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

"Actually, the arguement about GOd is making the logical fallacy of assumping that the only possible god is the god of the bible."Assuming by "the god of the bible," you mean the Almighty, identified as Yahweh, Jehovah, or LORD in the O.T. and sometimes identified with Jesus in the N.T., we should remember that the Bible does acknowledge the existence of other gods, though presumably they're "false" gods. (I believe there are some references to gods which are usually assumed to be the heavenly court and not "false" gods, but again we probably have a topic more appropriate for another thread.)If you are a Christian (or even a Muslim or Jew) the God (Elohim, Allah, Jehovah) of the Bible is probably the only "true" God you can conceive of. Any other "god" is (either by definition or simply as a matter of faith) a false deity. No "true" god other than the god of the Bible is conceivable.What's interesting is whether an atheist coming from a fundamentalist Christian background would feel similarly constrained. Does his rejection of God include the rejection of any possible definition or description of God, including one largely foreign to that which he was taught in church?

The atheists that I have talked to that come from fundamentalist christian backgrounds disbelieve the other gods equally, but is more willing to discuess the Judeo Christian God as the one to disbelieve in the most (probably because they know the myths the best)

DeclinetoState,Here's what inerancy of the Scriptures means to me:1. Since the Christian God exists, there is a Being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.2. Since there is a Being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, His revelation as revealed in the Bible is error-free, unambiguously clear, and objectively verifiable as true in all matters essential to having an eternal life relationship with the Christian God.3. In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory. (Eph 1:13-14)I'm not sure what happened to you between 1984-1994, but if you received the real thing then, why did you turn away from this relationship with the Christian God?

---

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

Welcome to EvC John.Please use the little green reply button on the bottom right of the message you are replying to. This allows automatic notification to the person you are responding to and, perhaps more importantly allows us all to follow the flow of the discussion.Thanks.Any questions? Just ask and 10 people will answer.

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum
Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Hi John,how does (3) follow from (1) and (2) ?P.S what does (3) mean anyway ??

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Since the author of this topic stated he was Christian Believer during 1984-1994, and that he left the Christian faith in 1994 because he found some portions of Bible Scripture to have errors, my (1) & (2) replies were given to explain what inerrancy of Scriptures really means to me.(3) was given as objective evidence to show when one is a true born again Christian Believer, one receives "the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession" (Eph 1:14).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

The most intellectually pleasing and logical view is that the bible texts in the canbnon are inerrent in the original manuscripts which are not extant. There are many fragments, some entire very early manuscripts and they have been examined in their original language, Hebrew in the old testament and various in the new, both Gree and Aramaic.The various translation are performed by man from the best evidence theory of scholarship but being human the translations are imperfect representations of the the original inspired texts.The fact that the bible exposes human error, fraility, sinfulness and all forms of human weaknesses means it accurately record the human condition, saying nothing about God's character. In fact it is in keeping with reality as we see and perceive it.. man has not changed his behavior significantly.The bible does claim perfection other than the original creation, the character of God and the life of Christ and again the truth contained in the original manuscripts.The years of study, scholarship, archeological findings and such have rendered translations of extreme accuracy as people have learned from the afore mentioned work and experience.There is of course disagreement among the scholars as in any field of scholarship just as in science.This does not at all invalidate the great teaching and historicity of the bible as a wholw and certainly not in the major themes and the teachings of Jesus.It seems that science is more sure of its conclusions concerning events billions of years in the past than they are of biblical events which occurred in the last 6,000 years.

There's nothing that establishes that the Christian God made any sort of revelation, or that the bible is such a revelation.Decline, are you from FreeConservatives? I posted as "Logic" over there for a while.

define "original manuscripts."for instance, do you mean the original documents most like the current composition of the texts? or do you mean the sources those documents were compiled from?what we have as a "bible" is a library of collected texts. the first one in "modern" form was probably around 300 ad or so, compiled by the council of nicea. it was compiled from separate documents, which existed previously. but it goes a step futher -- many of those documents were actually collections of other documents. psalms, for instance, is five books. many jewish bibles today even have the headings that separate WHICH book of psalms you're in. some books got added on to (kings as an added epilogue, for instance), some books got split up (samuel-kings is one book, over four scrolls, luke-acts is probably also one book).but we can even take this a step further. some books are scholarly works, collection of disparate facts, with citations, from other sources. kings and chronicles BOTH cite other histories. are these sources the originals?how far down are the originals? under how much human meddling, authorship, editting, collecting, dividing, and trasnlating are they buried? how much of them actually make it to the surface?i think the truth of god's word endures through the human factor. not so much in a literal sense, but in a meaning sense. i think god can tell us things with it even if the whole things is completely forged and there are no originals.

---

Using that reasoning, I guess we should conclude that the writings of Charles Dickens are inerrant.

With that logic the human race would never be able to reason but would be an expert ast meaningless sophistry.a like b and c like b does it make sense to say a nd c like each other.LOL

Nwr does bring up the point quite clearly that those people who claim that the bible is enerrant to use a double standard when either looking at either works of known fiction, or the scriptures of other religions.From someone looking at the biblical scripture from OUTSIDE the religion, there is no difference between the Bible, and the Vedas, or the Koran.

Yes, Chronos, I'm the same DeclinetoState.I see you're from another planet. How is life on Uranus?

John, I think you have me confused with Berggren, whom I quoted.

actually yes.a=>b ^ b=>c therefore b=>cis very simple and accurate logic*=> (unidirectional implication to be read 'a implies b')