Inerrancy of the Bible and other Religious Texts

[michel]

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

What about the phone book? What about Chilton's Auto Manual? What about Taber's Medical Dictionary? What about Webster's Dictionary? What about the Encyclopedia Britannica? What about Sara Lee's Cook Book? What about the Stock Market Quotes?

Don't you take these literally and put your 'faith' in them?

I'm not trying to be funny, Wolf. But if you don't believe in something, you'll fall for anything.

 

[painted wolf]

nope... my number is in no phone book,
Medical texts must be reritten to keep them up to date.. same with all encyclopedias and stock market quotes... Infact reading an old Encyclopedia Britannica is like a little time machine, a good way to get an idea of what people thought back in the day but not a 100% worthy source of information.
cook books don't always have recipies I like and I often change them to suit my tastes.

I believe in a good number of things... inerrant books aren't one of them.
My faith is not based on the writings of any man no matter how clever he was.

wa:do

 

[michel]

My faith is not based on the writings of any man no matter how clever he was.

But if someone gets in trouble at work (or wants to avoid trouble), wouldn't you suggest they consult their workers' manual (if they had one)?

What about the Law? If you got a ticket, would you get away with saying: "Sorry, I didn't have enough faith in your law books to believe what was written. That's why I was doing 55 in a 25 m.p.h. zone"?

 

[painted wolf]

the law is always being rewritten as new cases and judgments change them... its a 'living' thing.
and a ticket and street sign arn't books.

I am the workers manual at my place of employment... we have a few notes here and there but the rules are fairly flexable. If anyone has a question they ask me or the other manager or the owner.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

ps.. if I need to rely on something written in a book, I check more than one book on the subject and if possible ask a real person who knows about the subject at hand.

wa:do

 

[michel]

the law is always being rewritten as new cases and judgments change them... its a 'living' thing.
and a ticket and street sign arn't books.

I am the workers manual at my place of employment... we have a few notes here and there but the rules are fairly flexable. If anyone has a question they ask me or the other manager or the owner.

wa:do

Then will you agree that wether it be the Law or an H.R. Manual, there's a place that someone can go to get the final word in writing?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I am the workers manual at my place of employment... we have a few notes here and there but the rules are fairly flexable. If anyone has a question they ask me or the other manager or the owner.

I think you just summed up the paganism approach to religious text through a comparison to an approach to a document. "I am the worker's manual". I love it!

 

[michel]

ps.. if I need to rely on something written in a book, I check more than one book on the subject and if possible ask a real person who knows about the subject at hand.

Even the phone book?

 

[painted wolf]

phone numbers change more often than the phone book does.

why should I take a phone book as Inerrant and unchangable?
Or any other book?
The final word, in law or anything is only final untill they change it again.

wa:do

 

[michel]

phone numbers change more often than the phone book does./QUOTE]
I'm sorry, Wolf. I've lost my ability to ask a simple question. But I'll keep trying.

If someone asked you to call Joe's Pizza Pavillion down the street, and you didn't know the phone number, would you look it up in a phone book?

If so, can we correctly surmise that if you took THAT number, and dialed THAT number, that you have placed your faith in THAT phone book on THAT particular day?

In other words, would you expect Joe's Pizza Pavillion to answer the number you dialed?

 

[Quiddity]

Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), states, "Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" (no. 11).

This is not restricted to things that are "for the sake of our salvation". Anything the Holy Spirit says is automatically true. The fullness of the Scripture is inerrant.

The Least
~Victor

 

[painted wolf]

that would not be faith. I would have no more faith in the inerrancy of the phone book for getting one number right. The phone book is clearly not a complete and inerrant revilation of all things phone-ish as it is filled with mistakes, ommisions and misprints.
Books are as flawed as the people who write them.

wa:do

*Edit* ps, the bible says Ostriches are bad parrents.. they are wonderful and very successful parents, male and female.

 

[michel]

that would not be faith. I would have no more faith in the inerrancy of the phone book for getting one number right. The phone book is clearly not a complete and inerrant revilation of all things phone-ish as it is filled with mistakes, ommisions and misprints.
Books are as flawed as the people who write them.

wa:do

*Edit* ps, the bible says Ostriches are bad parrents.. they are wonderful and very successful parents, male and female.

So let me get this straight, then. Someone asks you to order a pizza. You say to yourself, I don't know the number, but I'll try that incomplete, errant, filled-with-mistakes phone book over there that contains omissions and misprints, and hope it has the right number listed?

 

[Quiddity]

that would not be faith. I would have no more faith in the inerrancy of the phone book for getting one number right. The phone book is clearly not a complete and inerrant revilation of all things phone-ish as it is filled with mistakes, ommisions and misprints.
Books are as flawed as the people who write them.

wa:do

*Edit* ps, the bible says Ostriches are bad parrents.. they are wonderful and very successful parents, male and female.

I am unsure as to who that was directed to. If to me then I would say that faith is required (obviously). Inerrancy and faith are different things. Assuming you had a math book that was critiqued by the finest Mathematicians millions of times. You could claim that book is "without error". It would take the common folk a life time to prove otherwise. Most will probably just trust in the findings. Those who would actually challege it (very few actually do this) would do so in vain. My point is that as a Catholic I have said up front that I believe the Church, from there I grow in my understanding. Since I believe the Church and they say the Bible is "without error" then I could challenge it or believe them. I choose to believe them.

~Victor

 

[painted wolf]

AV- yup.. I hope the phone book will be right but I realize it might not be.

Victor- eaven when the bible says something you know is wrong? or do you keep "without error" in the " "'s
Mind you I seperate spiritual truth and Metaphorical truth from literal truth... and we are talking Literal truth here.

wa:do

 

[michel]

I am unsure as to who that was directed to. If to me then I would say that faith is required (obviously). Inerrancy and faith are different things. Assuming you had a math book that was critiqued by the finest Mathematicians millions of times. You could claim that book is "without error". It would take the common folk a life time to prove otherwise. Most will probably just trust in the findings. Those who would actually challege it (very few actually do this) would do so in vain. My point is that as a Catholic I have said up front that I believe the Church, from there I grow in my understanding. Since I believe the Church and they say the Bible is "without error" then I could challenge it or believe them. I choose to believe them.

~Victor

Hi, Victor! Nice to meet you. I am an independent, fundamental, Baptist. I am what is known as a King James Only person. I believe that only the King James Bible has the right words, as God intended for us to have them for today. After all, He superintended its writing, and He said in Psalm 12:7 that He would preserve it.

I have a thorough disgust for marginal notes in Bibles that say stuff like: a better manuscript says or original manuscripts say or whatever.

Where the King James Bible differs from the "originals", the "originals" are wrong.

People like to interpret the King James Bible from Strong's (Wrong's) Concordance, and it should be the other way around.

 

[michel]

AV- yup.. I hope the phone book will be right but I realize it might not be.

Okay, Wolf, nice talking to ya. I hope your night up there in NH is as nice as mine is here in OH right now.

Take care!

 

[painted wolf]

AV- so what if the "origional" origionals were found somewhere... would KJV still be right and the first copies wrong?

hope your night is a good one

wa:do

 

[michel]

You seem more than a little facile with the truth. Demonstrate where I called you pathetic or retract the distortion.

Deut, I had not previously seen this post, but I am responding to your P.M to me, which is written much in the same vein as this post.
To recap; in post#2, I said Quote "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."

To which you replied in post #6 Quote "You clearly have not thought out the contradiction inherent in needing to provide proof to an omniscient God. :biglaugh:
My post #7 to you read 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?"

To which you replied post#8 quote "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."

Ceridwen made a consilliary post ,to which I responded to her with quote"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."

I understand that I said that you had called me 'pathetic', whereas in reality I think I can now see that it was my belief which you see as 'pathetic' - I therefore withdraw my accusation, and therefore retract the distortion as a result of my post.

I can assure you that the post, though creating a distortion of what you said, the distortion was not created intentionally, nor with malice, and I therefore apologise, publically, and wholeheartedly. I am sorry for the offence I caused you, and I was in error.

I hope you can accept that with the sincerity in which it is offered.

 

[Fade]

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.

Oh man, if I could I'd give you more frubals for that :clap
Apparantly I need to spread the karma around a bit more before I can so you'll have to make do with 'it's the thought that counts'.