Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Errancy of Fundamentalism Disprove the God of the Bible?
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 158
Joined: 01-16-2006


Message 1 of 154 (281350)
01-24-2006 8:22 PM


Personal Information: Niclas Berggren, born in 1968, holds a Ph.D. in economics and resides in Stockholm, Sweden. At the age of 16, independent of his non-believing parents, he decided to become a born-again Christian and joined the Pentecostal Church (doctrinally close to the Assemblies of God in the U.S.). He remained an earnest, active member - which included bible studies, evangelisation, prayer, speaking in tongues, etc. - until 1994, when he began to question the rationale for believing in the god of the Bible. In 1996, he left his Church after having become an atheist through careful Bible study and rational reasoning. Some of the basis for this radical, albeit calm and gradual, change is presented in this essay.
1. Introduction
This essay will investigate the often-made claim from Christians, that the Bible is the inspired word of god, a corollary of which is that it is perfectly without error. This view is exemplified by the following statement of Jimmy Swaggart, a Pentecostal pastor: "One of the most basic tenants of the Christian faith is that the Scriptures are inerrant. Because the Bible is God's Word, it is entirely error-free." (Swaggart, 1987, p. 8) [1] It will be argued that this view - which will be referred to as Fundamentalism - is the only possible logical view of the Bible for a Christian, but that it is incorrect and, therefore, that the Christian god[2] does not exist. More formally, the argument of this essay can be expressed in the following manner:
1. If the Christian god (as defined in footnote [2]) exists, there is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
2. If there is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, his revelation is error-free, unambiguously clear, and objectively verifiable as true.
3. The Bible is neither error-free, unambiguously clear, nor objectively verifiable.
C. The Christian god does not exist.
We shall begin by examining the nature of this god and what implications it has for our analysis of the Bible.
Konsumtentrd inom frskringar, ln, privatekonomi och teknik Vra guider gr dina val som konsument enklare. ‘ P ntet sedan 1995.
If errors can be shown to exist in the Bible, as Berggren asserts, does it then follow that God, at least as an omnipotent Supreme Being, cannot exist?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 01-25-2006 12:46 PM DeclinetoState has replied
 Message 9 by jar, posted 01-30-2006 10:42 AM DeclinetoState has not replied
 Message 23 by Chronos, posted 02-03-2006 10:34 PM DeclinetoState has replied
 Message 35 by riVeRraT, posted 03-22-2006 10:09 PM DeclinetoState has not replied
 Message 55 by Jman, posted 04-09-2006 2:53 PM DeclinetoState has not replied
 Message 103 by Greatest I am, posted 06-18-2007 5:24 AM DeclinetoState has not replied
 Message 110 by Refpunk, posted 08-17-2007 9:48 AM DeclinetoState has not replied
 Message 119 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-17-2007 5:01 PM DeclinetoState has not replied
 Message 142 by Q, posted 09-06-2007 6:30 PM DeclinetoState has not replied
 Message 148 by DivineBeginning, posted 09-26-2007 9:12 AM DeclinetoState has not replied

  
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 158
Joined: 01-16-2006


Message 3 of 154 (281827)
01-26-2006 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPD
01-25-2006 12:46 PM


Re: Comments
You have not provided your point of view, only a question.
That is not true. A point of view is implied in the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 01-25-2006 12:46 PM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminPD, posted 01-26-2006 8:16 PM DeclinetoState has not replied
 Message 5 by AdminPhat, posted 01-29-2006 3:46 AM DeclinetoState has replied

  
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 158
Joined: 01-16-2006


Message 6 of 154 (282450)
01-30-2006 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by AdminPhat
01-29-2006 3:46 AM


Re: You have a callback
I do not intend to "edit" my opening post. I will add this comment, however: I think that Berggren engages in some leaps of logic, to wit:
If God exists, and God is perfect, then everything He has created must be perfect.
The Bible, among other things, is not perfect.
Therefore, God does not exist.
Some fundamentalists accept the first premise but not the second (they assert the Bible is perfect).
A couple of points must be kept in mind:
1. If everything in the universe were perfect, the Bible would not be necessary, since it begins (almost) with the story of how sin came into the world in the Garden of Eden.
2. It could thus be argued that if the Bible were perfect, it would disprove itself, since it would not be an example of the imperfection that has befallen the universe.
I think No. 1 is certainly defensible, but I think No. 2 is a leap of logic neither I nor anyone else that I know would take. Nonetheless, it still seems possible.
Think of it like this: You wish to engage someone in a conversation, right? Lay out your personal point of view, THEN provide a link or two....then decide which forum you want to focus on and let me know.
I do not have a strongly held personal point of view on this issue; indeed, I don't really have a point of view at all. If I did, I wouldn't have bothered posting here.
My point in posting here it to develop a point of view, specifically, to see if there is one that is in any way defensible. Right now, I'm not sure there is one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AdminPhat, posted 01-29-2006 3:46 AM AdminPhat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 7:26 AM DeclinetoState has not replied
 Message 10 by Hal Jordan, posted 01-30-2006 11:00 AM DeclinetoState has not replied

  
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 158
Joined: 01-16-2006


Message 13 of 154 (282617)
01-30-2006 2:10 PM


Bratcher's argument regarding the matter
Robert Bratcher, editor of the TEV (Good News Bible) had an interesting (and controversial!) take on the question of Bible accuracy and inerrancy:
At a Dallas conference on the theme "Biblical Authority for the Church Today" sponsored by the Southern Baptist Convention in March 1981 he openly lambasted conservative evangelicals, calling them ignorant and dishonest, and scoffed at their contention that the words of the Bible were inspired and authoritative:
"Only willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. To qualify this absurd claim by adding 'with respect to the autographs' is a bit of sophistry, a specious attempt to justify a patent error ... No thruth [sic]-loving, God-respecting, Christ-honoring believer should be guilty of such heresy. To invest the Bible with the qualities of inerrancy and infallibility is to idolatrize it, to transform it into a false God ... No one seriously claims that all the words of the Bible are the very words of God. If someone does so it is only because that person is not willing thoroughly to explore its implications ... Even words spoken by Jesus in Aramaic in the thirties of the first century and preserved in writing in Greek 35 to 50 years later do not necessarily wield compelling or authentic authority over us today. The locus of scriptural authority is not the words themselves. It is Jesus Christ as THE Word of God who is the authority for us to be and to do." (6)
Good News Bible
I'm not sure I would have made this argument to a group of Southern Baptists!
The argument is compelling: Christ is perfect, the Bible is not. In favor of that point of view, one could argue that, for example, the words of Job's friends (and even Job himself, to some extent) are "garbage," since they represent false though evidently widely held beliefs about God, man, punishment, etc. Of course, even though they don't represent what God thinks about man, they're still useful and appropriate in the Bible (and arguably don't make the Bible imperfect, though it's hard to see how the words could be considered "inspired").
Similarly, the passage in 1 Samuel 20:30, where King Saul calls his son Jonathan a "son of a perverse, rebellious woman"--paraphrased to "son of a bitch" in the first editions of The Living Bible (changed to "fool" in later editions)--is obviously not "inspired" in that it's difficult to imagine God inspiring the king to curse his son. OTOH, it does explain why God was "sorry" he had made Saul king in the first place. (But now we're getting to a topic for another thread...)
The major objection that I would have to Bratcher's position is that, lacking other direct historical evidence for Jesus Christ, we need to know that the Gospels are in fact inspired and accurate before we can be certain that Jesus ever walked the earth and/or is alive in heaven today. Right now, we seem to have a compelling story in the Gospels, yet one that seems to have discrepancies that will cause many critical readers to question its veracity.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by ramoss, posted 01-30-2006 2:46 PM DeclinetoState has replied
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 01-30-2006 3:12 PM DeclinetoState has replied
 Message 37 by Rainman2, posted 03-28-2006 12:12 AM DeclinetoState has not replied

  
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 158
Joined: 01-16-2006


Message 16 of 154 (282700)
01-30-2006 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ramoss
01-30-2006 2:46 PM


Re: Bratcher's argument regarding the matter
"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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ramoss, posted 01-30-2006 2:46 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ramoss, posted 01-30-2006 8:12 PM DeclinetoState has not replied

  
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 158
Joined: 01-16-2006


Message 28 of 154 (283899)
02-04-2006 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Chronos
02-03-2006 10:34 PM


Who is DeclinetoState?
Decline, are you from FreeConservatives? I posted as "Logic" over there for a while.
Yes, Chronos, I'm the same DeclinetoState.
I see you're from another planet. How is life on Uranus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Chronos, posted 02-03-2006 10:34 PM Chronos has not replied

  
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 158
Joined: 01-16-2006


Message 29 of 154 (283900)
02-04-2006 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by John 10:10
02-01-2006 5:29 PM


Confused?
John 10:10 writes:
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?
John, I think you have me confused with Berggren, whom I quoted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by John 10:10, posted 02-01-2006 5:29 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by John 10:10, posted 02-06-2006 4:36 PM DeclinetoState has not replied

  
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 158
Joined: 01-16-2006


Message 32 of 154 (285996)
02-12-2006 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phat
01-30-2006 3:12 PM


Re: Bratcher's argument regarding the matter
Phat writes:
I feel as if the Gospels will always be a matter of belief and not fact, from a critical viewpoint.
This type of logic is also an impartation, I believe. Just as ice floats upon water, spiritually enlightened minds will always "float" on another plain from the concrete empiricism of limited human rationality.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 01-30-2006 3:12 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by sinamatic, posted 03-11-2006 3:59 AM DeclinetoState has replied

  
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 158
Joined: 01-16-2006


Message 34 of 154 (294298)
03-11-2006 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by sinamatic
03-11-2006 3:59 AM


Re: Bratcher's argument regarding the matter
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.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by sinamatic, posted 03-11-2006 3:59 AM sinamatic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by riVeRraT, posted 03-22-2006 10:15 PM DeclinetoState has not replied
 Message 40 by lfen, posted 03-28-2006 2:57 AM DeclinetoState has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024