Celsus

Hi all,

A number of Christians or theists here are quoting scripture and taking it for granted that it is either inerrant or at least accurately transmitted and the forms we have today are accurate representations of what was actually written way back when. Of course, this leads to serious problems: None of the regulars here will take you seriously, for one. And of course, you are begging the question that's generally the first to be asked in a Biblical Criticism forum.

So the challenge is this: Make a case for the authority of the Bible as inerrant. If you successfully do that, you can quote scripture all you like and people will have to take you seriously (and of course it would be an excellent defense of your faith). Anyone up for this challenge? Esther Rose? Magus55? Jeremiah (welcome to the boards by the way )? CJD? If you think you'll get swamped with responses, I'd urge you to try out our brand spanking new (er revamped, but who can tell the difference?) Formal Debates & Discussions boards to post your challenge so that you have only one opponent with strict parameters.

Best wishes,
Joel

CJD

Nope. Not me. I am not even an inerrantist (in the fundamentalist sense of the word), which, by the way, is not a necessary prerequisite to acknowledging its authority.

Understand one thing, reader. Your naturalistic assumptions will make any argument for the authority of the text a complete waste of time. Understand something else, too: Many of you presume to fault Xians based on a completely ridiculous reading of the text. Not only does this make me skeptical of the supposed rational basis of atheism, it is insulting to anyone who has spent any amount of professional time becoming learned in textual criticism (which I take to be the meaning of "biblical criticism"). Therefore, I am not begging the question when all I am doing is, to use a modern example, helping folks understand how to read Eliot's Wasteland. The question of authority is moot unless one has every intention to live under that authority. That is why I have never expounded upon a text and demanded the reader to conform his/her life to it. The only thing I demand in such situations is that the reader see how from an Xian perspective the whole story is plausible, rational, and (this is the crux) that understanding the text requires a bit more than picking up the book, sitting in your armchair, and 'comprehending' the words. Put differently, the biggest question begged in this forum is not over the authority of Scripture, but the presumption with which many afford their interpretations of the text.

Celsus, your challenge is failed from the beginning. But this is no reason to disdain discussions over how to read the various passages. The day 'regulars' on this forum say absolutely nothing regarding biblical theology is the day I will stop "quoting Scripture and taking it for granted."

Regards,

CJD

*edited to add the official iidb synopsis of the "Biblical Criticism & History" forum: Discuss biblical text and history to challenge and illuminate the stories therein. If I have done anything more than challenge and illuminate the biblical text for folks around here, feel free to let me know. Careful now, attacking my presuppositions cuts both ways.

Sci_Fidelity

Posted by CJD:



Why not post some examples of these "completely ridiculous readings" so we can discuss them?

judge

I am not a biblical inerrantist (I don't think...I'm not even sure what one is really). However if we look at many parts of the bible we can find
(a) More than one variation..e.g. the height of goliath
or
(b) Deliberate editing.

I do however think that the 22 books of the eastern peshitta (the aramaic NT used in the liturgy of the COE) have come down to us from apostolic times "without change or revision".



If you have a reason why this is not the case I am all ears.

Koyaanisqatsi

So, if I may, CJD, your response is to say, in essence, that only someone who already accepts belief in the judeo/christian god can read the bible accurately?

And, further, that in order to read the bible accurately, one must first accept that it is accurate as a presupposition? It's "true" before you read it to find out whether or not it's "true?"

That's absurd. Can you justify this a little bit (and correct my assessment of your position if I've erred)?

Thanks.

Magus55

1Cr 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

Those who aren't saved by Jesus aren't spiritually discerned, and can't know the things of God. The Holy Spirit guides us in understanding His word. To the unbeliever, its meaningless dribble. The natural man ( which fits almost everyone on this board who follows secularism and science above all else) will never understand the Bible because things from God are foolish to you.


1Cr 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

The Preaching of the Gospel is meaningless to those who are already perishing ( unbelievers).

Its fascinating how the Bible has an answer to every thing related to humanity and theology.

Kosh

...and equally fascinating how those "answers" are exactly what one would expect a con man to put into his con job to fool the gullible.

What? You can't see the Kings clothes? You must not be a loyal subject!

Magus55

Except one man didn't write the Bible. The Bible is not one book, its 66.

Kosh

I thought the bible was supposed by written by God?

unregistered_user_1

You do realize that this is something that a believer in ANY religion can say to those who question it, just so the believer can avoid having to think about how possible it is that his religion is the "correct" one?

Sounds like nothing but "circular reasoning" or "begging the question" to me.