-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Doctrine of inerrancy
- Thread starter Pah
- Start date
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
He sure took the long way to say nothing new.
He failed to address the biggest reason many of us feel that the Bible can be in error... it never claims to be without error.
He failed to address the biggest reason many of us feel that the Bible can be in error... it never claims to be without error.
No*s
Captain Obvious
Frankly, I believe the Bible to be produced by the union of God and man on this earth. As such, it is as much human as divine, and the people weren't simply passive recepticles. I have no problem with them expressing what they learn in terms of their culture. So inerrancy doesn't attract me a bit, nor do I find it traditional 
.
.
Pah
Uber all member
Yeah, he has that tendancy as do his debate opponents!!NetDoc said:
But I think the point, at least in the quoted material, was that if God has the property of being omniscient and omnipotent and he "inspired" (I really hate the use of that word to mean "gave" or "dictatied") the Bible, it should be error free in all it's utterings.
Whad' ya think?
Druidus
Keeper of the Grove
GE 6:6. EX 32:14, NU 14:20, 1SA 15:35, 2SA 24:16 God does change his mind.
NU 23:19-20, IS 15:29, JA 1:17 God does not change his mind.
GE 17:7, 10-11 The covenant of circumcision is to be everlasting.
GA 6:15 It is of no consequence.
GE 17:15-16, 20:11-12, 22:17 Abraham and his half sister, Sarai, are married and receive God's blessings.
LE 20:17, DT 27:20-23 Incest is wrong.
GE 22:1-12, DT 8:2 God tempts (tests) Abraham and Moses.
JG 2:22 God himself says that he does test (tempt).
1CO 10:13 Paul says that God controls the extent of our temptations.
JA 1:13 God tests (tempts) no one.
EX 23:7 God prohibits the killing of the innocent.
NU 31:17-18, DT 7:2, JS 6:21-27, 7:19-26, 8:22-25, 10:20, 40, 11:8-15, 20, 30-39, JG 11:30-39, 21:10-12, 1SA 15:3 God orders or approves the complete extermination of groups of people which include innocent women and/or children.
This is one of the reasons I did not believe in the bible as being 100% truth when I was Catholic. God either made many mistakes, changed his mind a lot (implying avoidance of mistakes), lied to the writers of the bible, or, the writers wrote what they thought.
NU 23:19-20, IS 15:29, JA 1:17 God does not change his mind.
GE 17:7, 10-11 The covenant of circumcision is to be everlasting.
GA 6:15 It is of no consequence.
GE 17:15-16, 20:11-12, 22:17 Abraham and his half sister, Sarai, are married and receive God's blessings.
LE 20:17, DT 27:20-23 Incest is wrong.
GE 22:1-12, DT 8:2 God tempts (tests) Abraham and Moses.
JG 2:22 God himself says that he does test (tempt).
1CO 10:13 Paul says that God controls the extent of our temptations.
JA 1:13 God tests (tempts) no one.
EX 23:7 God prohibits the killing of the innocent.
NU 31:17-18, DT 7:2, JS 6:21-27, 7:19-26, 8:22-25, 10:20, 40, 11:8-15, 20, 30-39, JG 11:30-39, 21:10-12, 1SA 15:3 God orders or approves the complete extermination of groups of people which include innocent women and/or children.
This is one of the reasons I did not believe in the bible as being 100% truth when I was Catholic. God either made many mistakes, changed his mind a lot (implying avoidance of mistakes), lied to the writers of the bible, or, the writers wrote what they thought.
No*s
Captain Obvious
The hardest of those for me to reconcile is point the changing/unchanging. The others really don't bother me that much.
I reconcile the changing/unchanging by pointing out that God reveals Himself to our perspective, and thus, God's position seems to change when the flood comes, but He still keeps humanity alive, because of Noah's righteousness which the text also says pleases Him. I've read that Fathers teach that the creation of humanity implied a real risk for God (It is "that" not "some" because I cannot remember names). However, I don't understand this fully, and it plays into this point. This is one I simply don't have an answer for.
The circumcision/uncircumcision is actually somewhat unchanged to me. Baptism is the circumcision of the heart. Prior to the New Covenant, Christ acted on the outside and bestowed His Spirit externally, but afterwards, it was internal, and thus the sign of the covenant changed.
I view the incest with Abraham as one of before the Law. God frequently works with people in their times and places. This even includes Abraham.
James' point is that God is not responsible for our sins, and that nobody can blame God when they are thus tested. Our failures come from our heart and not God. That meshes quite well and requires no harmonization.
The last one neglects that the same book has laws of war, which include the killing of innocents by necessity: the passage is not on a military level. He also allows (with a forthcoming punishment) humans to kill each other, and if a people are guilty on a corporate level, He will respond accordingly. Holy Russia was guilty of tremendous sin according to her elders before the revolution, and that if Russia did not repent, God would cast judgement on her. The Communists came and fulfilled the warning.
There are many other points that may be raised, and some I will have no clue on but others I will. It would take a lot to get me to abandon my faith at this point.
I reconcile the changing/unchanging by pointing out that God reveals Himself to our perspective, and thus, God's position seems to change when the flood comes, but He still keeps humanity alive, because of Noah's righteousness which the text also says pleases Him. I've read that Fathers teach that the creation of humanity implied a real risk for God (It is "that" not "some" because I cannot remember names). However, I don't understand this fully, and it plays into this point. This is one I simply don't have an answer for.
The circumcision/uncircumcision is actually somewhat unchanged to me. Baptism is the circumcision of the heart. Prior to the New Covenant, Christ acted on the outside and bestowed His Spirit externally, but afterwards, it was internal, and thus the sign of the covenant changed.
I view the incest with Abraham as one of before the Law. God frequently works with people in their times and places. This even includes Abraham.
James' point is that God is not responsible for our sins, and that nobody can blame God when they are thus tested. Our failures come from our heart and not God. That meshes quite well and requires no harmonization.
The last one neglects that the same book has laws of war, which include the killing of innocents by necessity: the passage is not on a military level. He also allows (with a forthcoming punishment) humans to kill each other, and if a people are guilty on a corporate level, He will respond accordingly. Holy Russia was guilty of tremendous sin according to her elders before the revolution, and that if Russia did not repent, God would cast judgement on her. The Communists came and fulfilled the warning.
There are many other points that may be raised, and some I will have no clue on but others I will. It would take a lot to get me to abandon my faith at this point
.
Druidus
Keeper of the Grove
I would never try to get someone to abandon their faith. I'm only trying to show that the bible is not 100% fact, and is not necessarily the true word of God. Think about it, shouldn't a perfect God be able to use any tool right, even an imperfect one (like humans)? I believe the bible has seeds of truth in every story, but I don't believe much that is in there.
Take, for example, the destruction of Sodom. Moses had to convince God to spare the city if he found 50 innocents, and then moved it down to 10 innocents (how does Moses convince God?). Even then, he destroys the city (the bible remarks upon the cries of children, I believe. They weren't very just or innocent, apparently), allowing Lot's family to escape, because they were innocent. Lot's wife turns around, and is fried, and then Lot's daughters get him drunk and rape him. That just doesn't sound like innocent and righteous behaviour to me.
Another example is the case of Samson and Delilah. Sampson was a Nazarite from birth, as if he had taken the vow of the Nazarite. A Nazarite is considered holy no matter what they do, as long as they don't drink wine, or anything made with grapes, kill anything or touch any dead flesh, or cut their hair. Sampson loses his Nazarite gained strength when his hair is cut, but that's only one part of the vow, and the only one that God held to be worth anything. Sampson killed a lion, obviously touching dead flesh as well, which was two broken vows already. Why didn't he lose his strength, and be not a Nazarite? He killed many people as well, often when "The Spirit of the Lord came over him". In one instance, he kills fifty innocent men and takes their clothes just to pay a gambling debt (The Spirit of the Lord was with him at the time). He broke the other vows many times, why should the hair one matter?
Take, for example, the destruction of Sodom. Moses had to convince God to spare the city if he found 50 innocents, and then moved it down to 10 innocents (how does Moses convince God?). Even then, he destroys the city (the bible remarks upon the cries of children, I believe. They weren't very just or innocent, apparently), allowing Lot's family to escape, because they were innocent. Lot's wife turns around, and is fried, and then Lot's daughters get him drunk and rape him. That just doesn't sound like innocent and righteous behaviour to me.
Another example is the case of Samson and Delilah. Sampson was a Nazarite from birth, as if he had taken the vow of the Nazarite. A Nazarite is considered holy no matter what they do, as long as they don't drink wine, or anything made with grapes, kill anything or touch any dead flesh, or cut their hair. Sampson loses his Nazarite gained strength when his hair is cut, but that's only one part of the vow, and the only one that God held to be worth anything. Sampson killed a lion, obviously touching dead flesh as well, which was two broken vows already. Why didn't he lose his strength, and be not a Nazarite? He killed many people as well, often when "The Spirit of the Lord came over him". In one instance, he kills fifty innocent men and takes their clothes just to pay a gambling debt (The Spirit of the Lord was with him at the time). He broke the other vows many times, why should the hair one matter?
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Pah,
As much as the Bible is an "instrument" of God, so are the people God uses. He has made a habit out of using abherent people (no, I'm not referring to No*s here). The "Sons of Thunder" were militants, who may very well have killed. Paul persecuted the early church. David committed adultery and then murder. Peter swore like a sailor and deserted Jesus in his time of need. The list could go on. WHY? Why does he use fallible people to spread his word? Because, the messenger is not that important to the accomplishment of God's will. Neither is a book. God and his Spirit do ALL of the revealing and the convicting. People and scripture are merely tools to accomplish that end.
As much as the Bible is an "instrument" of God, so are the people God uses. He has made a habit out of using abherent people (no, I'm not referring to No*s here). The "Sons of Thunder" were militants, who may very well have killed. Paul persecuted the early church. David committed adultery and then murder. Peter swore like a sailor and deserted Jesus in his time of need. The list could go on. WHY? Why does he use fallible people to spread his word? Because, the messenger is not that important to the accomplishment of God's will. Neither is a book. God and his Spirit do ALL of the revealing and the convicting. People and scripture are merely tools to accomplish that end.
No*s
Captain Obvious
Druidus said:I would never try to get someone to abandon their faith. I'm only trying to show that the bible is not 100% fact, and is not necessarily the true word of God. Think about it, shouldn't a perfect God be able to use any tool right, even an imperfect one (like humans)? I believe the bible has seeds of truth in every story, but I don't believe much that is in there.
Take, for example, the destruction of Sodom. Moses had to convince God to spare the city if he found 50 innocents, and then moved it down to 10 innocents (how does Moses convince God?). Even then, he destroys the city (the bible remarks upon the cries of children, I believe. They weren't very just or innocent, apparently), allowing Lot's family to escape, because they were innocent. Lot's wife turns around, and is fried, and then Lot's daughters get him drunk and rape him. That just doesn't sound like innocent and righteous behaviour to me.
Another example is the case of Samson and Delilah. Sampson was a Nazarite from birth, as if he had taken the vow of the Nazarite. A Nazarite is considered holy no matter what they do, as long as they don't drink wine, or anything made with grapes, kill anything or touch any dead flesh, or cut their hair. Sampson loses his Nazarite gained strength when his hair is cut, but that's only one part of the vow, and the only one that God held to be worth anything. Sampson killed a lion, obviously touching dead flesh as well, which was two broken vows already. Why didn't he lose his strength, and be not a Nazarite? He killed many people as well, often when "The Spirit of the Lord came over him". In one instance, he kills fifty innocent men and takes their clothes just to pay a gambling debt (The Spirit of the Lord was with him at the time). He broke the other vows many times, why should the hair one matter?
Those are difficult issues again
. I don't accept the Bible as wholly fact, but I don't disbelieve these stories. I can understand your position on the issue. There are some thins in the Bible that give me pause, but believe it or not, it's not these. Perhaps the biggest is the sun going backwards. I can only say that I believe it to be some form of optical illusion, but since I'm not an inerrantist, I'm not bound in believing every little detail is historically accurate.
BUDDY
User of Aspercreme
Have any of you thought about this subject as it relates to matters of doctrine and the historical value of the Bible. I contend that in matters of religious doctrine, the Bible can be shown to be innerrant. In matters of historical accuracy, that may not be so, or things may have been lost in translation.
No*s
Captain Obvious
EEWRED said:
No, it cannot. Inerrancy is impossible in several levels:
1). Theologically -- There is no way to support the claim either from the Fathers or Scripture. We can show inspiration in that way, but not inerrancy. Heck inerrancy creates a theological loop-back that invalidates the position itself.
2). Practically -- There is no way to get around the practical problems.
3). Not all the history is accurate.
I'm afraid inerrancy is not supportable
.
scitsofreaky
Active Member
I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Could you explain further? There are teachings in the Bible that I don't agree with, eg that man is born with a corrupted heart.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Speaking of grasping at straws... just where does the Bible claim to be "perfect" or "without error", Precept?
Pah
Uber all member
Account for the disparity in Christ's geneologyprecept said:
Account for the two places Racheal is buried
Accoungt for the two versions of the Ten Commandments
All inspired words of God each and every difference.
For those of you that wish to pursue this, do it in another thread for this thread is not on the subject of the facts of error but on the doctrine that spung up
.
QUOTE] GE 17:15-16, 20:11-12, 22:17 Abraham and his half sister, Sarai, are married and receive God's blessings.
LE 20:17, DT 27:20-23 Incest is wrong.[/QUOTE]
God made just two humans; yet he told them to be fruitful and replenish the earth. If He did not intend for the first humans to marry within their own family; He would not have made just two humans.
That incest is wrong is without question; but wrong only because the act of incest is not a marriage. Incest is the promiscuous indulging in sexual perversion, by preying upon the unprotected, defenseless in their own family. If God had not come to the aid of the defenseless; our young and innocent would be "pregnant" at the very first signs of fertility; pregnant by their own perverted fathers and or perverted siblings...and or perverted other relatives.
Sure! God "tempts" no one. One can only be tempted to do what is wrong! And God by His very nature cannot do wrong nor can He "tempt" ANYONE.
Satan on the other hand can only "tempt" us humans to do what is wrong, as that is his nature. Satan could not "tempt" any human to do what is right. Nor can God. God has already created each of us humans to only accept as good, what is right, in so much so that even the serial killer pleads for his life despite mercilessly taking the lives of others.
Paul's statement that God will not allow us to be tempted more than we are able to bear...means that God will limit Satan as to how far He can tempt any human into doing the wrong. In other words limits are placed on Satan, in as similar a fashion as these limits were placed on satan when satan tempted Job to sin against God.
No human can justifiably take the life of another human. All humans were placed on earth by God. He placed us here to worship Him; and to populate the earth. All humans who choose not to worship God are in violation of the reasons for their being placed on the earth. All who are in violation against God are automatically in league with satan. "The sin of the father will visit the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate God" says God....And that is because if your parents are Hindu, Catholic, or Muslim....you, the child will grow up embracing the false religion of your parent and thus place yourself in condemnation just as they.
The Lord says that hell fire is being prepared for the devil and his angels....but those who wish to join the devil and his angels in hell fire are displaying their intent by serving him in their daily lives. All who so serve the devil include the parents of the children who will also like their parents continue the tradition of serving the devil when they become adults. The Lord will kill these childrens alongside their devil serving parents, as he will kill satan and his devil serving angels.
You are right to have doubted the word of God. The Roman Catholic church has notoriously misrepresented the word of God; substituting fictitous representations of the overactive imagination of those ignorant of scripture. Representations around which they concoct wild speculations about heaven, the people who live in heaven; and how hunans can attain heaven. So wild are these concoctions, that for the right sum$ they are able to catapult the "Generous fleer from the heat of hell"[purgatory] right into the "cool of heaven".
When you study the word of God with the Holy Spirit as your guide; you are able to easily spot the counterfeiters.
God' entire word IS TRUTH!
precept
QUOTE] GE 17:15-16, 20:11-12, 22:17 Abraham and his half sister, Sarai, are married and receive God's blessings.
LE 20:17, DT 27:20-23 Incest is wrong.[/QUOTE]
God made just two humans; yet he told them to be fruitful and replenish the earth. If He did not intend for the first humans to marry within their own family; He would not have made just two humans.
That incest is wrong is without question; but wrong only because the act of incest is not a marriage. Incest is the promiscuous indulging in sexual perversion, by preying upon the unprotected, defenseless in their own family. If God had not come to the aid of the defenseless; our young and innocent would be "pregnant" at the very first signs of fertility; pregnant by their own perverted fathers and or perverted siblings...and or perverted other relatives.
Sure! God "tempts" no one. One can only be tempted to do what is wrong! And God by His very nature cannot do wrong nor can He "tempt" ANYONE.
Satan on the other hand can only "tempt" us humans to do what is wrong, as that is his nature. Satan could not "tempt" any human to do what is right. Nor can God. God has already created each of us humans to only accept as good, what is right, in so much so that even the serial killer pleads for his life despite mercilessly taking the lives of others.
Paul's statement that God will not allow us to be tempted more than we are able to bear...means that God will limit Satan as to how far He can tempt any human into doing the wrong. In other words limits are placed on Satan, in as similar a fashion as these limits were placed on satan when satan tempted Job to sin against God.
No human can justifiably take the life of another human. All humans were placed on earth by God. He placed us here to worship Him; and to populate the earth. All humans who choose not to worship God are in violation of the reasons for their being placed on the earth. All who are in violation against God are automatically in league with satan. "The sin of the father will visit the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate God" says God....And that is because if your parents are Hindu, Catholic, or Muslim....you, the child will grow up embracing the false religion of your parent and thus place yourself in condemnation just as they.
The Lord says that hell fire is being prepared for the devil and his angels....but those who wish to join the devil and his angels in hell fire are displaying their intent by serving him in their daily lives. All who so serve the devil include the parents of the children who will also like their parents continue the tradition of serving the devil when they become adults. The Lord will kill these childrens alongside their devil serving parents, as he will kill satan and his devil serving angels.
You are right to have doubted the word of God. The Roman Catholic church has notoriously misrepresented the word of God; substituting fictitous representations of the overactive imagination of those ignorant of scripture. Representations around which they concoct wild speculations about heaven, the people who live in heaven; and how hunans can attain heaven. So wild are these concoctions, that for the right sum$ they are able to catapult the "Generous fleer from the heat of hell"[purgatory] right into the "cool of heaven".
When you study the word of God with the Holy Spirit as your guide; you are able to easily spot the counterfeiters.
God' entire word IS TRUTH!
precept
Druidus
Keeper of the Grove
Groping at straws? Indeed. if you can refute What I will now post, I swear, I will convert to Christianity.
Scientific Errors
http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative/christ/bible_inconsistencies.htm
(This is not an attack on Christianity, do not take it as such.)
Perhnaps this article would help you understand my view a bit better:
http://www.thevirtualbrowser.com/in...el/eryvtvba/ovoyr/qvfpercnapvrf/&flags=101110
Druidus
Keeper of the Grove
Precept, having read your post, I must decline from any further debate with you (barring more attacks on valid religions, or a massive change in perspective for you). You have convinced me that you cannot be swayed, no matter the evidence. You have demonstrated fundamentalism, and intolerance of others.
Every religion is a valid religion, and yours is not necessarily the "Truth". No one knows the truth; no one. I will ask you to refrain from calling other religions false, or any other attempt to debase any religions. Tolerance is very important to me.
Thus I bid you good day, and I part, but with a hope. I hope that one day, you will recognize others, not of your religion, as equals, no better, no worse; as beings with equally valid choices of religion. May the day when everyone recognizes this come swiftly.
Good day.
Every religion is a valid religion, and yours is not necessarily the "Truth". No one knows the truth; no one. I will ask you to refrain from calling other religions false, or any other attempt to debase any religions. Tolerance is very important to me.
Thus I bid you good day, and I part, but with a hope. I hope that one day, you will recognize others, not of your religion, as equals, no better, no worse; as beings with equally valid choices of religion. May the day when everyone recognizes this come swiftly.
Good day.
The Bible does not contain errors, but man created errors in the versions of the Bible.
Look at your Bible and it has a disclaimer, "VERSION". I have lost count of the versions of the Bible. Man will err not the word of God.
Example: Mainstream teaches Jesus died on Friday and rose on Sunday, This is a error. This error is not the Bible error but mans error. Jesus died on Wednesday and many will state does it matter when he died, yes it does matter for it is an error.
The Bible has many writers but 1 author God.
Look at your Bible and it has a disclaimer, "VERSION". I have lost count of the versions of the Bible. Man will err not the word of God.
Example: Mainstream teaches Jesus died on Friday and rose on Sunday, This is a error. This error is not the Bible error but mans error. Jesus died on Wednesday and many will state does it matter when he died, yes it does matter for it is an error.
The Bible has many writers but 1 author God.