|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So you claim Faith but that is not what the Bible Actually says is it? Do I have to post the passages here yet again?
You know that I can and I will Faith.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Except of course the fact that he tells it at least three times to various people and it was the most dramatic event of his life that completely changed him from a Pharisee to a preacher of the gospel. Again, not to believe him is to impose your own arrogant prejudice on him. Except Faith, according to the Bible he cannot tell the story the same way twice in a row. As I pointed out back in Message 1841 the stories are filled with contradictions. Two were likely written down within a year of each other but still for being the most dramatic event of his life seem like not one event but two totally different ones. The accounts found in Acts are not first person accounts told by Paul but rather the author of Acts writing dialog for the Paul character in the narrative. Those two accounts also vary with the later definitely being written to play to a Jewish audience. Shall I post all of them here again or can you just use the link to see what the Bible actually says Faith as opposed to what you claim it says? If the Bible really were the inerrant word of God wouldn't you think God could get the story straight?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
That's exactly my point: to anybody but the husband, they pretty much are.
Wives are a lot of things, but one thing they are not is fungible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Ringo writes: NoNukes writes:
That's exactly my point: to anybody but the husband, they pretty much are. Wives are a lot of things, but one thing they are not is fungible. Henny Youngman anybody? Like Jesus, another nice Jewish boy. Edited by jar, : hit wrong keyAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The very evidence that the account is true, that Paul tells the story slightly differently each time, is treated as evidence that it's false. Have you ever told a story about yourself in exactly the same way twice? No, but Paul has to or he's lying. And as usual you are inventing contradictions where they should be read as building on one another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Bible IS evidence, too bad your bias eliminates it a priori so that you will never be able to recognize it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: The very evidence that the account is true, that Paul tells the story slightly differently each time, is treated as evidence that it's false. Have you ever told a story about yourself in exactly the same way twice? No, but Paul has to or he's lying. And as usual you are inventing contradictions where they should be read as building on one another. Thanks for providing yet more evidence that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God Faith. Knew I could count on you. Let's look yet again at what the Bible actually says Faith. The earliest account is from First Corinthians. It is very simple and straight forward and just says Paul claims to have seen Jesus after his death.
quote: Just a simple story, no one else with him, no voices, no light, no struck blind; just a claim to have seen Jesus and note that he is only repeating what is said in scripture of the day; no revelation. About a year later there is the account found in Galatians.
quote: Now the story has been elaborated a little, Instead of preaching what he learned from Scripture he claims a revelation of Jesus Christ and that he was called by God, not Jesus to preach about Jesus. But still no voices, no lights, no companions, no struck blind, no vision regained ... While elaboration and adding elements to a story is perfectly normal for humans, it does destroy any claim of inerrancy. But wait, there's more. Then we come to the hearsay reports found in Acts. In Acts we see the author writing dialog for the Paul Character that again expands on the earlier simple tale and adds all kinds of woo factors that just were not in the original ones, the light and voices and blindness and witnesses that see different things in the two tales and do different things in the two tales plus the later account is definitely tailored to play well to a Jewish audience.
quote: quote: So yes, humans do vary stories when they retell them and elaborate and exaggerate and make stuff up and embellish but those are all human characteristics not of inerrancy. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin: form ---> fromAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9203 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
If Paul changed the story in each telling, then by virtue of the definition of inerrant, then it would not be inerrant.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22507 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Faith writes: The Bible IS evidence, too bad your bias eliminates it a priori so that you will never be able to recognize it. Of course the Bible is evidence. Everything is evidence. We're seeking evidence for whether the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. So far there is both internal evidence from within the Bible and external evidence from the real world that the Bible is the very much errant words of men. If you were aware of actual evidence that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God then you would be showing it to us instead of evading discussion and resorting to ad hominem. We are not biased or prejudiced, not do we lack discernment, nor are we idiots, imbeciles, blockheads, dolts, stupid, insane, or any of the other names you've called us. If you only had answers for even just a few of our questions and inquiries then you would indeed have a mountain of evidence, but alas you appear to have nothing. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, Percy, you aren't "seeking evidence for whether the Bible is the inerrant word of God," you made up your mind long ago and nothing anyone could say could change it. The evidence that has been given you continue to dismiss on the basis of your prejudice against the supernatural. There is no evidence that could be given that would persuade you. Even a genuine miracle you'd just write off as some sort of psychological trick or other sort of illusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22507 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: No, Percy, you aren't "seeking evidence for whether the Bible is the inerrant word of God," you made up your mind long ago and nothing anyone could say could change it. I understand it feels that way to you because you believe we're just dismissing your evidence, but we're also explaining why what you think is evidence isn't really evidence. Bald assertions ("Christianity is the one true religion") aren't evidence. Insisting that people just be taken at their word (as long as they're arguing for Christianity) isn't evidence. Using the Bible to prove the Bible isn't evidence. Insisting on unproven relationships (absence of error means it's the Word of God; accurate prophecy means its the Word of God) isn't evidence. And you have significant problems with consistency. You can't insist that arguments that prove your point when they're about Christianity can be ignored when they're about other religions (Biblical miracles are genuine proof that Christianity is the one true religion, miracles of other religions are "puny imitations" and mean nothing). You can't simply dismiss obvious differences with nonsensical declarations (two is the same as seven). You can't argue that qualities that are evidence of religious truth when they're for Christianity are not evidence for religious truth when they're for other religions (losing ten tribes makes the Bible unique and is evidence that it is the Word of God; recounting the Kurukshetra War makes the Hindu scriptures unique but is not evidence that it is the Word of God).
The evidence that has been given you continue to dismiss on the basis of your prejudice against the supernatural. True evidence can be observed repeatedly by anyone. If there really is such a thing as supernatural phenomena then it should be possible to gather actual, genuine evidence for them. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The whole joke called Biblical Inerrancy is a fairly modern concept (mostly 70s) that was the creation of a very small, very human conclave of Evangelical Marketeers. It was not anything well thought out and was infact produced at a three day Fly in to O'Hare (good Catholic boy) Regency. It was not subject to testing or debate or examination by any who had not already made up their minds. All the attendees had decided before the conference had even started that the goal and conclusion would be a "Statement" affirming inerrancy.
Like most of Faith's posts the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy offers no support for its position and simply says "here is the final word". It just claims that the original autographs are inerrant and even if there are no original autographs it don't matter. It's an interesting look into the mind and so called thought patterns of the "Biblical Christian" Hucksters. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin, dropped a "t"Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sigh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22507 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Sigh. That's not a response. It's been explained how the types of "evidence" you're offering have two very serious problems:
If you have responses to the reasons why your evidence isn't really evidence then you must provide them. You can't keep quitting in the middle. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh yes I can keep "quitting in the middle." It's only the "middle" according to you anyway. To me it's the point where the discussion became too futile to continue.
But one no doubt futile remark about the miracles comparison. Sigh. The miracles in the Bible are genuine God-wrought miracles, on a scale and with a power only God could accomplish including bringing people back to life who have died. The so-called "miracles" of other religions ARE puny little demonic tricks by comparison. Take it or leave it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024