When "Inerrant" Really Means "Full Of Errors"

[SeekingAllTruth]

They don't. But who claims they do?

Bible literalists. We have many on this board.

 

[Subduction Zone]

(!)

The idea "innocent people are punished" far exceeds in importance the other topic.

Consider: if there is no afterlife, then God would be a great mass murderer, doing genocide, and every person that suffers, and even moreso for children, would be another serious wrong of his, then.

If that were the case.

But though most think this way:

Luke 8:49 While He was still speaking, someone arrived from the house of the synagogue leader. "Your daughter is dead," he told Jairus. "Do not bother the Teacher anymore."
...

Luke 8:52 Meanwhile, everyone was weeping and mourning for her. But Jesus said, "Stop weeping; she is not dead but asleep."

Luke 8:53 And they laughed at Him, knowing that she was dead.


You could simplify in the extreme and in a pinch say the whole bible is about the fact of what Christ says here, and that people are mistaken about death of this body.

That's one possible extreme simplification (but I'd suggest less extreme, really -- there is a lot more that is highly interesting)

No, God would not be a mass murderer if there was no afterlife. God is only an evil being if the myths of the Bible are true. If life is what it appears to be, a natural process that needs no gods then life ending is merely what naturally occurs eventually. No murder involved.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

And [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. —Matthew 27:5

Now [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. —Acts 1:18

Question:

Did Judas throw the 30 pieces of silver back at the Pharisees and then hang himself

OR

Did Judas keep the 30 pieces of silver and use the money to go out and buy a field?[/QUOTE]

1213 refuses to address the question. I figured he would refuse.

 

[halbhh]

They don't. But who claims they do?

Did you notice that first pair in the list was a bit unconvincing?

Look at it again for a moment:

"The first angel sounded his trumpet, and all green grass was burnt up." —Revelation 8:7

Next chapter:

"And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing"

To me this one stood out especially since I myself once helped to burn a small grazing pasture (in my early teens) to destroy weeds...

And then later in time, I know that farmer worked to strengthen the grass, spreading even organics on it.

heh heh... So taking that pair as if a contradiction....is extremely literalistic!

lol

That one was just funny to me personally.

If I hadn't actually helped burn a pasture, maybe it would not have stood out as such a weak example to point out to object to. I'm still kinda smiling.

I think there are far harder ones to explain, but this was really a nothing. It's an interesting start to a list, eh.

 

[danieldemol]

The idea "innocent people are punished" far exceeds in importance the other topic.

Consider: if there is no afterlife, then God would be a great mass murderer, doing genocide, and every person that suffers, and even moreso for children, would be another serious wrong of his, then.

I for one hope people who suffer are compensated in the next life, however if you where to beat your child up then give them money afterwards there is still some argument that you are abusive.

The same logic applies to a God that kills innocents then compensates them afterwards, it is still abusive considering there was no need to kill them in the first place. Especially considering the suffering that the war torn go through.

 

[halbhh]

No, God would not be a mass murderer if there was no afterlife. God is only an evil being if the myths of the Bible are true. If life is what it appears to be, a natural process that needs no gods then life ending is merely what naturally occurs eventually. No murder involved.

If you use something in a source, then you bring the entire source into the discussion.

You're not thinking in a neutral way about the common bible content it seems to me. If there is an afterlife of bliss for the innocent and for the forgiven, where they live in a perfect society in in perfect bodies....then the temporary travails here before that don't amount to much in relative proportion.

It's as if, analogously, Ralph causes a person suffers a very painful cut and bruise for an evening, but then Ralph has amazing tech to heal them and give them 200 years of perfect health and zero pain. as analogy.

You shouldn't try to have it both ways. Either Ralph cut them painfully, but then healed them....or else Ralph never cut them to begin with. The entire text is at discussion if you bring part of it up.

 

[Wrangler]

It seems to me that far from following any known methodology, Christians decide which parts of the book are poetic devices arbitrarily to suit their personal interpretation.

It seems that way to men of flesh. I explained how one of your examples actually make sense and why people who are not of the Spirit lack discernment. If you'd rather revert to what it seems like, well, bless your heart.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you use something in a source, then you bring the entire source into the discussion.

You're not thinking in a neutral way about the common bible content it seems to me. If there is an afterlife of bliss for the innocent and for the forgiven, where they live in a perfect society in in perfect bodies....then the temporary travails here before that don't amount to much in relative proportion.

It's as if, analogously, Ralph causes a person suffers a very painful cut and bruise for an evening, but then Ralph has amazing tech to heal them and give them 200 years of perfect health and zero pain. as analogy.

You shouldn't try to have it both ways. Either Ralph cut them painfully, but then healed them....or else Ralph never cut them to begin with. The entire text is at discussion if you bring part of it up.

No, I am merely not using a very biased interpretation of the Bible. If it is wrong, it is wrong. Apologetics is not a search for the truth, it is the dishonest search for excuses to believe.

 

[halbhh]

No, I am merely not using a very biased interpretation of the Bible. If it is wrong, it is wrong. Apologetics is not a search for the truth, it is the dishonest search for excuses to believe.

Oh, but you really are. I know, having read through it very neutrally, and more than one time, trying to get it fully and just in the way it is meant.

It's your own bias -- leading to misinterpreted things -- which I've attempted several times to correct. I've merely explained what is in the text in its own terms. Like an accurate relaying of a novel, as analogy.

 

[Wrangler]

It would make no sense. The 30 pieces of silver (the price of iniquity in Acts) could not be used by both Judas AND the Pharisees to buy the field. If Judas was sorry he threw the money back at them and then went back to ask for it again, how could Matthew be right that it was the Pharisees who bought the field? The most illogical verbal contortions imaginable could not reconcile these two passages.

This post goes against your namesake. You are not seeking all truth but only a way to interpret what is true in such a narrow way that it cannot be true. For example, when Trump says Mexico will pay for the wall, his critics suppose THE ONLY way that could be true is if Mexico wrote a check and if they do not do that, Trump is 'lying.' Did Trump build the wall? Did Mexico build the wall? Or do you only give credit to the actual construction workers?

A critic could respond to any answer you give as not making sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, but you really are. I know, having read through it very neutrally, and more than one time, trying to get it fully and just in the way it is meant.

It's your own bias -- leading to misinterpreted things -- which I've attempted several times to correct. I've merely explained what is in the text in its own terms. Like an accurate relaying of a novel, as analogy.

Yes, I have my own bias. but it is far less than that of anyone that tries to defend the failed prophecies of the Bible. And no, your so called "corrections" have been only lame attempts at apologetics.

 

[paarsurrey]

You bring up a lot of interesting points. Many have a man-made interpretation of the words but I want to address just this one as my Cultural Study Bible delved into this at Exodus 20:5.

It is said that only those who have received the Spirit can understand God's word. This is His design. Others do not have eyes to see or ears to hear as the saying goes regarding spiritual discernment. To those of the flesh, apples and oranges are fruit. They are correct at the genus level of understanding but cannot delve into the differentia. Apples and Oranges are the quintessential example of things that are not the same.

According to the Study Notes, Ezekiel 18:20 refers to guilt flowing from sin. Exodus 20:15 refers to the consequences of sin. Most psychologists today have studied the data of intergenerational learning, behavior and the consequences that follow. It's not that mystical.

One of the most glaring aspects that differentiate our culture today from that of the Bible is how feminized we are. Many actually suppose punishment for wrong doing should only be limited to those doing wrong. Only in modern times have wars ONLY targeted 'enemy combatants.' Before that, the civilian population was the PRIMARY target. For instance, I read the campaigns of Julius Caesar. He salted the farms of his enemies civilian lands, knowing that in the next season, the army would be starving. During the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD, about 3 million civilians were killed or taken as slaves. In Gall, 10 million.

Instead of father and child, re-read the verses substituting politician and taxpayer. I believe it will help you differentiate between suffering the consequences of foolishness with the guilt from foolishness.

• For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the <politicians> upon the <taxpayer> unto the third and fourth generation.
• The <taxpayer> will not share the guilt of the <politicians>

" It is said that only those who have received the Spirit can understand God's word. This is His design."

What if the Holy/unholy Spirit tell the JWs one thing and its opposite or a different thing to the LDS and yet another thing to Bahaullah or the Bethel Church, please?
Right friend, please?
It is such things that the Atheism people get distanced from them, I understand. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[Wrangler]

What if the Holy/unholy Spirit tell the JWs one thing and its opposite of different thing to the LDS and yet another thing to Bahaullah or the Bethel Church, please?

I don't play the What If game.

I believe the Spirit is moving powerfully across denominations and have written extensively how the flowering of Christian denominations is evidence of Christianity filling every niche of every society; that the main difference between denomination is FOCUS, whereas doctrinal differences are relatively minor.

It is not wrong for one denomination to help inner city poor people and another to help build wells across the world as the calling is heard. It's all good.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

This post goes against your namesake. You are not seeking all truth but only a way to interpret what is true in such a narrow way that it cannot be true. For example, when Trump says Mexico will pay for the wall, his critics suppose THE ONLY way that could be true is if Mexico wrote a check and if they do not do that, Trump is 'lying.' Did Trump build the wall? Did Mexico build the wall? Or do you only give credit to the actual construction workers?

A critic could respond to any answer you give as not making sense.

Okay, you give me a scenario where both can be true.

Matthew:
1. Judas throws the silver at the Pharisees
2. Judas rushes out
3. Judas hangs himself with a cord in a garden or some place where there's trees
4. Pharisees gather up silver and decide to buy a field with the silver

Acts
1. Judas takes the silver and buys a field
2. Judas throws himself off a cliff and lands on a rock bursting his abdominal contents

 

[Wrangler]

Okay, you give me a scenario where both can be true.

I already did give you a scenario where both can be true..

Here is the problem with unbelievers; they are deliberately establishing an impossible standard of proof. In civil courts today, the standard is simply 'more likely than not,' 51%. Anti-Christians are not satisfied with multiple 9's of proof, e.g., 99.99%. It is possible it is still not true, right?

You did not answer my question about the wall. Odd, how you want to keep putting questions to me.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I already did give you a scenario where both can be true..

Here is the problem with unbelievers; they are deliberately establishing an impossible standard of proof. In civil courts today, the standard is simply 'more likely than not,' 51%. Anti-Christians are not satisfied with multiple 9's of proof, e.g., 99.99%. It is possible it is still not true, right?

You did not answer my question about the wall. Odd, how you want to keep putting questions to me.

You didn't give me a full scenario. All you said was maybe Judas went back and got the silver. When did he go back and what did the Pharisees do? You're living up to your namesake, though, trying to wrangle out of answering the question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already did give you a scenario where both can be true..

Here is the problem with unbelievers; they are deliberately establishing an impossible standard of proof. In civil courts today, the standard is simply 'more likely than not,' 51%. Anti-Christians are not satisfied with multiple 9's of proof, e.g., 99.99%. It is possible it is still not true, right?

You did not answer my question about the wall. Odd, how you want to keep putting questions to me.

What makes you think that you even met that very low claimed standard. I am not sure if it is correct or not. Just because there is an extremely slim possibility does not mean that you have met your 50% standard.

 

[Wrangler]

You didn't give me a full scenario.

Case in point. I gave you a scenario but invent a standard for it to fail, not a full scenario. You don't want the truth!

All you said was maybe Judas went back and got the silver.

And what is wrong with that scenario to tie to 2 statements together?

When did he go back and what did the Pharisees do?

Why does it matter WHEN he did what ties the 2 statements together?

You're living up to your namesake, though, trying to wrangle out of answering the question.

What was your answer to building the wall?

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't play the What If game.

I believe the Spirit is moving powerfully across denominations and have written extensively how the flowering of Christian denominations is evidence of Christianity filling every niche of every society; that the main difference between denomination is FOCUS, whereas doctrinal differences are relatively minor.

It is not wrong for one denomination to help inner city poor people and another to help build wells across the world as the calling is heard. It's all good.

I get for one that Christianity is feeding to flower the Atheism the most, please. Right friend, please?
I don't mind if the JWs, LDS, Bahaism combined could win/convince them back, please. But the basis of Pauline-Christianity is deceptive, I understand, the trend shows it is impossible even if the all the Pauline-Christianity (32000+ denominations) and the like (who believe Jesus died on the Cross and ascended to the skies) make a joint effort. Right friend, please?

Regards
______________
The six countries in the world with the most 'convinced atheists'

The six countries in the world that believe in God the least

 

[paarsurrey]

When "Inerrant" Really Means "Full Of Errors"

I get for one that the natural word "inerrant" is used by the humans as a cover for the "errant" so that the
credulous followers don't probe and object to their words and or their deeds, I understand, please. Right friends, please?
This results their followers to become mislead and not straightforward, a great loss, I figure. Right friends, please?
I remember there was a thread in the RF on the topic of "infallibility"*, friends could benefit from it, if it is traced. Right friends, please?

*I get it now:
Infallibility
Started by our friend @Vinayaka , please