Those contradicting Gospels!

[Windwalker]

Rationalizations is the bread and butter of good apologetics, as I see it. I see merit in it.

Rationalizations are typically considered as excuses, rather than actual reasons. According to the definition of the word, they are "the action of attempting to explain or justify behavior or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate."

When I say a lot of apologetics are simply rationalizations, that's not meant to speak of them being actual valid supporting reasons. There is a difference between solid support, and using logic arguments as excuses for error. "I did it because they made me," is an example of rationalizing away error.

from my standpoint, it's stating the obvious. Why would a loving God have things wrong in his Scriptures.

This is something I struggle with truly appreciating. I have no problem in accepting and embracing a loving God, with the fact there are errors and contradictions in scripture. I don't see the need to take scripture and make it something that it isn't. God is not the Bible. The Bible is a book. God is Spirit, not ink on paper.

As I said before, it's a dangerous position to hold that the Bible cannot be without error, because all it takes is for one error to collapse the whole house of cards. If you make it's flawlessness a criteria for faith in God, you set yourself and your faith up for a real problem. It's unnecessary to believe that, in order to believe in God.

no I wouldn't become an atheist. But I still need the position to show to God that I love him. Actually, I think there are no contradictions in the Bible.

Why do you think that believing the Bible has no errors, show God you love him? I can acknowledge the Bible has flaws, that it's full of human errors, and embrace the love of God at the same time. Someone doesn't need to get all the facts of things right, in order to speak truths about love. The Bible doesn't need to pass the test of scientific inquiry, in order to have value to faith.

Can you imagine still loving God, while recognizing the Bible is fallible?

 

[thomas t]

Can you imagine still loving God, while recognizing the Bible is fallible?

only speaking for myself: no. It would feel like pretending I don't trust him 100% and his word anymore.
I permit myself to still believe rationalizations can be good tool to defend one's position.

 

[CG Didymus]

I think the inerrancy of the Bible is a very good idea. I support it.
I also think that I need this theology.
Jesus, I think, is the cornerstone of my faith.

Do you also take the Bible literally? Like in each gospel did the empty tomb story literally happen as written? No, because they contradict. So there is always some adjustments needed. One way to adjust the story would be to say that each writer based their version on different oral traditions, which would seem likely... but then Christians would be leaving room for opinions and errors from people. So can't do that. But some of them do say something similar... they say each writer had a different perspective and saw things in a different way. But they weren't there. Their perspectives had to come from others. So now you'd have to say that a second or third hand account is accurate.

Of course what's best, for Christians, is to say God had a hand in it and it is perfect, infallible and inerrant. But that goes for the whole Bible. Old Badger is just dealing with the New Testament. 'Cause then Christians, if they are going to take it literal, have to believe all of Genesis like a literal six day creation six or so thousand years ago. Do you? Just how far do you take the Bible as being literal?

 

[Windwalker]

only speaking for myself: no. It would feel like pretending I don't trust him 100% and his word anymore.

So you tie your faith in God to your ideas about the bible? Isn't faith supposed to be about trusting the unknown, not trusting what you believe you know to be true? What people believe about God, changes over the course of their life of faith. Beliefs are based upon our mental ideas, and these can change over time.

I see beliefs as like leaves on the tree, which can fall off and new ones replace them with the change of seasons. But the life of the tree itself is in its trunk, not the presence of the current batch of leaves. Faith is the tree, beliefs are the leaves.

I permit myself to still believe rationalizations can be good tool to defend one's position.

Not when that defensive of belief halts faith's growth. To insist our ideas of God, must be defended to be without error, is to not realize what faith is. Faith carries us through changes in our beliefs and ideas about God. Beliefs can be used to support faith, but not replace it.

 

[oldbadger]

ah no, my faith isn't blind, I think. I think I do have an argument.

Faith? Fair enough, I can acknowledge Faith.

Argument? With me? I'm just a little kitten.......... 'onest.

 

[thomas t]

Do you also take the Bible literally? [...]
Just how far do you take the Bible as being literal?

yes, I take the Bible literally. Unless it's prophecy, in this case it might be metaphorical. Jesus isn't a literal lamb, for instance.
I don't think the tomb stories in the Bible are conflicting with each other.
EDIT: oh I saw there is a thread dedicated to the tomb stories who differ from each other.
My stance: even if they are differing... they don't contradict each other. They can all be true.

Christians, if they are going to take it literal, have to believe all of Genesis like a literal six day creation six or so thousand years ago. Do you?

yes. Many colleagues of mine think science is doing a bad job. I don't. Scientists are generally doing a great job!
To me, Bible and science are just two authorities and Bible trumps science.

 

[thomas t]

So you tie your faith in God to your ideas about the bible? Isn't faith supposed to be about trusting the unknown, not trusting what you believe you know to be true? What people believe about God, changes over the course of their life of faith. Beliefs are based upon our mental ideas, and these can change over time.

I see beliefs as like leaves on the tree, which can fall off and new ones replace them with the change of seasons. But the life of the tree itself is in its trunk, not the presence of the current batch of leaves. Faith is the tree, beliefs are the leaves.

I believe the Bible to be the Word of God. This being my starting point, I can't say the Bible has it wrong sometimes, in my opinion. I don't criticise God.

 

[Windwalker]

I believe the Bible to be the Word of God. This being my starting point, I can't say the Bible has it wrong sometimes, in my opinion. I don't criticise God.

I think it's Jesus that is the Word of God, according to scripture. The Bible is simply a collection of different writings that was compiled by later church administrators, pulling together which texts to include or exclude, finalizing more or less around the 5th century AD. Clearly, Christians were believing in God for at least 4 centuries prior to their being a collection called the bible. So I think the emphasis on the texts as the equivalent of Jesus Christ, or The Word of God, or the Logos as he is termed in John 1:1, is a little misguided.

Additionally, there are several different canons of scripture. There is in fact not one single "bible" that is officially accepted in Christendom as a whole. So that makes evelating just one version of it as The Word of God, is inherently problematic. Are you sure you have the right "Word of God" version of texts? How are you sure? By what standard is that measured? And what of those who don't have the one you chose to be that One? It gets rather messy, to say the least.

None of that is to say that one cannot find God in all these different collections of sacred scriptures. God can be found speaking Truth in nature herself, without words, without ink on paper. Read Psalm 19, for example. I think it's fine to revere scripture, but another thing to deify it. God is God, and the Bible is about God, but not to be confused as God itself.

I think for myself, since my introduction to the reality of God came prior to any knowledge of anything from any scriptures, I didn't have a hard time with understanding the nature of religious texts and their origins. "Inspired by God," does not need to be interpreted as "Dictated by God". Inspired simply means moved by the Spirit of God to speak Truth. That does not make the words "without error", just like an inspired piece of music does not mean error-free. There are humans doing the expressing of what is inside of them, inspired by God, that comes out of their human shell, along with normal, natural, and expected human fallibility.

Inspired does not need to mean "perfect" or error-free. If we think it does, then we spend our energies defending against seeing any errors. And that becomes about protecting your beliefs, not about encountering God.

Perhaps your first encounter with God was through something in the Bible, and so you naturally associate the two as one and the same? Maybe if you explain why you see God and Bible as equals in this way, it might help understanding.

 

[thomas t]

I think it's Jesus that is the Word of God,

good point, but it also says "All Scripture is breathed out by God " 2 Tim 3:16. Empahsis added.

There is in fact not one single "bible" that is officially accepted in Christendom as a whole.
[...]
Are you sure you have the right "Word of God" version of texts? How are you sure? By what standard is that measured? And what of those who don't have the one you chose to be that One?

I promote the 66 books of the Bible. Even if the Catholic Church has more if you're pointing at this. But still, the Catholics also accept 66 books. I don't know what the Orthodox Church is doing.
I think a loving God has the abilty to make sure that the Christians somehow get to read the right book and not a collection of partially flawed texts.

Inspired simply means moved by the Spirit of God to speak Truth. That does not make the words "without error",

I perceive this as contradictory. Emphasis added.
You compare it to music. But in music, once you achieve a certain standard, there are no such things as errors - at least in jazz or rock/pop, in my opinion. The next note will decide if the last one that might have been considered as erroneous by some before the next note is going to be played... was really off or not.

Some artists even sing 80% of everything "wrong", yet it is still great. Listen for instance to that one LINK - the lead singer almost never sings correct. He almost always sings either too high or too low. This is my prime example of music making arts out of almost everything. But it's not wrong what the singer does in that song (highly popular by the way).

My conclusion: If you say that the scriptures are inspred by the Highest... I wouldn't criticise Him calling part of His writings erroneous.

 

[Windwalker]

good point, but it also says "All Scripture is breathed out by God " 2 Tim 3:16. Empahsis added.

That is correct, but to capitalize the Bible as the Word of God, that makes it equal to God. It makes it God.

And "all scripture", when that verse was written in the 2nd century (according to modern scholars), the only scriptures that those Christians had were the books of what we call the Old Testament today. There was no New Testament for those Christians. It had not been compiled yet. What the author of 2nd Tim meant by scriptures did not include the books of the NT. Those weren't included in "All scripture", as they weren't scripture yet.

Note, that if Paul did write 1 Tim, then it was before there were any gospels written, so that would exclude Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as scripture. So if we say Paul meant the gospels, that would be incorrect.

I promote the 66 books of the Bible. Even if the Catholic Church has more if you're pointing at this. But still, the Catholics also accept 66 books. I don't know what the Orthodox Church is doing.

But you're promoting a Bible that the early Christians did not have, nor recognize as the Bible. That didn't get compiled until the 5th Century AD. Did those early Christians not have the truth back then?

What you seem to be saying is that the only real Bible is the Protestant Bible. Is that correct? Who determined this? God? You? A group of priests? Were they inspired by God? Do you know who they were? Etc.

You see the problem here?

I think a loving God has the abilty to make sure that the Christians somehow get to read the right book and not a collection of partially flawed texts.

I think you would be truly benefited to understand the history of your Bible you have today. It's not a divinely ordained, prophet of God sort of affair that gives you what you have in those current 66 books. It did not drop out of the sky whole one day, because the Holy Spirit delivered into the church's hands. It simply was not a divine affair.

Development of the Christian biblical canon - Wikipedia

I perceive this as contradictory. Emphasis added.

I do not take "inspired" to mean "flawless". Is nature flawless? Yet is it not the creation of God?

You compare it to music. But in music, once you achieve a certain standard, there are no such things as errors - at least in jazz or rock/pop, in my opinion.

What on earth are you talking about? No human plays flawlessly. That's not attainable. That's a robot. That's not human.

That in fact is what was the problem with early digital instruments and midi recording and quantizing of notes. The notes all landed perfectly on the beats. It was so mechanical sounding, not like real human musicians, that they had "humanize" the data to be slightly off the beat, irregular, and other natural human arbitrariness that goes into making music, music. Those human irregularities, those errors, those imperfections, is what in fact makes human music beyond the "perfect" music of machines.

Some artists even sing 80% of everything "wrong", yet it is still great. Listen for instance to that one LINK - the lead singer almost never sings correct. He almost always sings either too high or too low. This is my prime example of music making arts out of almost everything. But it's not wrong what the singer does in that song (highly popular by the way).

You're making my case for me. Now apply that to the books in your bible. Those human imperfections, is what makes it sound good. If you are looking for technical precision, flawless, error-free, data, then you are looking for a technical manual, not spiritual inspiration. If you want spiritual inspiration, that comes through the cracks and imperfections of human expressions of the divine. You don't sing a perfect A 440 hz pitch every time, without it sounding artificial. If the Bible is "perfect", then it doesn't register as "real" to our human ears, or spirit.

My conclusion: If you say that the scriptures are inspred by the Highest... I wouldn't criticise Him calling part of His writings erroneous.

God inspires humans to speak divine truth all the time. That doesn't mean you get robot speak out of them, lacking any technical errors whatsoever.

 

[CG Didymus]

yes, I take the Bible literally. Unless it's prophecy, in this case it might be metaphorical. Jesus isn't a literal lamb, for instance.
I don't think the tomb stories in the Bible are conflicting with each other.
EDIT: oh I saw there is a thread dedicated to the tomb stories who differ from each other.
My stance: even if they are differing... they don't contradict each other. They can all be true.

yes. Many colleagues of mine think science is doing a bad job. I don't. Scientists are generally doing a great job!
To me, Bible and science are just two authorities and Bible trumps science.

Thanks for your answers. And I glad to see you're still a "Happy" Christian. It's too easy to let these arguments and debates get a person down. Keep strong.

 

[thomas t]

There was no New Testament for those Christians.

but there is no controversy between Catholics and Protestants as to which books belong to the New Testament. If there is controversy... it's going on about the OT. All books which the Catholics have added to their Bible... belong to their Old Testament.

What you seem to be saying is that the only real Bible is the Protestant Bible. Is that correct? Who determined this? God? You? A group of priests? Were they inspired by God? Do you know who they were? Etc.

then make your own choices, decide for yourself who you think is more trustworthy when it comes to never add anything to God's word. The Pope or the Protestants? Decide for yourself, decide well.

I kindly stay with my opinion that, in popular music you don't make flaws once you have reached a certain standard. You do make alterations compared to how you used to play before, spontaneous changes do happen, you improvise, but you don't play plain wrong. That's my opinion, at least. It's like painting. Many Pop Art pieces simply don't have flaws. It's debatable what some do but it's not flawed.

Those human imperfections, is what makes it sound good.

I wasn't talking about imperfections. I don't think the alterations in pitch in linked song are supposed to be imperfect. They perfectly match the song and contribute to its style.
I would call that song perfect. There is a simple rule in pop music as I see it: If it sounds good it sounds good. There is no concept of "correct" or "flawed" pop music.
I think, it's like fashion. I recently saw a dress covering the right shoulder but not the left! Outrageous, isn't it. Flaw? Contradiction? no - fashion! It would be dull to adress the "flaw" of that dress. You would only reveal that you have no clue about fashion if you argue in that manner.

The Bible of course also is perfect, as I see it. There are no flaws in it, I think.

EDIT, ah you know what quantization is? That's good. I'd like to explain it to all non-musicians here, using a video: please click on that video HERE and jump to minute 39:40. There the engineer plays his piece three times: non-quantized, quantized and half-quantized to make it sound more natural, as he says. I would have left the piece as it was, honestly.
Quantizing it or not, in my opinion, is up to the choices of the artist. You give it a certain direction, as I see it. If you quantize, it gives you the opportunity to pile up more tracks of music on top afterwards because the piano wouldn't stick out any more.

 

[Windwalker]

but there is no controversy between Catholics and Protestants as to which books belong to the New Testament.

That is true. But it is also true that the NT was not fully canonized until a few hundred years after the birth of the church. In other words, there was no "New Testament" for those early Christians. So if this was delivered by God, it seems it was a little late for those who started the church. They seem to have done okay without that as we have it today. Correct?

then make your own choices, decide for yourself who you think is more trustworthy when it comes to never add anything to God's word. The Pope or the Protestants? Decide for yourself, decide well.

Considering the Protestants came out of Catholicism 1500 years after the birth of the church.... an argument could be made...

Now, while I'm not a Catholic, nor ever have been, one could argue that everything the Protestant church has was built upon what the Catholics gave the world as Christianity, and that they are relative newcomers to the game, it makes you wonder how God failed to have any real church for so many years, until the Protestants came along a millennium and half after the apostles all died. Sounds like the gates of hell did prevail against the church, and Jesus was wrong. If you think Catholics aren't Christians, that's what you have to conclude. I'm just saying.

As far as "decide well", what is that supposed to mean? You mean God will send people to hell for not getting their theologies, or books of the Bible right? Please tell me you don't believe that?

I kindly stay with my opinion that, in popular music you don't make flaws once you have reached a certain standard.

You are talking with a musician and a composer here. You are wrong.

You do make alterations compared to how you used to play before, spontaneous changes do happen, you improvise, but you don't play plain wrong. That's my opinion, at least. It's like painting. Many Pop Art pieces simply don't have flaws. It's debatable what some do but it's not flawed.

Every single performance as flaws in it, regardless of how skilled the performer is. They may not be as obvious as hitting a "clunker" note that doesn't fit the current key or something that jars everyone when they hear it, but they are constantly there regardless, simply because humans do not do anything "perfectly". By perfection, that means no timing errors, no velocity errors, no pitch errors, nothing. Clean, precise, and mechanical. And that is not human music. That is computer music, or robots playing.

I wasn't talking about imperfections. I don't think the alterations in pitch in linked song are supposed to be imperfect. They perfectly match the song and contribute to its style.

Sure, but imperfections are flaws. These are the same thing. That these flaws work with the song, is my point. The bible has flaws too, but it still, in spite of, or even because of those flaws, is able to create a piece of music that the ears can listen to, so to speak.

You say it is perfect without flaws, and that makes it a technical manual, not a piece of music, or poetry, or art, or any of those things which inspires the human heart. Precise technical detail, is not what creates music that inspires. It is stiff and rigid and uninspiring. It is legalistic and dead spiritually.

I would call that song perfect. There is a simple rule in pop music as I see it: If it sounds good it sounds good. There is no concept of "correct" or "flawed" pop music.

Great. Now apply that to scriptures. There is no such thing as inerrancy, lacking imperfections or flaws, in scripture. Yet, it is "perfect" if it resonates as "good" to your ears. You want to say there are no errors, no flaws, no imperfections. You say it has to be flawless in order to be good or true. I say that is incorrect, both technically speaking, and spiritually speaking.

I think, it's like fashion. I recently saw a dress covering the right shoulder but not the left! Outrageous, isn't it. Flaw? Contradiction? no - fashion! It would be dull to address the "flaw" of that dress. You would only reveal that you have no clue about fashion if you argue in that manner.

Unlike music, fashion is not an area of interest for me personally. But I can say, that what makes something stand out often is to deliberately violate the rules. Do something that people won't expect. Shock them. Etc. Those are technically considered "wrong", but they work with the whole. And that again makes my case that the "errors" in the Bible are part of the whole. These flaws, these errors, are part of the whole presentation, the whole thing working together as a whole.

The Bible of course also is perfect, as I see it. There are no flaws in it, I think.

But there are flaws. And the point you seem uncomfortable allowing those to be there, is really the point of our discussion here. I'm trying to demonstrate how those flaws, can work together, without restoring to denying they are there, which is what you have been doing.

EDIT, ah you know what quantization is? That's good. I'd like to explain it to all non-musicians here, using a video: please click on that video HERE and jump to minute 39:40. There the engineer plays his piece three times: non-quantized, quantized and half-quantized to make it sound more natural, as he says. I would have left the piece as it was, honestly.

Yes, I've been recording midi for a long time. I'm using Studio One 4.5 as my DAW right now. How about yourself? What instruments do you play?

Quantizing it or not, in my opinion, is up to the choices of the artist. You give it a certain direction, as I see it. If you quantize, it gives you the opportunity to pile up more tracks of music on top afterwards because the piano wouldn't stick out any more.

I try to play on time with the beats better, rather than rely on quantizing to compensate for sloppy playing. It's sort of like that damned auto-tune stuff unskilled singers rely on. I cannot stand that sound of fake singing, unless it is heavily added for an effect, like stepping hard on the compression in order to give that pulsing sound as in EDM (even that I can stand only a little bit of). But my point is, that "natural" sound, of imprecise playing, is what gives music that natural, real, and relatable sound. Songbirds do not use auto-tune, and woodpeckers to not use drum-machines.

So it is with scriptures. They are human performances, of divine inspiration. They are not precise, unnaturally imperfect notes.

 

[thomas t]

So if this was delivered by God, it seems it was a little late for those who started the church. They seem to have done okay without that as we have it today. Correct?

Christianity changes over time. I see nothing wrong if God delivered the canon a few centuries later. That's communication between God and man, in my opinion. God certainly was able to inspire the decisions that lead to the Bible of today.

When you say Bible has flaws, you say it could be better. It could not, in my opinion. I kindly stay with my opinion it could not be better; both spiritually speaking and technically speaking.
When you say it contains error you'd need a law or a conveniton which decides whether it's correct or it isn't. This law doesn't exist... if it does, Bible is in line with it, I think.
Nevertheless artists do refer to old fashioned conventions such as a singer's duty to sing in uttermost precise intonation. It's like in the linked song (post #209). As I interpret it... the lead singer certainly knew about that convention... only to break it on purpose. The song would be wanting if he left out the "incorrect" pitch. So I conclude: the song did not have imperfections. Just to the contrary: the artists just played games with traditional conventions that are sometimes silly rules... That's my 2 cents.

They may not be as obvious as hitting a "clunker" note that doesn't fit the current key or something that jars everyone when they hear it, but they are constantly there regardless, simply because humans do not do anything "perfectly".

I stay with my opinion: it's the next note that decides if the "clunker" note was a clunker or not. Every clunker could turn out to be perfectly in line with the tune... it all depends on what comes next. There are performances that are utterly perfect... because the performer uses every "clunker" note as an opportunity for making the interpretation sounding intersting, depending on what he is going to do with it.
Why should a living God be unable to do the same with scripture? Even using a Catholic Chruch for centuries?
God even used folks like Nebuchadnezzar earlier on to convey a message...

I don't rule out that Catholics can be Christians, though.

As far as "decide well", what is that supposed to mean? You mean God will send people to hell for not getting their theologies, or books of the Bible right? Please tell me you don't believe that?

When you want to trust today's Catholic church when there is an alternative at hand... this would be something you would need to defend before God, as I see it. Did they never invent any extra doctrine, according to you? If they did... so why choose them as the ultimate authority? The decision is up to you.

Yes, I've been recording midi for a long time. I'm using Studio One 4.5 as my DAW right now. How about yourself? What instruments do you play?

I play the piano, I sing and compose music. We (my friend and me) use Studio One 4! What a coincidence. Yeah, I also try to keep time better! Quantisation is too much work fixing the damage it does...

 

[Windwalker]

Christianity changes over time.

So then, what's your beef with Catholicism? They certainly represent changes over time.

I see nothing wrong if God delivered the canon a few centuries later.

But and yet, Christians did just fine without it for a long while. Perhaps God speaks to people without those texts in hand?

God certainly was able to inspire the decisions that lead to the Bible of today.

Why do you say that? You think the books that are included in the Bible were there by God's intentional design? How do you conclude that? There isn't anything in the Bible itself that specifies which books are chosen by God. That's an assumption on your part. There are books that are in the Bible now, that were hotly contested being included. You mean to say, that the way history unfolded, was exactly as God intended it to be? On what basis can you say that?

When you say Bible has flaws, you say it could be better.

No I do not. Just saying something has flaws, is not saying it could be better. But on that note, yes, the Bible could be better, not because of the flaws I'm talking about, but for reasons that it is so easily abused to justify pretty much anything the person wants it to say. In reality, the bible is just the bible. What people do with it is simply a reflection upon themselves.

It could not, in my opinion. I kindly stay with my opinion it could not be better; both spiritually speaking and technically speaking.

I don't think you understand the technical aspects of it, otherwise there would be no debate here. But again, the bible is about inspiration, not technical flawlessness. It's not a book of science, or the owner's manual for a car. It's neither of those. It's intended to inspire faith, not answers to technical questions.

When you say it contains error you'd need a law or a conveniton which decides whether it's correct or it isn't.

I'm sorry, what? Scholarship is just scholarship and it can examine the texts and make a considerable amount of credible decisions about it. Not sure what laws and conventions have to do with good scholarship.

Nevertheless artists do refer to old fashioned conventions such as a singer's duty to sing in uttermost precise intonation.

I hope you've gotten my point about a singer may sing with "perfect pitch", but in reality, if you are to run that through a spectrum analyzer, which you're familiar with, you will not see a single unwavering signal. It flows naturally up and down around the fundamental pitch. These imprecise tones, makes it believable. Humans cannot sing flawless pitches. They are not tone generators.

It's like in the linked song (post #209). As I interpret it... the lead singer certainly knew about that convention... only to break it on purpose. The song would be wanting if he left out the "incorrect" pitch. So I conclude: the song did not have imperfections. Just to the contrary: the artists just played games with traditional conventions that are sometimes silly rules... That's my 2 cents.

My point is, even if they intended to hit the note perfectly or not, they won't be able to without slight variations around the note they intended to hit, in key or out of key. It'll look like A 440, plus and minus a few cents up and down around it. That what makes it human.

You can call that perfect, and so will I! It's imperfection, is part of it's "perfection", which really only mean, we really like it subjectively. "Perfect" is not an objective standard when it comes to music, or poetry, or literature, or... scripture. It's in the eye of the beholder.

I stay with my opinion: it's the next note that decides if the "clunker" note was a clunker or not. Every clunker could turn out to be perfectly in line with the tune... it all depends on what comes next.

Ok, now I understand what you're talking about. You're talking about if you hit an off-note, something unintentional, how you then as a musician can pull out of that, and make it fit into the song really changes whether that note becomes a fail or a gain. Happy mistakes make for good music. But it takes a skilled musician to intuitively know how to pull that off. Good jazz players, for instance.

Why should a living God be unable to do the same with scripture?

It takes a skilled interpreter to pull off those clunkers in scripture to make it work. But, as with anything subjective, some will hear that attempt to make it fit, to reconcile that sour note with the rest of the score, as clumsy, clunky, ham-handed, and generally not a really skillful musician. (I am speaking of a lot of the apologetics I hear out there trying to explain away contradictions).

I don't rule out that Catholics can be Christians, though.

I don't rule out that some Evangelicals could also be Christians too.

When you want to trust today's Catholic church when there is an alternative at hand... this would be something you would need to defend before God, as I see it. Did they never invent any extra doctrine, according to you? If they did... so why choose them as the ultimate authority? The decision is up to you.

Why are you making this a decision between Protestant and Catholic Christianity? Why assume either, or any group of Christians as "ultimate authority"? Do you? Do you take your church as the ultimate authority on matters of faith?

All Christian groups invent their own doctrines and rules, some pretty wacky ones too. But as far as I know, according the bible, we are saved by faith, not by one's doctrines and beliefs. "Are you in the right church," is kind of a ridiculous question.

I play the piano, I sing and compose music. We (my friend and me) use Studio One 4! What a coincidence. Yeah, I also try to keep time better! Quantisation is too much work fixing the damage it does...

Cool. Piano has been my main instrument, and now I play flute competently as well. Guitar holds third place for now, until I get practiced up on it as well as the other two. A lot of what I do nowadays is more improvostational, as opposed to what I used to do which was write songs that were scored out for different instruments. I generally record without the metronome on, and just play instruments around that, much more like a live, spontaneous performance feel, "jammin" sometimes.

I once played this inspired piano improv, only to play it back to discover that IQ, or intelligent quantization was on, which takes what you are performing and quantizes it on the fly, laying it out that way on the track. Needless to say, what I heard played back, sounded like what I played was being pressed back through cracks in the sidewalk, all disjointed and erratic. That's when I discovered what that evil little feature does.

 

[thomas t]

So you say the Bible could be better in a sense that it could be less usable for people misusing it justifying crime and other?
I don't agree. That's shifting the blame for the abuse, I think. Don't blame God for people misusing his Bible.

So then, what's your beef with Catholicism? They certainly represent changes over time.

they change but a change in and of itself isn't necessarily a good thing.
They say that they are the leaders in Christianity. I don't like this. The pope isn't my leader. Neither are they.

You think the books that are included in the Bible were there by God's intentional design?

[...]
Why are you making this a decision between Protestant and Catholic Christianity? Why assume either, or any group of Christians as "ultimate authority"? Do you? Do you take your church as the ultimate authority on matters of faith?

It's my impression that the Catholics say the pope is ultimate authority, since they call him infallible in certain circumstances. I was alluding to that, I'm not saying the Protestants or any other group including my church are the ultimate authority.
I was just encouraging you to make a decision about which Bible to take: the Catholic one, the Protestant one, or a third one (I'm not sure if there is one to begin with, btw.). On a side note, the Catholics and the Protestants in Germany sell a Bible together: the one of the 66 books as mentioned above. So, there isn't even controversy between these two churches in this regard in my country.
Even if there has been debating going on way back in the past, I recommend the Bible of the 66 books.
It's my belief that God has his peace with this version of his Bible. Otherwise he would have done something to change it during the last three and a half centuries, I suppose...

Ok, now I understand what you're talking about. You're talking about if you hit an off-note, something unintentional, how you then as a musician can pull out of that, and make it fit into the song really changes whether that note becomes a fail or a gain. Happy mistakes make for good music. But it takes a skilled musician to intuitively know how to pull that off. Good jazz players, for instance.

Thank you for understanding me. That skilled musician does more than simply pulling off the off-note, in my opinion. He uses it as a basis to even enrich his interpretation. Through the off-note.
God can do the same with scriptures in the process of inspiring his writers. Once he sees his writer hitting an off-note... he can inspire him to write a sentence pulling that off, next. I'm convinced he has even more tools than that. In the end you arrive at a flawless book called the Bible.

Humans cannot sing flawless pitches. They are not tone generators. [...]
These imprecise tones, makes it believable.

my point was... even if they were able to sing exact fundamental pitches all the time... most songs would changed to the worse. Not because they would become less believable. In my opinion, not hitting the 440.0 hz for a4 can be a stylistic device of value as opposed to a flaw.
But I agree with you: the slight variations up and down the 440 make it human, anyway. But that wasn't what I was talking about that.
Some singers really sing it a quarter note too high, as in the linked example above - which is a lot more than a slight deviation - ... and it gives a certain feel that is intended. That's the point.
Only an old fashioned listener will cry error (which might even be intended by the author).
Same with Bible... many people are quick to dissect it and label things they don't understand as flaws. That's my impression.

I'm sorry, what? Scholarship is just scholarship and it can examine the texts and make a considerable amount of credible decisions about it. Not sure what laws and conventions have to do with good scholarship.

And this kind of good scholarship cannot find real flaws in the Bible. Even if they say they can. That's my belief, at least. Bible is always wiser than the scholars interpreting it.

But again, the bible is about inspiration, not technical flawlessness.

It all comes down to the Bible either being inspired or flawed. There is no in between, no compromise or anything like that. This is the way I see it. I don's see any reasons for the almighty God to inspire flaws as to make it sound more human. Why?

EDITED out a typo

 

[Windwalker]

So you say the Bible could be better in a sense that it could be less usable for people misusing it justifying crime and other?
I don't agree. That's shifting the blame for the abuse, I think. Don't blame God for people misusing his Bible.

I did conclude that how people read the bible is ultimately a reflection of themselves, for good or for bad. So no, it's not the bible's fault, per se.

I was half-joking that if one were to believe that God authored and designed the Bible intentionally in the form we now have, that its purpose from God is that of communicating clearly his will, one might expect a more airtight package. Since I don't believe the bible is a miraculous, supernatural book, as opposed to an inspired collection of writings from various human perspectives on God, what I said makes more sense.

they change but a change in and of itself isn't necessarily a good thing.
They say that they are the leaders in Christianity. I don't like this. The pope isn't my leader. Neither are they.

But you criticized that they added doctrines, which all Christian groups do. So that is not what makes them wrong. There must be other things that you feel makes them likely not really all that Christian, except for a few here or there that might be Christians (to which I pointed out the same can be said of Evangelicals as well).

The major difference between Protestants and Catholics is that Catholics consider the accumulated wealth of church traditions and edicts to be part of the things that be called upon for understanding, beyond just the biblical texts themselves. Protestants try to limit understanding to simply intepretations of scripture, and throw away anything as authoritative that originates outside the bible. In many ways, this can be understood rightly so as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

As far as the Pope speaking ex cathedra, that is from that seat of Christ, that is not the main way the Pope speaks. So while his words carry great weight normally, they are not considered infallible.

But, let me contrast this for a minute with a typical bible preacher in America, pounding on his pulpit, holding the bible high in his hand, and declaring what he reads from the texts thusly: "These aren't my words folks! These are God's words, right here in his holy book!"

No, they are not God's' words. They are the preacher's interpretation of the bible text, stated as though his interpretation of it is infallible fact. That is more guilty of proclaiming absolute authority than the pope does! Just because you read something in the bible, does not mean your understanding is infallible to where you pass if off as "God's words, not mine".

All of it. Everything anyone reads from the bible, is their interpretation of it. No one can claim their understanding, is absolute truth from God himself.

I was just encouraging you to make a decision about which Bible to take: the Catholic one, the Protestant one, or a third one (I'm not sure if there is one to begin with, btw.).

Why would I need to make a decision? What rests upon that that makes that important? Why not use multiple versions? Why not go beyond them as well?

Even if there has been debating going on way back in the past, I recommend the Bible of the 66 books.
It's my belief that God has his peace with this version of his Bible. Otherwise he would have done something to change it during the last three and a half centuries, I suppose...

I can't quite see it that way, since there are a lot of more important things that God could have done something to change, and apparently did not over the centuries as well, such as not doing anything about human slavery and the holocaust, for instance. That's not much of an argument for these being the God-ordained books that you have today, to say they must be right otherwise God wouldn't have made it otherwise.

God can do the same with scriptures in the process of inspiring his writers. Once he sees his writer hitting an off-note... he can inspire him to write a sentence pulling that off, next.

Yeah, that's not a good analogy. I'm saying you have different authors playing a different melody from the other ones, not one author hitting an off-note.

I suppose the analogy would be more like someone collecting a bunch of folk tunes together, and trying to make an overall symphonic score out of them. When you actually analyze the score, you find clashes of notes, that if isolated sound discordant and disjointed - round peg in square hole sort of disconnect. How they fit together really only makes sense if you recognize this is a conglomeration of different materials pressed together, like a quilt of sorts. Yes, it can be held together as a whole fabric, but make no mistake, some of those pieces are just a pair of leftover socks, not finely woven silk.

Same with Bible... many people are quick to dissect it and label things they don't understand as flaws. That's my impression.

No, scholars understand quite well what they are looking at. It's not a matter of they must be mistaken, since they are finding errors. The error, is assuming there can be no errors, and rationalizing them away rather that looking at the scholarship.

And this kind of good scholarship cannot find real flaws in the Bible. Even if they say they can. That's my belief, at least. Bible is always wiser than the scholars interpreting it.

It doesn't work like that. Scholars can, and do have a legitimate voice in analyzing the text. You cannot ignore that, because you want to believe the Bible is supernatural. You cannot ignore evidence. God never requires faith to violate reason and ignore evidence. That's not faith. That's human fear.

It all comes down to the Bible either being inspired or flawed.

No it doesn't. The bible can be both inspired and flawed at the same time. Just like music. "Perfect" is a subjective judgment of it's value to you, not a technical assessment of it objective reality.

There is no in between, no compromise or anything like that.

Yes there is. Many, as myself find a way to hold faith and reason together without violating either. I accept evolution, for instance, yet fully believe God creates all reality. It's not a matter of you either believe one way of thinking, or another way as its exact opposite. There are countless other options available to us that are valid.

 

[thomas t]

The bible can be both inspired and flawed at the same time.

I kindly stay with my opinion: once you say it's inspired (by God)... it makes no sense to say He inspired flaws.
Either it contains flaws... or it is inspired - that's my solution I stay with. I don't think this attitude is an error.
Even if you find a way not to violate your reason while still believing in God and even if you couldn't find this way under the premise of a flawless Bible.
Even if scholars have a ligitimate voice in analysing texts.

I don't violate reason, in my opinion.
Neither do I ignore evidence as far as I know.
Rationlization is fair when it comes to apologetics, I think.

Yeah, [people improvising Jazz] is not a good analogy.

well it shows that man doesn't have to be a robot in order to author a flawless text fully inspired by God, I think.

such as [God] not doing anything about [...] the holocaust, for instance.

man authored it. He is responsible for it - he should have sorted it out. Not God.
But it is up to God to provide a flawless text. That's his responsibility.
Two different responsilibities.

the Pope speaking ex cathedra, that is from that seat of Christ,

...which is what I don't believe.

Why not use multiple versions?

that's a decision about which version to take, too.

 

[Windwalker]

I kindly stay with my opinion: once you say it's inspired (by God)... it makes no sense to say He inspired flaws.

No, he inspired humans, who are flawed. Besides, again, the choosing of the texts in the canon is nowhere stated to be guided, or even actually inspired by God. There is nothing to cite to support that. Were there apostles and prophets seated during these church council meetings? And on the contrary, the evidence supports that it was a flawed human enterprise. There is just too much evidence of that to ignore. I cannot ignore that, and retain intellectual, or spiritual integrity.

To me, to not acknowledge these things, is like claiming science is only right when it agrees with scripture, when they clearly have the evidence on their side. Evidence is not to be discounted or dismissed, if one wants to view their faith as having integrity, in my opinion, as well as experience.

Either it contains flaws... or it is inspired - that's my solution I stay with.

You yourself have said you can have inspired music, and it not be flawless. But if you mean it's "flawless to you", as a metaphor and not stating an objective fact, then that's poetry. Like so and so is the "perfect" match for you sort of use of the word perfect. A mother's love can be perfect as well, in spite of her human flaws, for example.

man authored it. He is responsible for it - he should have sorted it out. Not God.
But it is up to God to provide a flawless text. That's his responsibility.
Two different responsilibities.

But where does it say anywhere that God authored the canon of scripture? Where does it say anywhere that God guided them? How do you support that? If true, you shouldn't see any errors, according to your reasoning that inspired mean error-free. But the fact is, we do. Simply saying they aren't there, is ignoring evidence in order to defend a belief.

that's a decision about which version to take, too.

But again, why is any decision at all even necessary? Early Christians didn't have these texts. It wasn't necessary for them to choose. Why is it for anyone else?

As an aside question, do you accept the doctrine of the Trinity? How about Apostolic Succession?

Also, if you're playing piano and using Studio One, are you using a VST piano? Which one? I got NI's Noire, which is Nils Frams piano, whose music is very much like my own, though he is better. It's a gorgeous piano.

 

[thomas t]

No, he inspired humans, who are flawed.

well, we were talking about the text being flawed or not.
As flawed as humans may be ... this doesn't mean the text has to be flawed.

If true, you shouldn't see any errors, according to your reasoning that inspired mean error-free. But the fact is, we do. Simply saying they aren't there, is ignoring evidence in order to defend a belief.

I don't see errors in the Bible. Yet I don't ignore evidence.
I'm not saying that good science should always support Bible. Imagine a scientist present at day 6. He would certainly have said Adam was a youth as any good scientist would do.
Nevertheless, Adam wasn't there until that very day 6.
God created him with an appearance of age.

You yourself have said you can have inspired music, and it not be flawless.

I didn't say so, yet I agree.
But with God it's different. He doesn't inspire flaws, I think.

As an aside question, do you accept the doctrine of the Trinity?

the doctrine is good, in my opinion. But I also think it was wrong to call it that way. "trinity" as a term cannot be found in the Bible. Type in "trinity" at bibleserver.com... you won't find an entry.

Apostolic succession? can't be proven biblically, I think. My mantra when it comes to doctrine: Bible only please. Back anything up using Scripture. If you can't, it's myth.
I'd like to go one step further: Bible does not only refrain from establishing "apostolic successions" as the Catholics understand it... but it also shows a succession that went wrong: Israel's kings in the Bible.
It makes sense to say that God opposes too much human authority.

But where does it say anywhere that God authored the canon of scripture? Where does it say anywhere that God guided them? How do you support that?

the question is good.
I assume: if the Bible was false with regard to the composition of its books... God would have done something during the last 370 years. He didn't. So I assume, it's ok now.

Also, if you're playing piano and using Studio One, are you using a VST piano?

I don't know what that is. My friend has a very good Roland stage piano (called FP30). We use this one. I'm thankful to God that I can play there. He's a Christian friend.