Inerrancy of the Bible and other Religious Texts

[Ceridwen018]

In another thread about creation and evolution, we got off-topic discussing the validity of the Bible due to its supposed inerrancy. I would like to continue the discussion here, where we won't be disrupting the other thread. As well as talking about the Bible, I would also like to expand the discussion to include all religious texts that are considered to be inerrant by their respective religions.

To outline my opinion of the whole thing, I do not think that the Bible or any other religious text can be "logically proven" to be inerrant, or that any similar "evidence" can be provided to support such a claim. I think that people who choose to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible are believeing in something which is not based on any sort of logic or rational criteria whatsoever, and that they often dismiss reality in order to maintain their belief. I do not begrudge people who choose this path, however I am ready to debate anyone who is not willing to "call their belief out for what it is", so to speak.

Many people are quick to try and prove their "revealed faith", and I see this as a desperate attempt for personal validation. In my opinion, those who strive to provide "proof" or "evidence" for things like their god, or their religious text are merely displaying that they are not comfortable enough in their beliefs that they can accept them without evidence. It completely flies in the face of everything God requests of his followers in the Bible. Jesus said that we must believe like children, which means that we must believe without asking questions and without needing "proof". I would appreciate comments on this idea as well.

 

[michel]

Sure fire away - Don't know that I will be much good at answering, but I'm willing to have a go.

Yes, part of religion is Faith - which is what it says - accepting the package on trust. The only thing we can do for God to prove that we love him, is to accept him on trust - that is why he doesn't come around proving to people he exists - that would be too easy for us, if you see what I mean.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Yes, part of religion is Faith - which is what it says - accepting the package on trust. The only thing we can do for God to prove that we love him, is to accept him on trust - that is why he doesn't come around proving to people he exists - that would be too easy for us, if you see what I mean.

Exactly, michel.

 

[jewscout]

Frubals for you michel
i couldn't have put it better myself!

 

[michel]

Wow did I say something right?:biglaugh:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The only thing we can do for God to prove that we love him, is to accept him on trust ...

You clearly have not thought out the contradiction inherent in needing to provide proof to an omniscient God. :biglaugh:

 

[michel]

You clearly have not thought out the contradiction inherent in needing to provide proof to an omniscient God. :biglaugh:[/QUOTE

Maybe proof is a wrong word - we are being asked to place our entire trust - body and soul in God's hands; we will not get any sign from him while we are choosing whether to do this or not..........is that less funny?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

...is that less funny?

Yes, thanks. You moved it from the category of absurdly funny to sadly pathetic. How very primitive and anthropomorphic your God turns out to be. So much like the primitive Chieftain demanding loyalty from his tribe. It's almost as if a primitive people made him in their image.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Hey now, Deut, at least he can recognize his religion for what it is. I can appreciate anyone who is willing to be honest with themself.

 

[michel]

Hey now, Deut, at least he can recognize his religion for what it is. I can appreciate anyone who is willing to be honest with themself.

Thanks Ceridwen; tell the truth, what Deut thinks, as far as my belief in my God is neither here nor there; he can laugh and call me pathetic 'till the cows come home - won't shake my belief though.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

[quote="Deut. 32.8]You moved it from the category of absurdly funny to sadly pathetic.

Thanks Ceridwen; tell the truth, what Deut thinks, as far as my belief in my God is neither here nor there; he can laugh and call me pathetic 'till the cows come home - won't shake my belief though.[/QUOTE]You seem more than a little facile with the truth. Demonstrate where I called you pathetic or retract the distortion.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I won't comment on using semantics to cover your tail. I agree with Michel's take on what you said.

As for the scriptures, they never claim to be inerrant; just inspired.

Hebrews 1:1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. NIV

As we mature as a civilisation, God changes his methodology in dealing with us, much as we change our methodology in disciplining our children. Is it no surprise that Genesis reads like a children's primer? It was never meant to be a science book or even a history book. It was meant to be a book of faith.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Thanks Ceridwen; tell the truth, what Deut thinks, as far as my belief in my God is neither here nor there; he can laugh and call me pathetic 'till the cows come home - won't shake my belief though.

Sadly, that's all Deut has to offer. Good for you Michel. I'd frubal you, but my bucket is empty for a few hours.

...As for the scriptures, they never claim to be inerrant; just inspired...

As we mature as a civilisation, God changes his methodology in dealing with us, much as we change our methodology in disciplining our children. Is it no surprise that Genesis reads like a children's primer? It was never meant to be a science book or even a history book. It was meant to be a book of faith.

Well stated and I concur! Same thing on the Frubals.

 

[Sunstone]

**MOD POST**

Let's keep it civil, folks. Attack ideas all you want, but don't attack each other.

 

[Ceridwen018]

As for the scriptures, they never claim to be inerrant; just inspired.

Does that mean that the Bible makes mistakes on some things?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I don't really know Ceridwen. But since the scriptures do not claim to be infallible, I don't claim them to be either. In light of Hebrews 1, it seems to me that the OT might use very simplisitic writings. Those that on one level are true and that on yet another level seem contradictory.

First, we told our daughter that her brother "came from God" because mommy and daddy loved each other. When she was older, we told her more. Now she knows that mommy and daddy had sex... which is probably still hard for her to imagine. We gave her knowledge as she was able to deal with it. I trust God to be the very best parent imaginable.

 

[Katzpur]

In another thread about creation and evolution, we got off-topic discussing the validity of the Bible due to its supposed inerrancy. I would like to continue the discussion here, where we won't be disrupting the other thread. As well as talking about the Bible, I would also like to expand the discussion to include all religious texts that are considered to be inerrant by their respective religions.

To outline my opinion of the whole thing, I do not think that the Bible or any other religious text can be "logically proven" to be inerrant, or that any similar "evidence" can be provided to support such a claim. I think that people who choose to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible are believeing in something which is not based on any sort of logic or rational criteria whatsoever, and that they often dismiss reality in order to maintain their belief. I do not begrudge people who choose this path, however I am ready to debate anyone who is not willing to "call their belief out for what it is", so to speak.

Many people are quick to try and prove their "revealed faith", and I see this as a desperate attempt for personal validation. In my opinion, those who strive to provide "proof" or "evidence" for things like their god, or their religious text are merely displaying that they are not comfortable enough in their beliefs that they can accept them without evidence. It completely flies in the face of everything God requests of his followers in the Bible. Jesus said that we must believe like children, which means that we must believe without asking questions and without needing "proof". I would appreciate comments on this idea as well.

I believe that the scriptures were inerrant as originally penned. Unfortunately, we don't have any of those documents today. All we have is copies of copies of copies of copies. And, in my opinion, it's absolutely unimaginable to think that nowhere along the line did errors creep in. Besides, they are definitely incomplete, if that counts as inerrant. Just look at all of the books that are mentioned by name in the Bible that are missing. That said, I believe that in spite of the errors they may contain, the scriptues are essentially God's word, and that they are to be believed and trusted.

 

[Scuba Pete]

It kinda reminds me of the joke about the first printing press salesman...

He stopped at an abby and asked the Friar in charge for a moment of his time...

"Thank you for coming by, but you can see how dedicated our Friars are. They copy each Bible faithfully and then re-read it as they copy the next one."
"But dear Friar, what if there was a mistake made early on? You would be replicating the mistake over and over."
"What? Just wait here a minute" and the Friar headed out of sight. The salesman watched him walk down the hall and out of sight. Ten minutes later he heard a distinct thumping in the distance. Puzzled he followed the sound, and it grew louder.

Finally, he walked into a room where the Friar was hitting himself in the head over and over with the oldest Bible in the library.
"Whoa, Friar! What's up??? Why are you hitting yourself?"
"It says "celebrate!"

 

[painted wolf]

I beleve this may be the quote he was refering to.

Yes, thanks. You moved it from the category of absurdly funny to sadly pathetic.

calling his faith pathetic, implies that you feel he is in turn pathetic.

Now away from the topic of qualities of Michels personal faith....

The problem I have with basing your faith on taking a book as the literal word for word truth, is that if anything, any small thing is somehow falce then where does your 'faith' go from there?

If part of the book is wrong, surely the rest could be as well?

What if your book is a misprint?

And especally with the bible, much of it is stated such that it is open to vastly differing opinions.... who's interpretation of the book is right?

Personally I could never place my 'faith' in a book, no matter how cleverly written.

wa:do

 

[Scuba Pete]

Fortunately PW,
God has sent us his Spirit to help us understand it all.