Does the Errancy of Fundamentalism Disprove the God of the Bible?

DeclinetoState,Yes, I did get you mixed up with the person you were quoting.I apologize.It blew me away that a person could have been a real Christian for 10 years, then reject the Christ that lives within (Col 1:26-27).Blessings

---

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

Ok, then, what should we say to the apologists, like Josh McDowell and even C.S. Lewis before him, who assert that we can look at the evidence in the Bible, logically conclude that it is true and that, therefore, Christ exists? Do we say that the flaws in their arguments prove that Christ does not exist, or do we say that their approach doesn't work--even though we may believe Christ exists simply as a matter of faith?Taking a look at the ice analogy, we need to remember that ice, unlike a boat, is not a fundamentally different substance: it's simply water, but at a different temperature. Is spiritual enlightenment simply an advanced degree of something that almost manifests itself as human rationality, or is it - like a boat - something different altogether?I would appreciate clarification on both of these points.

Consider this:
1. God created all matter and the laws that govern it
2. How can we prove God's existance with those same laws?
God reveals himself. We don't reveal God. We can only know more of him by having him(the Holy Spirit)with us. In other words if we believe he is real, he will show us why he is real, not the other way around.This message has been edited by Brokenpride, 03-11-2006 04:00 AM

The problem with this is that in order to have "proof" of God, we must already believe in him. That seems to be a sort of circular reasoning: I believe in God, therefore he exists. Does that mean if my atheist neighbor disbelieves in God, God therefore doesn't exist? Using the logic that seems to apply here, the conclusion seems correct. However, that creates an absurdity: God cannot both exist and not exist at the same time.Can he?I'm sure others will have thoughts on this matter.

This assumes that the bible must be 100% accurate in order for God to exist. No where in the bible does it say this. It is a collection of books written by authors inspired by the word of God, and giving their interpretation on it, based on the time and knowledge they pocessed for the time they lived in. Also how could it be 100% accurate when each version can be taken differently? Which one is the correct one.Man does not equal God
Church does not equal God.I would also question the accuracy of "Niclas Berggren". You do not "decide" to become a born again Christian, God will let you know when you are one, and then it is up to your integrety and character to maintain that status. Also if you where truely inspired by God to speak in tongues, which this guy was obviously not, then how could you not belive, or continue to believe?The bible having a flaw means no God, I don't think so. It's all man's interpretation. The only thing written by God are the ten commandments.Are men incorrect for taken the bible as inherrant? That would be a better question.

How do we belive in God?By faith, and faith can be measured. People were healed by their faith alone. If you had enough faith you could move mountains. Yes God wants you to seek Him, it's His world, and He can make the rules. He probably has good reasons for doing it that way.If your dag keeps running away, how long before you don't try to find him again, or give him away? Isn't it much nicer if your dog comes to you when you call him? Isn't there a certain joy in that? That is similiar to the relationship God wants with you.No you are not a dog.If you love something let it go, if it doesn't come back, hunt it down and kill it. j/k

Uhm.. There's no reason to think that it was God that inspired Saul to curse his son just because the Bible accurately records what Saul said. God being sorry that he made Saul king just shows that we are not puppets, Saul was not predestined to rebel against God. There is other records of Jesus's life other than the Bible. And if you don't believe the Bible is God's word then the N.T is eyewittness evidence of 7-8 people. Unless their record doesn't count simply because they were Christian. The historian Joesephus also wrote about Jesus. And you say the Bible has errors like it's an established fact. And it would be good to say exactly what versus your talking about, because not everyone thinks there are errors in the Bible. You say the bible can't be inspired because things that it records people saying aren't true, that doesn't make sense. It doesn't record them as facts but to show that people are liars and/or don't know what they are talking about.

Is the parable of the shepherd and the lost sheep completely lost on you?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I am puzzled, do fundamentalist Christians worship the Bible or do they worship God? I think there is an obvious difference if one is devoted enough to think about it. Meaning that the Bible contains many internal contradictions ( 1 ex. "turn the other cheek" vs. "an eye for an eye" ) and is very suceptible to quote mining. It appears to me that like many other religions, some have "lost the forest for the trees."Whatever happened to "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven?"Just curious, please don't mind me, am quoting from memory.

hmmm, maybe, but maybe not. There is an Eastern dialetic1. Assert {exists}
2. Negate {does not exist}
3. Assert assertion and negation {both exists and doesn't exist}
4. Assert the negation of assertion and the negation of negation {neither exists nor doesn't exist}Wittgenstein did something along these lines. Language is a map of reality. Fundamentalist are not the only ones to mistake the map for the territory they just go over the top taking the map as everything and almost entirely ignoring that to which it refers.God is a three letter word, a concept. To what do we refer to when we utter the word?lfenThis message has been edited by lfen, 03-28-2006 12:01 AM

so, you would admit that what the bible says could be wrong? if so then god doesn't need the bible and you don't need to be born again in christ, you can believe in god and not jesus and still go to heaven
i really don't think there is one, god is who decides not some book, maybe the bible writers - both OT and NT got them wrong - after all the book is by man thus faultyi always thought it odd that people consider the book gods, and that he never changes anything yet he is allpowerful, i would think he could change his rules if he wanted, he did once according to the NT, why not again?

quote:

---

There is other records of Jesus's life other than the Bible.

---

True, but these source are either written long after the life of Jesus, or they are not written by an objective observer, or they do not agree with the gospels or are simply too unspecific to give us any clue to the life of Jesus.If we want to look at the life of Jesus the gospels are our main source.

quote:

---

And if you don't believe the Bible is God's word then the N.T is eyewittness evidence of 7-8 people. Unless their record doesn't count simply because they were Christian.

---

If we look at these accounts purely as eyewitness accounts, then we do need to look at them critically, just like any other historical source. Which criteria you should apply is a matter that can be discussed, but you do need criteria.In order to get an accurate picture of the life of Jesus we need to remove the writers religious bias. For example, if the writer believed Jesus is the son of God, we can no longer consider any references to Jesus being the son of God as objective. We simply do not know if the writer wrote about this subject because he believed it was true or because it was true.This does not mean that Jesus isn’t the son of God, it just shows that we cannot use the gospels as proof to show he is.On a side note: the assertion that the gospels are eyewitness accounts is widely contested. The gospels were written anonymous and the attributions was added centuries after the accounts were written. We do not know who actually wrote the gospels.

quote:

---

The historian Joesephus also wrote about Jesus.

---

Josephus mentions Jesus only twice in Antiquities of the Jews. The passage that directly concerns Jesus is widely disputed to been written by Josephus himself. It is more likely that a Christian scribe inserted the passages into the work of Josephus.

quote:

---

And you say the Bible has errors like it's an established fact. And it would be good to say exactly what versus your talking about, because not everyone thinks there are errors in the Bible.

---

It is fact that the bible contains inconsistencies. It is fact that the bible contains inaccuracies. Whether or not the bible contains errors depends on your definition of ”error’.Take for example Mark 12:26, Matthew 22:30-31 and Luke 20:37. They all contain a direct quotation of Jesus. The three gospel writers disagree about the exact words that Jesus used though. Does this mean that Jesus said the same sentence three times, each time using slightly different words? No, indicates that at least two of the writers were a bit liberal in their translation from Aramaic to Greek. Perhaps all three accounts do no reflect the exact words of Jesus. There is simply no way to determine the exact words of Jesus.Does this mean the bible contains an error? One could argue that the inconsistency mentioned above does indeed indicate that the bible contains errors. That however does not mean that the bible is automatically wrong, it just makes it a book that is difficult to interpret.

quote:

---

You say the bible can't be inspired because things that it records people saying aren't true, that doesn't make sense. It doesn't record them as facts but to show that people are liars and/or don't know what they are talking about.

---

These are not the kinds of ”errors’ we are talking about.In any way, errors do not disprove the existence of God, it only disproves the fundamentalist notion of an inerrant bible. Whether or not this also disproves the bible being inspired depends on your definition of ”inspired’.

Well, out of those 'external' sources to Jesus's life, there is not one non-biblical source that was written before 70 C.E.When it comes to the passage from Josephus (antiquities 18), apparently, the passage was at least tampereed with drastically in the 4th century. Being that this is the case, and other christian appolists had used Antiquities 18 BEFORE the 4th century as a source, yet never mentioned this passage, it appears that the entire passage was inserted.The other non-biblical sources were during the first century, and dealt with christian, and christian beliefs.

There are several more times in the bible, where Jesus just walks away, and says, I never knew you.Plus, was that a herd of people who already found God, or people not looking for God?Don't get me wrong here, I believe He keeps calling us, but it is up to us, to return to the herd.

As far as I know, whenever Jesus said "I never knew you", it was only after they had already rejected Him. You're welcome to post references to back up what you say. Still hung up on that "finding God" thing, eh? As I've tried to tell you before, it's the sheep that is lost, not the shepherd:

quote:

---

Luk 15:4 What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
Luk 15:5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
Luk 15:6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

---

Not according to the parable. The shepherd "just walks away" from the ninety-and-nine to go out looking for the one lost sheep.(Returning to the topic: you're a fine example of the errancy of funamentalism but, no, that doesn't disprove the God of the Bible. It only proves your lack of understanding of Him.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC