Typhon

Joe (Who?) trumped out from the ferny gullies of the great white shining heavenly city of the celestial monkeys with a great banging of cymbals, a clanging of gongs, and a harrumph-a-rump-rump, much like a grog shop full of brass bulls and copper matadors gone mad on steam-powered percussion instruments and high-proof rum…

Bugger all, but I sure as Uni didn't hand any crown and scepter over to the likes of you. Of course, you're free to assume any delusions of grandeur or otherwise as you wish.

My, my aren't we touchy. Did I catch you napping? Bad day? Grin.

So many choices, please do. Take your pick and run up your colors. I love the whiff of grapeshot in the morning. Do carry on, in that winsome, injured tone, oh do, OH do!

Now back to the poncing argument for crying out loud, if I've given appropriate lip service to your apparently and unintentionally bruised dignity or vanity or whatever it is you're all up in arms about.

Sigh. My example was in counterpoint DIRECTLY to my points about a say a scientific document or similar example.

Those who assembled the Bible, intended it to be a work of canon. Those who argue for its inerrant status certainly consider it canon. The Bible does not state anywhere I know of it, that "this is the word of God (until we have a better explanation)" or that facts, asserted within it, are only theories, proposed with a degree of experimental error, and may be subject to change or modification, should new data prove them wrong.

I'm quite aware of Jer. 8:8, as well as 8:7 and 8:8.

And I would HARDLY call this a resounding blow against the at times (1) professed and (2) assumed inerrant nature of the scriptures by those who follow the faith. Aside from your point about the Christian faith hardly working hard to call attention to any such interpretation of this passage, where does this even come close to saying that the writer is referring to the book that his verses are contained in? The "lying pen of the scribes" has handled what exactly, "falsely?"

So, you're telling me then that my revelation, that Genesis is entirely wrong, that the Book of Mark is to no longer be part of the Gospels, and that Jesus' sacrifice was not sufficient to grant freedom from sin, but rather requires the blood of the next Messiah, He Who Shall Be Named At A Later Date will be well received by the majority of those who believe the Bible is canonical? Great to hear it. Mormons I suppose did it, but then they strictly "added" rather than changing or subtracting.

WHEN scientific facts have been shown to be in error, they are replaced, discarded. When the Second Coming did not occur in the lifetime of the actual listeners of the Apostles sermons, their documents were not discarded. When insects proved to have six legs, not four, that verse was not removed from all the various copies of new Bibles being printed. When the geological evidence resoundingly proved the Earth far older than ten thousand years, and the work of forces longer than seven days of heaving and hoeing, the time it took God to create the heavens and the earth were not updated to "and on the fourth billion-day, God did cool the molten Earth."

What, and I was counting turnips? It is certainly not glaringly obvious to most Christians in my experience.

I said that, and you can quote me. Wait, you did already. Next point.

AND it has some pretty important, world effecting views, held by millions of its followers who are stalking a lot, both now and in their expected "afterlives" on the veracity of the Bible's most outrageous claims.

Why did you think you did? I didn't. If an encyclopedia gets a word wrong, or a number, I might want another brand, especially if I really need to trust in the information contained therein. The whole point of my post is that I find it both amusing and worrisome, that Christians accept the big theological claims of the Bible as TYPICALLY inerrant and TYPICALLY the straight word from the unicorn's mouth so to speak, WHILE there are numerous uncorrected and unacceptable errors, contradictions, mistakes, and flat out lies, contained in the same volume. If it was my faith, I'd bloody well order another set from a different publisher all together.

Historians accept a certain amount of works which they know to be either unreliable or ultimately unknowable as regards to their veracity, but most modern scholars are quite willing to mention this, and hold out hope that yet unrevealed primary sources or further study of conflicting data will reveal more about the topic.

.T.

Atticus_Finch

Quote from Joe Nobody:

Jer 8:8 "'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord ," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"

What, they didn't talk about that verse in Sunday school?

What translation are you quoting? The New English Translation has Jer. 8:8 as follows:

8:8 How can you say, “We are wise! We have the law of the Lord”? The truth is,those who teach it have used their writings to make it say what it does not really mean.

It has the following note in explanation of its translation:

Heb “The lying pen of the scribes have made [it] into a lie.” The translation is an attempt to make the most common interpretation of this passage understandable for the average reader. This is, however, a difficult passage whose interpretation is greatly debated and whose syntax is capable of other interpretations. The interpretation of the NJPS, “Assuredly, for naught has the pen labored, for naught the scribes,” surely deserves consideration within the context; i.e. it hasn’t done any good for the scribes to produce a reliable copy of the law, which the people have refused to follow. That interpretation has the advantage of explaining the absence of an object for the verb “make” or “labored” but creates a very unbalanced poetic couplet.


I don't think the passage means what you suggest, that the bible says its writings have not been correctly taken down.

Regards,

Finch