Freethought & Rationalism Archive

diana · 01-12-2002, 04:22 PM

Hey, John! Life in CA is sweet. I played 18 yesterday in shirt sleeves and shorts (ok...16, but I ran out of daylight).

If we keep bumping this up from sheer heckling, perchance a Xn will wander in and take a stab at explaining how your observations aren't actually contradictions.

Perhaps they're just optical illusions...y'think?

d

John the Atheist · 01-12-2002, 06:59 PM

Hubzilla, taking it out of context would definitely get on the top 10 list of excuses that I hear the most. If I were a Christian, I guess I would take a shot at it and make short work of it by just saying, “Well, the originals were perfect, but through the years some ‘may’ have got lost in the translation.” When I hear many of the inerrant Christians say this, they will put in weasel words like “may” or appears, seems to be, might be, could be, possibly be, it seems to suggest this or that, etc.” They admit to nothing. If they didn’t use the weasel words, it would take them right off of the inerrancy farm because once they admit to one, then the barn door is wide open, and who knows what will get out next.

Doug--I wonder if there are numerical discrepancies in say the Quran...

Like to see a few myself.

John

John the Atheist · 01-12-2002, 07:01 PM

Diana, I don’t know what y’all did with all of the theists while I was gone, but they seem pretty scarce in these parts, that‘s for sure. Let the men of God speak now.

Our winter months in North TX each have about a handful of really nice days too, often going into the mid to upper seventies if not low eighties. Sure is nice while it lasts, and gets me to looking forward to warmer months ahead.

John

Polycarp · 01-14-2002, 06:49 AM

The reason you�re not getting a response is because nearly all of the theists who post on this board are not inerrantists. Therefore, there is nothing to defend. For a discussion, you may want to check with someone who believes in total inerrancy. I don�t know any theists who fit that description and post here.

Theophage · 01-14-2002, 07:43 AM

Dammit Polycarp, you spoiled our fun!

Okay, for those of you who agree that the bible is a human work subject to human flaws (like errors) what makes you think any of it is in the least "God inspired" whatever that means? What parts get to be true and what parts are fallible human accounts?

The way look at it is simple: The bible consists of two things: 1) What the bible authors believed (for whatever reason), and 2) What the bible authors wanted others to believe. I would say most of the time that 1 = 2, but humans being humans, I cannot say that for sure.

This means that I must treat all miraculous claims (including so-called prophecies) in the bible just like I would treat those same miraculous claims made today from non-biblical sources.

Suppose somebody sent me an email saying that their teacher came back to life and 500 other people saw it. "Bullshit" I'd say, "give me more evidence than simply your testimony."

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]

Boro Nut · 01-14-2002, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John the Atheist:
Despite this, it's still perfect and inerrant

.

All those mistakes are perfect. QED.

John the Atheist · 01-14-2002, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Polycarp:
The reason you’re not getting a response is because nearly all of the theists who post on this board are not inerrantists. Therefore, there is nothing to defend. For a discussion, you may want to check with someone who believes in total inerrancy. I don’t know any theists who fit that description and post here.

Hey Polycarp,

But have you ever seen any of the apologists ever acknowledge any that were offered up without putting weasel words in? How about MetaCrock, Nomad, or Bede? I eventually offered up the Ezra, Nehemiah texts in the “Big Question” board in the 4th quarter 2000 EoG archives when somebody wanted me to offer up some discrepancies so I obliged. Nomad responded by saying this along with the others I offered up “weren’t real contradictions," and he also claimed that the Hebrew numbering system was largely unknown to us. He furthered added that translations were only guesses, and even if they were wrong, he wouldn‘t have a problem with it. I mistakenly thought he had maintained there were contradictions in the bible, but he corrected me by saying that he never told me that he believed there were contradictions in the bible, only that he can understand how people could think that. All of the ones I offered up were only “presumed contradictions” to him including these Ezra Nehemiah parallels. I just reviewed the “Big Question” again, and have all the pertinent quotes to make sure I’m quoting him correctly.

So, I’m not sure what qualifies for an inerrant anymore these days. If this isn’t an inerrant, it’s only at best a half a rung up from one.

John

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: John the Atheist ]

Polycarp · 01-15-2002, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John the Atheist:
But have you ever seen any of the apologists ever acknowledge any that were offered up without putting weasel words in? How about MetaCrock, Nomad, or Bede? I eventually offered up the Ezra, Nehemiah texts in the “Big Question” board in the 4th quarter 2000 EoG archives when somebody wanted me to offer up some discrepancies so I obliged. Nomad responded by saying this along with the others I offered up “weren’t real contradictions," and he also claimed that the Hebrew numbering system was largely unknown to us.

I won�t speak for Nomad, but I know he was basically in agreement with me during a discussion last month. I don�t think he believes in the total inerrancy of the Bible. Maybe he�s changed his views on the topic since 2000, I know my views have changed over the last few years. Here�s a link to last month�s discussion where Nomad seemed to believe something similar to me. See his post dated 12-1-01 (2:04PM). <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000878&p=5" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000878&p=5</a>

As for Bede and Metacrock, I know they�re more liberal than Nomad. I�m quite certain neither of them adhere to biblical inerrancy. There are many different theories of biblical inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy. Many theories of inspiration do not entail inerrancy, but all forms of inerrancy do involve inspiration.

Polycarp · 01-15-2002, 08:59 AM

See Bede�s website for clarification on his views. He definitely does not believe in inerrancy. Here�s a quote from his site:

�I do not think the Bible is literally true and inerrant. It contains fiction, myth and downright mistakes aplenty. If people want to devote their lives to finding and refuting these errors then they are welcome to. I enjoy reading the debates between sceptics and evangelicals.�

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/seekers1.html#1" target="_blank">http://www.bede.org.uk/seekers1.html#1</a>

Apikorus · 01-15-2002, 09:50 AM

One common canard of those who are inclined to believe "God's word" must be inerrant yet who cannot swallow outlandish apologetics regarding stark biblical contradictions and errors is to insist that scribal errors exist in our Bible, but that "the original" biblical manuscripts were divine and perfect. Leaving aside the fact that this is a slippery slope - an accumulation of innocuous scribal errors could result in a wholesale corruption of the Divine Writ - the very notion of "original" manuscripts is problematic and virtually no serious scholars I know of would assert that such originals ever existed.

(A related canard is to insist that scribal errors are indeed present, but only in nonessential verses which do not bear on critical doctrinal matters. Leaving aside the issue of how apologists can know this to be so, this view seems to suggest that God is lazy, having miraculously preserved as inerrant only certain elements of the Divine Writ, while letting others fall prey to decay and error.)

Many materials were likely transmitted orally, and almost certainly various legendary units were committed to papyrus independently, and in diverse ways. The Masoretic Text says 70 people went down to Egypt with Jacob, while the Septuagint (and, accordingly, Acts 7:14), says 75. It may well be that neither figure is more "authentic". Different oral traditions begat different scribal traditions. Evenually, a definitive text had to be settled upon. For the Jews, the consonantal proto-masoretic text seems to have stabilized by the time of bar Kokhba (ca. 135 CE), as inferred from the Wadi Muraba'at scrolls.

"Inspiration" is another murky concept. Is every verse of every biblical book inspired? Are some verses more inspired than others? Is the Book of Genesis more inspired than the book of Ezra (it certainly is less boring)? Can some noncanonical texts, such as Enoch, be partially yet insufficiently inspired? What parts of them might be inspired? Apparently the author of the canonical NT book of Jude thought Enoch was worthy to quote prophecy from. Sirach, 1-2 Maccabees, etc. are in the Catholic canon but not in the Protestant canon. Are Catholics simply wrong to include these as scripture? The Eastern Orthodox canon is larger still, including Psalm 151 and 3-4 Maccabees. Is the Qur'an wholly or partially inspired?

Are any people today writing "inspired" works? Might some of these works be considered "scripture"? How would we know?

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

01-14-2002, 07:43 AM	#15
Theophage Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ USA Posts: 966	Dammit Polycarp, you spoiled our fun! Okay, for those of you who agree that the bible is a human work subject to human flaws (like errors) what makes you think any of it is in the least "God inspired" whatever that means? What parts get to be true and what parts are fallible human accounts? The way look at it is simple: The bible consists of two things: 1) What the bible authors believed (for whatever reason), and 2) What the bible authors wanted others to believe. I would say most of the time that 1 = 2, but humans being humans, I cannot say that for sure. This means that I must treat all miraculous claims (including so-called prophecies) in the bible just like I would treat those same miraculous claims made today from non-biblical sources. Suppose somebody sent me an email saying that their teacher came back to life and 500 other people saw it. "Bullshit" I'd say, "give me more evidence than simply your testimony." [ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

01-15-2002, 09:50 AM	#20
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	One common canard of those who are inclined to believe "God's word" must be inerrant yet who cannot swallow outlandish apologetics regarding stark biblical contradictions and errors is to insist that scribal errors exist in our Bible, but that "the original" biblical manuscripts were divine and perfect. Leaving aside the fact that this is a slippery slope - an accumulation of innocuous scribal errors could result in a wholesale corruption of the Divine Writ - the very notion of "original" manuscripts is problematic and virtually no serious scholars I know of would assert that such originals ever existed. (A related canard is to insist that scribal errors are indeed present, but only in nonessential verses which do not bear on critical doctrinal matters. Leaving aside the issue of how apologists can know this to be so, this view seems to suggest that God is lazy, having miraculously preserved as inerrant only certain elements of the Divine Writ, while letting others fall prey to decay and error.) Many materials were likely transmitted orally, and almost certainly various legendary units were committed to papyrus independently, and in diverse ways. The Masoretic Text says 70 people went down to Egypt with Jacob, while the Septuagint (and, accordingly, Acts 7:14), says 75. It may well be that neither figure is more "authentic". Different oral traditions begat different scribal traditions. Evenually, a definitive text had to be settled upon. For the Jews, the consonantal proto-masoretic text seems to have stabilized by the time of bar Kokhba (ca. 135 CE), as inferred from the Wadi Muraba'at scrolls. "Inspiration" is another murky concept. Is every verse of every biblical book inspired? Are some verses more inspired than others? Is the Book of Genesis more inspired than the book of Ezra (it certainly is less boring)? Can some noncanonical texts, such as Enoch, be partially yet insufficiently inspired? What parts of them might be inspired? Apparently the author of the canonical NT book of Jude thought Enoch was worthy to quote prophecy from. Sirach, 1-2 Maccabees, etc. are in the Catholic canon but not in the Protestant canon. Are Catholics simply wrong to include these as scripture? The Eastern Orthodox canon is larger still, including Psalm 151 and 3-4 Maccabees. Is the Qur'an wholly or partially inspired? Are any people today writing "inspired" works? Might some of these works be considered "scripture"? How would we know? [ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

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

01-12-2002, 04:22 PM	#11
diana Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 6,471	Hey, John! Life in CA is sweet. I played 18 yesterday in shirt sleeves and shorts (ok...16, but I ran out of daylight). If we keep bumping this up from sheer heckling, perchance a Xn will wander in and take a stab at explaining how your observations aren't actually contradictions. Perhaps they're just optical illusions...y'think? d

01-12-2002, 06:59 PM	#12
John the Atheist Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: North Texas Posts: 42	Hubzilla, taking it out of context would definitely get on the top 10 list of excuses that I hear the most. If I were a Christian, I guess I would take a shot at it and make short work of it by just saying, “Well, the originals were perfect, but through the years some ‘may’ have got lost in the translation.” When I hear many of the inerrant Christians say this, they will put in weasel words like “may” or appears, seems to be, might be, could be, possibly be, it seems to suggest this or that, etc.” They admit to nothing. If they didn’t use the weasel words, it would take them right off of the inerrancy farm because once they admit to one, then the barn door is wide open, and who knows what will get out next. Doug--I wonder if there are numerical discrepancies in say the Quran... Like to see a few myself. John

01-12-2002, 07:01 PM	#13
John the Atheist Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: North Texas Posts: 42	Diana, I don’t know what y’all did with all of the theists while I was gone, but they seem pretty scarce in these parts, that‘s for sure. Let the men of God speak now. Our winter months in North TX each have about a handful of really nice days too, often going into the mid to upper seventies if not low eighties. Sure is nice while it lasts, and gets me to looking forward to warmer months ahead. John

01-14-2002, 06:49 AM	#14
Polycarp Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: USA Posts: 228	The reason you�re not getting a response is because nearly all of the theists who post on this board are not inerrantists. Therefore, there is nothing to defend. For a discussion, you may want to check with someone who believes in total inerrancy. I don�t know any theists who fit that description and post here.

01-15-2002, 08:59 AM	#19
Polycarp Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: USA Posts: 228	See Bede�s website for clarification on his views. He definitely does not believe in inerrancy. Here�s a quote from his site: �I do not think the Bible is literally true and inerrant. It contains fiction, myth and downright mistakes aplenty. If people want to devote their lives to finding and refuting these errors then they are welcome to. I enjoy reading the debates between sceptics and evangelicals.� <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/seekers1.html#1" target="_blank">http://www.bede.org.uk/seekers1.html#1</a>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.