If there was no global flood - does this mean that the Bible is not inspired? (page 4)

Olin Moyles Ghost

@Narkissos: Thanks for your discussion about "inspiration." When I say "inspired," I mean it in the way that I was taught by the Witnesses--i.e., that the Bible is the infallible, 100% true, unalterable word of God. I was taught that there were no scientific inaccuracies or contradictions in the Bible, and that this was evidence of its "inspired" nature. If the Bible is God's word, and God cannot lie, then God's word cannot contain any lies.

You can take that syllogism and apply it to the flood: If the global flood of Noah's day didn't happen, but the Bible says it did, then the Bible contains a lie and can't be God's word.

Of course, this is based on my viewpoint based on being raised to believe in a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible by the Witnesses. I recognize that there are more liberal schools of thought that rationalize some of the more embarrassing, outdated, and unscientific parts of the Bible. To me, a more reasonable response to these issues is to recognize that it is likely that no "God" had anything to do with the Bible and it's simply the work of men.

inkling

Eg. should the fact that some of Dawkins research and hypothesis into and of genes is being shown to be outdated discredit all of his research?

If Dawkins was claiming to be God, or a spokesperson for God, then... yeah.

If the Bible writers were writing as spokesmen for God, but they occasionally got
a few things completely wrong, how are we supposed to know what they got
RIGHT? If they screwed up the flood story, how do we know they got the
homophobia correct?

We have to remember that much of the Bible, including the really significant
moral stuff, is based on the "Because I Said So" system. That system only works
if you can PROVE you are all powerful and all knowing, and one way to do that
is by writing something only an all powerful/knowing entity COULD write.

If your piece of writing has some things right and some things wrong and you
leave it to the good sense, science, and conscience of your future readers to
figure out which is which, you are left with a work that is indistinguishable
from a man made document, and can only reasonably be treated as such.

[inkling]

gubberningbody

I can't see that Jesus in any way spent his time concerned with issues of canonicity or inspiration. If he reflected his father in that regard, I'd say the same was true of Jehovah.

Jesus' concern seemed to be more for a) giving people hope, b) teaching people how to "make the truth their own".

As regards any statement made in any writing - I'd have to make up my own mind as to what I might think in any given manner.

I think all this obsessive concern for what the bible does/doesn't say is a bit idolatrous.

As regards "inspiration", I suppose that's a term that needs some unpacking.

jaguarbass

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=was+there+a+world+wide+flood&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g-s1

oompa

olin......after reading this second page.....i realize you and i are both "all or nothing" types.......just scared the hell out of ya eh?....lol.......oomps

OnTheWayOut

olin......after reading this second page.....i realize you and i are both "all or nothing" types.......just scared the hell out of ya eh?....lol.......oomps

I will join the two of you in an ALL OR NOTHING stand. We'll fornicate with men and women, we'll 'eat' blood, eat things strangled, eat and drink and be merry, and (the worst of them all) we will smoke cigarettes and just miss out on the kingdom of God.

The day after Armageddon, when we are still there, we'll laugh at those that believed.

startingover

I see the believers have bailed out on this thread. And I was really looking forward to seeing how they would answer (twist) the excellent points in response to their posts.

If there was no global flood - does this mean that the Bible is not inspired?