Unbeliever

What? You mean I can't quote the Bible without being accused of being a literalist? How can we have any discussion at all about the Bible if that is the case?

And even if your accusation were accurate, what's wrong with fighting fire with fire?

Unbeliever

Paul says, in 1 Corinthians 14:8-9,

"For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air."

I realize that Paul is here talking about speaking in tongues, but does not the same logic apply in the area of "scripture" as well? If the Bible is so extremely confusing as to be almost completely incomprehensible, how are we to know what is God's message to his creatures? How are his beloved creatures to avoid Hell fire? The Bible is speaking into the air.

EthnAlln

Bullseye! The reason for postulating inerrancy (whether of the Bible or of Church Councils and Popes) is exactly the hypothesis you mention. That's why the obvious confusion of the real world has to be explained away and the inerrancy moved to a conveniently non-falsifiable, vanished-forever "original autograph". And they never notice that this doctrine is of no more use than tits on a bull, since no one knows what the original autographs said, and no one ever will.

Family Man

I don't find either scenario likely. It's the difference between the odds being 0% and .00000001%. Tying miraculous events to real people does not imply that the claimed miracle is likely to have actually occurred. If it did, we'd all have to be Mormons.

No, it is against common sense, and any method that works well "only for a while" does not work well at all. After Julius Caesar defeated Pompey at Pharsalas a rather large, immovable statue allegedly turn around and a large palm sprouted full grown at a nearby temple. The local Greeks were extremely impressed. Claims were made that Caesar was a god. Do you find these claims any more credible because Caesar was a real person and Pharsalus was a real battle?

Is it possible that your belief in Christian miracles has far more to do with your Christian beliefs than a realistic view of miracles?

Unbeliever

Oh, I wouldn't say this doctrine is of absolutely no use, since it's enough to keep the "flock" believing that their Bible is God's Holy Word! That way they can continue to sheer the sheep, and the sheep keep begging to be shorn.

HarryStine

Luckily, the Bible doesn't rest simply on Paul's testimony. Still, even his wasn't entirely based off a vision. He had to spend some time with Christians to learn what he was supposed to be preaching about, but his vision served its purpose in getting him to seek out Christians. Most of the content of his teachings did not come from that vision.

aa5874

Unbeliever, there is another point I would like to make with regards to resolving contradictions. I am of the opinion that the author ,and not the reader, resolves the contradictions. If I was to write a non-fiction account and there were errors and contradictions, I would be the one to correct the problems, not the readers of my book.

Now, bearing in mind that 'God is not the author of confusion', we have a dilema. The Bible is claimed to be God's Word ,the Bible is confusing, God claims he is not the author. All the authors are dead. The Bible is unresolvable. It must be discarded.

Toto

That's not what Paul says. He says he got his gospel from revelation, not from any man.

Unbeliever

Actually, I really hope the archeologists will find one of those "original autographs", so that we could put to rest forever the myth, that the hand-written scroll that has seen numerous replications and translations over the milenia, was just as prone to error as the copies. I don't know how they could be sure it was, indeed, the original, but then I'm not an archeologist.

Doug Shaver

Neither am I, but I cannot think of any evidence that we could reasonably expect to find that would prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The most that could be proved, it seems to me, would be that a document could be an autograph by dating it to the author's lifetime.