Bibliolatry

dianaiad · May 19, 2019

tosca1 said:
Like what verses?

John 5: 7/8.

Here is a pretty good history of those verses.

Here's the problem with them. If the bible is truly inerrant, then no version of it would have any level of error in it. The very fact that there are many different versions of the bible messes that one up. But you go read this, and consider: if the Johannine Comma was erroneously included, then there goes 'inerrancy.' If it was always supposed to be there, there are many, many, early Greek manuscripts that do not include them, and many modern versions that do not include them. It is pretty widely accepted that they were not included by the writer of this epistle of John. Ergo, either way, not inerrant.

For me, not a problem. I don't NEED the bible to be utterly inerrant in order for me to believe that it is scripture and contains the word of God. It's only a problem for those whose belief in the Bible escalated to, well...bibliolatry, in that they would ignore any problems even if Jesus Himself decided to correct a problem, or who, when they are forced to acknowledge that the Bible we have might have errors, throw everything out and are broken.

tosca1 said:
Be more specific. What discovered the "error"?

Innerancy of the message in the Bible! Not typo errors! Despite typo glitches - the fact is nothing had changed the consistency of the message given in the Bible.

Moving the goal posts there.

tosca1 said:
Do you believe the Bible came from God (through various authors)?

Being the Book that He's given to mankind (to know and understand Him) - you don't believe God protects the Bible?

Look how long it had endured - when all other ancient books of other religion(s) had gone.

Uh, no. Hinduism's Rig Veda is older.

tosca1 said:
You don't think God will continue to protect it?

Why, yes. Which is why, if Jesus Himself came down to tell me that there were errors in it...or if God called a prophet to tell us there were problems, I would listen.[/QUOTE]

tosca1 · May 19, 2019

dianaiad said:
John 5: 7/8.
Moving the goal posts there..

I'll skip the rest of your post for now - I need time to read.
No, it's not moving the goal post.

I'll leave you with this for now. If you can, click the link and read the rest of it, too.

There are many translations today, but their differences do not always equate to errors. When going from Hebrew to English or Greek to English (or any other translational possibility), translators are often forced to choose between multiple possible words or phrases to accurately convey the meaning of the original.

Consider the various renderings of the Greek word theopneustos in 2 Timothy 3:16. The KJV and NKJV translate it as “given by inspiration of God,” the NASB has “inspired by God,” the ESV translators chose the phrase “breathed out by God,” and the NIV has “God-breathed.” Despite the fact that there are variations in the translations, the meaning has not changed.

First, one of the reasons there are so many variants is because we have so many early copies—and that’s a good thing. The critic has attempted to turn one of the strengths for the authenticity of the Scriptures into a weakness. The fact that there are thousands of pages of manuscripts provides textual scholars with a wealth of information about the earliest copies.

Compared to other ancient literature, the Bible’s manuscript differences are very minor.
Second, a variant is simply a difference between two manuscripts. The key is the nature of those differences. Compared to other ancient literature, the Bible’s manuscript differences are very minor. This may include a difference in spelling (e.g., in American English we have “color” but in British it is “colour”) or the changing of a pronoun into a proper noun (i.e., “He” to “Jesus”), or vice versa. Sometimes there is an addition or deletion of a word, but in most cases it doesn’t alter the meaning of the sentence in any significant way. Plus, the sentence structure is much more flexible in Greek than it is in English. As such, minor differences of word order that we sometimes find in different Greek manuscripts don’t usually change the meaning.

Third, even with the variants, the original message can still come through clearly. For example, look at the following sentences, which are copies of an original message, and see if you can discover what the original message was intended to be.

The Creation Museum is a _____ place to visit.
The _______ Museum is a great place to visit.
The Creation Museum is a great place.
The Creation _______ is a great place to visit.

Here we have four variants in the text, but it is still easy to determine the original statement: “The Creation Museum is a great place to visit”—and it is! While the actual science of textual criticism is often more complex than this, the principle is the same.

Also, notice that the fact that there are four messages helps ensure the possibility of determining the original message. If we only had the first statement, we would have to guess as to whether the author thought the Creation Museum was excellent, great, fair, or poor place to visit. The extra copies clear up any confusion.

Is the Bible Authoritative and Inerrant?

Why, yes. Which is why, if Jesus Himself came down to tell me that there were errors in it...or if God called a prophet to tell us there were problems, I would listen.

I'll go with you with JESUS HIMSELF.....

..........but I'll be very skeptic of the prophet (unless he comes with a clear mandate from God HIMSELF)!

I think Islam's Mohammad has just made some corrections about the New Testament.

Jesus is the Messiah for just the Jews, and Mohammad is the final prophet.
Will you listen to that?

Anyway....at the end of the day, we believe what we believe.
We can go on and on and on.....but, is this quibbling really worth it between two Christians?

What's important is that we both accept and have faith in Jesus Christ.

Audie · May 19, 2019

usfan said:
Yes. There is internal evidence for that claim. Are you unfamiliar with the 'dictation' to some of the OT prophets?

Ex34:27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."

But that applied to specific words, not the entire book of Exodus.

The accusation i am refuting is, "The Bible claims to be God's Word. That is circular reasoning!"

There are phrases or sections that 'claim' Divine Dictation, but not the bible as a whole, nor the books contained therein.

Whether one believes in Divine Inspiration is something else. It is not demanded by the biblical texts.

Nobody says the whole bible claims
to be..".etc.
You are objecting to your own
misinterpretation of what was
said.

That there "internal evidence" is aka
circular.

I am way more interested in external-
corroborating or falsifying the "history".

Bible sez Adam and Eve, 6 day poof, flood,
tower, red sea, all manner of such.

External evidence says all such is bs.

Dan From Smithville · May 19, 2019

KenS said:
OK... now we are getting somewhere.

i just repeated questions, I had already asked, but OK.

KenS said:
Most of it is how one views what is written... as I have said before to other people... same evidence but different interpretations that happen all the time in science. The Bible isn't a compendium on all creation but it is about man and Jesus.

The evidence is not the same. There is no evidence that supports creation, none that supports a global flood, or explains the out of order, order of creation. We are talking of a comparison of believed events with science and not points of interpretation within science.

KenS said:
So there are three possible explanations (or maybe combinations thereof). Two follow science. The third believes that God is above science and can violate its natural laws. All three are possible as science continues to correct itself.

The first (I will list scriptures and then explain):

In Gen. 1:1 it says God created the Heavens and the Earth...
In Gen 1:2 It says that the earth was without form and void
Gen. 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,

Ezekiel13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created....
...18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

There are those who believe in a pre-Adamic race when God created the Earth (Gen. vs 1 and that verse 2 represents where Satan was hurled to earth where he then stole, killed and destroyed and the the following verses are the reconstruction of earth which is now millions of years old.

Reason: A pre-Eden where there were sanctuaries of worship on Earth before Satan was filled with pride. He was the worship leader. Thus, when God renewed the earth he commanded Adamic man to "replenish" (Gen 1:28) what was destroyed.

The second:

1 John 1:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Einstein's theory of relativity basically says at the speed of light time becomes more irrelevant.

If God created the world and all that is in it "In light" that the days listed in Genesis has nothing to do with 24 hours. In a relative sense, to God a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day.

Thus, it gives place for evolution and yet still gives Him position to create man (with a conscience) as omnipotent and their still be other creatures like man before Adamic man was created.

The third:

Gen 1 - God created the earth (not mentioning how much time it took to created it) and yet God created the earth in man's 24 hour periods but accelerated because He can violate natural laws as He did when He opened blind eyes, deaf ears, caused limbs to grow, walked on water etc.

Again... The Bible isn't about HOW He created all things, just that He created it

You have just explained, with support, that the Bible is not to be interpreted literally and that it is a not a recounting of events as written. Given that it is open to interpretation, it is not infallible, since any interpretation could stand equally well with any other.

Dan From Smithville · May 19, 2019

KenS said:
Yes

Yes

1) Two parts... a) no--but when you do believe in augments faith

I do not understand what it is you were trying to say here. I still do not see how it is not declaring the Bible is a false idol. God is perfect and infallible and nothing should be put before Him. When you declare that the Bible is perfect and infallible, you are putting it before Him. You are making it an object the equal of God.

KenS said:
b) you can make the Bible an idol like when you say "DON'T DROP THE BIBLE ON THE FLOOR... IT'S HOLY and you don't want a curse on your life!". Although His words are Holy, the paper was made by man and the print was made by man--so you can make it an idol. But believing that it is absolute and infallible doesn't make it an idol

I agree. Sure. The physical book can be made an idol and the words can be made an idol. I see nothing that prevents an idea being elevated to an idol.

KenS said:
To me this doesn't make sense. If it IS God's word... then it does have authority just as a the words in a contract have an authority

It is God's word, because someone says it is God's word. In this case, the writers of the Bible. I may believe that, but I do not know it, since the source of that is the Bible itself. I cannot objectively demonstrate to another that it is God's word. It is a belief that it is God's word. There is no prohibition as a Christian if I choose not to believe it and you really have no means to demonstrate that I am wrong for doing so.

KenS said:
a) Your conclusion can be false but not a lie. 2) depends on what you wrote. 3) No

Fair enough.

Kenny · May 19, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
The evidence is not the same. There is no evidence that supports creation, none that supports a global flood, or explains the out of order, order of creation. We are talking of a comparison of believed events with science and not points of interpretation within science.

1) Please note.... we are not talking about the flood... let's stay focused.

2) You made a statement "no evidence that supports creation" with no supportive documentation. It is just that... your personal statement. Science does not know what the first cause is. Science has declared that all matter consists of wavelengths -- God spoke through and in light... both are wavelengths. No disparity between what God said and science knows.

Dan From Smithville said:
You have just explained, with support, that the Bible is not to be interpreted literally and that it is a not a recounting of events as written. Given that it is open to interpretation, it is not infallible, since any interpretation could stand equally well with any other.

???

Again... a statement with no supportive documentations or even why you have that position. The God's word is infallible... I never said man's interpretation is infallible... that is simply your construct which shows that interpretation of what I said can be fallible.

Kenny · May 19, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
I do not understand what it is you were trying to say here. I still do not see how it is not declaring the Bible is a false idol. God is perfect and infallible and nothing should be put before Him. When you declare that the Bible is perfect and infallible, you are putting it before Him. You are making it an object the equal of God.

Let me say it differently - If God said "write this down" and we wrote it down then, indeed what was written down in infallible, assuming that God is infallible, because what He said and who He is are inseparable.

Dan From Smithville said:
It is God's word, because someone says it is God's word. In this case, the writers of the Bible. I may believe that, but I do not know it, since the source of that is the Bible itself. I cannot objectively demonstrate to another that it is God's word. It is a belief that it is God's word. There is no prohibition as a Christian if I choose not to believe it and you really have no means to demonstrate that I am wrong for doing so.

Agreed that we can have different positions, and I have no beef about that.

I have no desire to prove that you are wrong -- I am simply showing you that there are different positions. I have not demanded that you believe what I believe and, hopefully, you can accept my position too.

Dan From Smithville · May 19, 2019

KenS said:
1) Please note.... we are not talking about the flood... let's stay focused.

Please note...your statement is gratuitous and condescending. It has no value except as a slap in my face over a trivial detail, that has been a part of the discussion. So, your statement is additionally misleading.

KenS said:
2) You made a statement "no evidence that supports creation" with no supportive documentation. It is just that... your personal statement. Science does not know what the first cause is. Science has declared that all matter consists of wavelengths -- God spoke through and in light... both are wavelengths. No disparity between what God said and science knows.

It does not matter. You have successfully argued that the Bible is not a literal depiction of historical events that occurred as described. Congratulations.

KenS said:
???

Again... a statement with no supportive documentations or even why you have that position. The God's word is infallible... I never said man's interpretation is infallible... that is simply your construct which shows that interpretation of what I said can be fallible.

Incorrect. You provided the support and the documentation. Now you are just BS'ing and denying your own success. It is your position. YOU are the person that gave interpretations that are not literal. Do I have to hold your hand and walk you back through it? (See. Gratuitous and unnecessary, except as an example)

Dan From Smithville · May 19, 2019

KenS said:
Let me say it differently - If God said "write this down" and we wrote it down then, indeed what was written down in infallible, assuming that God is infallible, because what He said and who He is are inseparable.

Let me put this differently. No one knows that God said this. It is belief. You cannot demonstrate that God said this. You cannot even identify most of the authors of the Bible. If I were talking to a non-believer and that person asked me how I know God dictated the Bible, I would have to shrug. If you are honest, you would too. All we could say is that we believe that. It may not be true. It could be that some dudes claimed it and, even if they believed it, it may have never happened.

KenS said:
Agreed that we can have different positions, and I have no beef about that.

The only difference is that I appear to be recognizing the facts of objective reality. I cannot honestly state that I have evidence that God dictated the Bible. You have successfully demonstrated that it does not have to be interpreted literally. I say well done to both of us.

KenS said:
I have no desire to prove that you are wrong -- I am simply showing you that there are different positions. I have not demanded that you believe what I believe and, hopefully, you can accept my position too.

You are free to have the desire. It does not bother me. The simple fact is that you cannot objectively demonstrate I am wrong. If I choose to believe that some is God's word, dictated and some is not. Same thing.

It appears that millions of Christians over the last 2,000 years did not view the Bible as literal. They all still managed to be Christians as near as I can tell.

Audie · May 19, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
Please note...your statement is gratuitous and condescending. It has no value except as a slap in my face over a trivial detail, that has been a part of the discussion. So, your statement is additionally misleading.

It does not matter. You have successfully argued that the Bible is not a literal depiction of historical events that occurred as described. Congratulations.

Incorrect. You provided the support and the documentation. Now you are just BS'ing and denying your own success. It is your position. YOU are the person that gave interpretations that are not literal. Do I have to hold your hand and walk you back through it? (See. Gratuitous and unnecessary, except as an example)

Ya canmot blame a inerrant bible guy for steering
shy of "flood".

All the more reason to steer 'em into it

One fatal flaw is enough, why bother with all
those other thing, esp things that give them
some trivial detail in support of a lost cause?

Dan From Smithville · May 19, 2019

Audie said:
Ya canmot blame a inerrant bible guy for steering
shy of "flood".

All the more reason to steer 'em into it

One fatal flaw is enough, why bother with all
those other thing, esp things that give them
some trivial detail in support of a lost cause?

Sound advice. It only takes one example and the idea of the demand in a literal Bible is overturned.

In Genesis 7:20 it says that the waters rose to a depth of 15 cubits over the highest mountains. Who measured that and how did they know when they were floating over mountains or know that they would need to record that information?

Kenny · May 19, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
Please note...your statement is gratuitous and condescending. It has no value except as a slap in my face over a trivial detail, that has been a part of the discussion. So, your statement is additionally misleading.

It does not matter. You have successfully argued that the Bible is not a literal depiction of historical events that occurred as described. Congratulations.

Incorrect. You provided the support and the documentation. Now you are just BS'ing and denying your own success. It is your position. YOU are the person that gave interpretations that are not literal. Do I have to hold your hand and walk you back through it? (See. Gratuitous and unnecessary, except as an example)

Dan... again.. a lot of statements with no supportive documentation...

This is circular and I respectfully bow out.

Would have loved to talk about the flood, but your record dictates that it will go nowhere. You will continue to make statements with no supportive documentation. As it stood, your mentioning of the flood when talking about Creation is a moving goal post especially since you never finished the subject.

Audie · May 19, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
Sound advice. It only takes one example and the idea of the demand in a literal Bible is overturned.

In Genesis 7:20 it says that the waters rose to a depth of 15 cubits over the highest mountains. Who measured that and how did they know when they were floating over mountains or know that they would need to record that information?

Details. Next you will want to know
how many of those "highest mountains"
were exactly and inerrantly 15 cubits
below the surface.

Did you ever watch "hydroplate theory" on youtube?

Dan From Smithville · May 19, 2019

Audie said:
Details. Next you will want to know
how many of those "highest mountains"
were exactly and inerrantly 15 cubits
below the surface.

Did you ever watch "hydroplate theory" on youtube?

I saw part of a really long and boring video about it. I lost interest after about 10 minutes.

Dan From Smithville · May 19, 2019

KenS said:
Dan... again.. a lot of statements with no supportive documentation...

This is circular and I respectfully bow out.

Would have loved to talk about the flood, but your record dictates that it will go nowhere. You will continue to make statements with no supportive documentation. As it stood, your mentioning of the flood when talking about Creation is a moving goal post especially since you never finished the subject.

I understand. I will not bother to add any comments about your posts except to say that I fully appreciate you providing that credible argument against a literal interpretation of the Bible. Your example of interpreting unwritten meaning from the text is far more meaningful than anything I could have done.

I really, really, really, really enjoyed chatting with you.

Dan From Smithville · May 19, 2019

Audie said:
Details. Next you will want to know
how many of those "highest mountains"
were exactly and inerrantly 15 cubits
below the surface.

Did you ever watch "hydroplate theory" on youtube?

I wonder what they were using to take the measures and if it had calibration documentation. You know how important documentation is. Like that old documentation on the Epic of Gilgamesh that has been documented as older than the story of Noah.

I am sorry. I did not provide any documentation. Oh dear.

Kenny · May 19, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
I understand. I will not bother to add any comments about your posts except to say that I fully appreciate you providing that credible argument against a literal interpretation of the Bible. Your example of interpreting unwritten meaning from the text is far more meaningful than anything I could have done.

I really, really, really, really enjoyed chatting with you.

A GREAT example how one can say one thing and the reader interprets it completely differently! Thank you for supporting the very thing I was talking about

Deeje · May 19, 2019

blü 2 said:
I distinguish what the text says from what people from a later era say about the text, and I note that the text has to be judged on its own words, not by purported reinterpretations and etrofits centuries later.

I take that approach myself. Let the Bible explain itself. No reinterpretation or retrofits necessary, just the correct one that was there from the beginning.

In the Garden story, why did God expel Adam and Eve from the Garden? Quote me the words in the Garden story that you rely on.

Step back and read what the original mandate was for the humans that God had placed in a specially prepared garden home, complete with every imaginable fruit tree at their disposal, with no effort at all required to access them. There was just one tree that had a restriction....only one. God called it "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".....and he placed that in the garden as his own property. It was a small test of respect for what belongs to God, who had showed them nothing but generosity and loving care. There was no hardship in the restriction; no deprivation at all until it was suggested to the woman that it might be desirable to have what God was withholding.

In hindsight, we can see that it caused them and their offspring nothing but harm. Humans are not good at determining what is good and bad. Look at all the things that humans thought was "a good idea at the time" but has had detrimental consequences later on. Human greed based on getting something better than they already had is our undoing and always has been.

In expelling them from the garden, God denied access to the other tree...."the tree of life". There was no restriction on this tree until they made their fateful decision to do things "their way". This tree was like the fountain of youth...partaking of the fruit of this tree guaranteed that life would continue as long as obedience to God's laws were maintained.

The humans should have trusted their Creator to guide them, but seeing as how they wanted complete autonomy, he let them experience the full impact of where their defection would take them.

Understanding what God's first purpose was in putting intelligent, free willed beings here in the first place is a good start.

Give me one example of my 'twisting words'. Don't just allege that I did that and then run away.

When I see that someone has acquired such incredible misinterpretation of the Bible in so many areas, I simply don't know where to start. If you are interested in actual discussion, where scripture is used to interprete scripture, then by all means start a thread and discuss your issues one at a time. But it seems that you are too attached to your own opinion to relinquish any of your pre-conceived ideas. Every new concept put to you has been rejected out of hand. So, seriously, I have better things to do than argue with a brick wall. I don't want to talk AT people....I'd rather talk TO them.

When I set out to understand the Garden story, why should I prefer your words to the words of the text? Why should I prefer opinions from centuries later to the text?

Then by all means let's start at the beginning and work our way through the Genesis account and see what is actually written and how the rest of the Bible produces the correct answers to any seeming dilemma. Up to you.....

Dan From Smithville · May 19, 2019

KenS said:
A GREAT example how one can say one thing and the reader interprets it completely differently! Thank you for supporting the very thing I was talking about

No. Thank you for providing that excellent example of interpretation in something that a few consider needs to be read literally.

blü 2 · May 19, 2019

Deeje said:
I take that approach myself. Let the Bible explain itself. No reinterpretation or retrofits necessary, just the correct one that was there from the beginning.

So you agree there's no concept of 'original sin', and no concept of 'death entering the world' in the Garden story? Because neither notion is supported by the text.

For example, the word 'sin' appears nowhere, and in any event the ability to sin is ruled out by Adam and Eve's imposed ignorance of good and evil. Further, in the story God gives his reasons for expelling them from the Garden (which I quoted) and there are no other reasons given in the story.

And the reasons given, and the very existence of a 'tree of life' capable of conferring immortality, mean that death was already in the world.

Deeje said:
Step back and read what the original mandate was for the humans that God had placed in a specially prepared garden home, complete with every imaginable fruit tree at their disposal, with no effort at all required to access them. There was just one tree that had a restriction....only one. God called it "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".....and he placed that in the garden as his own property.

So far no great problems.

Deeje said:
It was a small test of respect for what belongs to God, who had showed them nothing but generosity and loving care.

How can it be when the humans have been denied knowledge of good and evil? If you don't know what 'wrong' is, how can you choose to do wrong? If you do something that's wrong but have no way of knowing it's wrong, how can that be 'sin'?

Deeje said:
There was no hardship in the restriction; no deprivation at all until it was suggested to the woman that it might be desirable to have what God was withholding.

And the snake was right. They didn't die the same day, though they'd be told they would (and if death hadn't yet entered the world the threat would have been meaningless anyway).

Deeje said:
In hindsight, we can see that it caused them and their offspring nothing but harm. Humans are not good at determining what is good and bad.

First, it's only a story. Second, I think it may be a metaphor for growing up, and the worldview that follows eating the fruit is adolescence and sexual identity (the expulsion being adult status, leaving home). But whatever the story means, it's absurd to think of real creatures with no concept of benefit / detriment helpful / unhelpful good / evil.

Deeje said:
In expelling them from the garden, God denied access to the other tree...."the tree of life". There was no restriction on this tree until they made their fateful decision to do things "their way".

The story doesn't say that. The story says unambiguously that God cut them off from 'the tree of life' because [he] felt threatened and acted to prevent humans becoming [his] equals.

Deeje said:
This tree was like the fountain of youth...partaking of the fruit of this tree guaranteed that life would continue as long as obedience to God's laws were maintained.

The story doesn't say that, or anything like it. If you disagree, quote me the words your rely on.

Deeje said:
Then by all means let's start at the beginning and work our way through the Genesis account and see what is actually written and how the rest of the Bible produces the correct answers to any seeming dilemma. Up to you.....

I had a thread on the Garden story ─ >here<.

Bibliolatry

Well-Known Member

Member

Veteran Member

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Face to face with my Father

Face to face with my Father

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Veteran Member

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Face to face with my Father

Veteran Member

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Face to face with my Father

Avid Bible Student

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Veteran Member