The real problem with an inerrant Bible (Jesus, ritual, virgin)

[Scuba Pete]

Hmnnn... I see reliance on MAN as arrogant.

While you see reliance on GOD as arrogant.

But I will be humble enough to not cursorily dismiss your unsupported opinion as mere "Rubbish".

As it is... science is it's own "God of the Gap". You are fairly convinced that what can not be explained by science WILL be. Ah Deut... you are showing signs of faith, albeit not in God.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

While you see reliance on GOD as arrogant.

Absolutely not!

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

Absolutely not!

I read Deut's remarks as the insistance is arrogant

[Ronald]

My two cents. The Torah is by most accounts and by the painstaking throughness of the Rabbi's is quite inerrant, the Tanack also can claim itself inerrant, for the same reasons, as proved by the "Dead Sea Scrolls." One can argue with the seeming contradictions and such, but beyond that it has been faithfully trasnmitted down through the ages.
We come to the New Testament and find this great care of its documents far less reliable, add to that the differences found and the translators (clarifing notes) in parrens which are unproveable and contrary to Hebrew culture and the Torah. Refering to only one of them, (He declared all foods clean). Absolutelly there is enough parallel truth between the Tanack and the New Testament, for anyone who believes can receive salvation. I won't throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater.
The New Testament is full of flaws, when the twist and turns are straightened out you have a parallel Bible, pointing to ONE WAY to Y H V H !

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Ronald,

Do you accept "scribal errors" as being beyond inerrancy? Or do you subscribe to the frequently expressed bit of Christian dogma that only the originals are error-free?

[Scuba Pete]

Rather than simply saying "we don't know", they arrogantly insist "God did it" and then preach humility.

My dear Deut,

This is precisely how many Christians SHOW their reliance on God. Saying this is arrogant is tantamount to saying that relying on God is arrogant.

Not that I would presume to say that Christians are exemept from being arrogant. No more than atheists, anyway.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Ronald

My two cents. The Torah is by most accounts and by the painstaking throughness of the Rabbi's is quite inerrant, the Tanack also can claim itself inerrant, for the same reasons, as proved by the "Dead Sea Scrolls."

Unfortunately, Ronald, you are simply and grossly ignorant in this area, and it does little good to repeatedly demonstrate this fact.

• The Torah is rife with anachronism and error.
• The rabbinate is, at best, a manifestation of the latter stages of the 2nd temple period. To attribute [nonexistent] Torah inerrancy to the Rabbis is a bit like attributing Shakespeare's literary integrity to the Republicans.
• The DSS has confirmned what was already known: that there existed a pluriformity of texts including (a) proto-Masoretic, (b) pre-Samaritan, (c) text that resembles an LXX vorlage, and (d) texts which, to various degrees, showed characteristics of all of the above.
• While the Masoretes took exceptional pains to minimize transcription errors, this was a late development motivated, in part, by the uneven fidelity of past scribal efforts - particularly those in the diaspora.

You might wish to read something before further embarrassing yourself. Tov would be a good start.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

In fact, we bestow honor and glory on scientists who finally crack a toughie.

Well, let's think about this one for a second. Do we really? I mean, how many of us, off the top of our heads, know the names of the scientists who mapped the genome, or who first proposed the theory of plate tectonics? How many of these scientists got advertising deals with Nike and got cameos in movies? Science is a noble profession....but I'm not so sure there's all that much 'honor and glory' involved.

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Hmnnn... I see reliance on MAN as arrogant.

While you see reliance on GOD as arrogant.

I realize this is a bit off topic...but I thought it might be illuminating to point out there that I don't think anyone relies on God. Remember, atheists like myself, Deut, and pah do not beleive in a God. So when you say "I rely on God", I interpret that as "I rely on myself, and I call myself God." It seems strange to me that theists don't realize that when they bow humbly to God's will, they are in fact bowing humbly to themselves (what Freud would call their superego, I suppose). Still, I'm not sure I would call it arrogant.

Do you agree, NetDoc, that the Bible is not inerrant?