that any "poor sucker" does anything more or less than challenge what you hold to be the truth. But it wouldn't be so pertinent were it not for your desire to see capital punishment established for "crimes" or "sins" that do not, to intelligent and thoughtful individuals, warrant it. If you weren't shouting and crying so much about what you regard to be fair punishment (which clearly is anything but just but then you have consistently failed to justify anything you say other than by saying "Yeah - Biblegod says so") you wouldn't attract so much negative comment.

JPD

*Yawns*

Change the scratched record.

rhutchin

I have repeatedly invited Johnny Skeptic to slect an example of inerrancy and start a thread to explain the inerrancy. It is true that I have avoided responding to Johnny Skeptic's threads:huh: but it is also true that Johnny Skeptic has not started any threads yet.

JPD

Probably not no. I wouldn't think that a child rapist would think "I'm really decent." Ditto for a mass murderer.

rhutchin