by crystlew123 76 Replies latest jw friends
ST, I'm sure you've since found out that the people are called 'Ayoreo Indians' of Peru. The looks on their faces are those not knowing WHAT to make of the plane....
I watched the tale of the tribe taking on a bulldozer with their spears, thinking it was alive, with no idea of what metal is:
http://www.survivalinternational.org/films/ayoreo-bulldozer
It's just like Arthur Clarke says: " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. "
Sulla thinks the bible is a complex, sophisticated read
You will love the sequel....
Just from the OP...
I can totally understand how someone who was taught that the bible was without contradiction, inerrant, and perhaps also infallable.... and who believed it... would have their mind blown that there are actually contradictions. That it is not inerrant, or infallable. It is not even the Word of God. That is an erronious teaching. 'It' (though in reality, people who wrote things IN it) testify to who - not what - the Word of God actually is: Christ.
I was not brought up in a religion, and no one ever taught me that the bible was inerrant or infallable. So to find out that it was not... well, I never believed that in the first place... so no mind blown ;)
But like I said, I can understand how someone who did believe that would feel.
I don't actually know any books that are inerrant or infallable, but that does not mean that there is no worth in them. I look at the bible as a tool - pointing to Christ, showing us some of what the people who wrote the individual books thought and believed; witness accounts of things that happened, moral lessons, history, parables, prophets. A visual aid for those people who have not learned to walk fully by faith; but need to SEE or TOUCH something. Sort of the way that the Israelites needed the ten commandments written on stone... because those laws were not written on their hearts (as the law of Christ and love is supposed to be now); and because they were 'lacking' faith. Maybe not belief... but faith and trust in God, yes.
Peace to you,
tammy
Sapphy: I would appreciate you cutting out the snark.
Don't hate the poster, Sapphy, hate the board. When people advance the shallowest possible argument and then circle around and congratulate themselves on how smart they are for getting past all that bible nonsense, well, that's really stupid. And, of course, it also is full of contempt. So, I respond in a similar way.
For the second time in as many months, I find myself in substantial agreement with NewChapter. It is as shocking to me as it is to her. There are differences, of course, but our views are much closer than what other viewpoints seem to be.
Knowsnothing, I think the OT is inspired. But that term has a different meaning thatn what JWs think. The OT stories are important and special because they are a) extraordinarily good and b) because they are Jewish. That they are Jewish is important simply because God is a Jew (to put the matter bluntly). That makes the stories of his people important to Christians.
The quality of the stories is grasped through the larger themes. Foe example: The Jewish creation myth has man being formed from God's own breath and in his own image. This is interesting because so many other stories insist that men are made from dragon blood or something. Those other stories also seem true in some way, but the Jewish approach leads us to a different place, doesn't it?
Add to that insights like the idea that God's name is simply I AM. What a concept: that God is both knowable and also transcendent at the same time. How unique and insightful that is.
What about the giant arc of Jewish history? That the Patriarchs abandon the cities to live in tents, in a state near anarchy. That the Egyptian state is seen as oppressive and rejected in favor of a return to anarchy (the Judges period). That the Juges / warlords are not good at keeping outsiders from attacking the Jews and can't really keep the Jews from their own terrible acts. That the solution is, ultimately, a return to kingship with decidedly mixed results.
It doesn't matter that there are two different guys who get credit for killing Goliath, viewed in this way. Neither does it matter that, say, Jeptha sacrificed his own daughter -- that's the point: people are constantly subject to the same sorts of desires, insecurities, and temptations no matter which god they follow. What do you learn from David except that even devoted followers of YHWH are subject to precisely the same sorts of things that afflict everyone in power?
What about morality? Well, look, what you find there is extraordinary moral clarity in the 10 Commandments. But what sort of a law is it that winds up saying, "Look, guys, just don't covet anybody else's stuff, ok?" A weird one, for sure. But that gets to the problem pretty well, doesn't it? But now what? How do you enforce that law?
Etc.
The, of course, you have this preposterous claim that the eschatological figure winds up getting murdered and raised, and that this fixes everything. That's where it gets interesting.
Crystlew123, thanks for the post. I just downloaded it, and had a quick look. I think once I realised that the bible was horseshit, I could never be bothered to pick the bones out of it, but this will save me time, and allow me to take the piss out of my family without putting in much effort.
Cheers, matey!
TEC Said:
I was not brought up in a religion, and no one ever taught me that the bible was inerrant or infallable. So to find out that it was not... well, I never believed that in the first place... so no mind blown ;)
In logic, that considered a fallacious reasoning called 'an appeal from one's own personal ignorance'. It's tantamount to saying, "well, I was personally never aware of a condradiction, therefore it wasn't a problem for me, and hence it shouldn't be a problem for you, too".
The fact is, Bible inerrancy is part-and-parcel of any religion that doesn't choose to overlook scriptures like "ALL scripture is inspired by God, beneficial for teaching, for setting things straight".
What happens is many religions choose to "cherry-pick" their passages or interpretations, sometimes dismissing the plain reading of the text with logic such as this: "well, the Bible cannot be saying THIS (i.e. the plain-text interpretation of the scripture), since THAT would not make any sense!" NOOOO, often the plain-text interpretation IS an accurate translation of what the Bible says, but the Bible is simply WRONG, being based on understanding of the World that existed 3,000 years ago (eg firmament, four corners of the Earth, man's thinking with his heart, kidneys being organs of emotions, etc). There's no side-stepping the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that:
1) The Bible claims to be inerrant, due to 'Divine Inspiration' (which is a SPECIFIC CLAIM, not just, "I heard a great song, and it inspired me to paint". Instead, it suggests that the person is spirit-directed to serve as a conduit to convey a MESSAGE from God, serving as if a telegraph operator who's on the receiving end, who writes down what is being sent from the party on the transmitting end.)
2) The Bible is actually errant. Examples abound (as listed in the book which is the topic of this thread).
However, I note that you say this:
But like I said, I can understand how someone who did believe that would feel.
Which somewhat back-peddles from the claim.
I don't actually know any books that are inerrant or infallable, but that does not mean that there is no worth in them.
That's also an appeal to personal ignorance (there ARE books without contradictions, although you may not personally know of them; many books, such as textbooks, are actually REVISED in subsequent editions to remove any discovered errors in earlier editions). That's followed by a teleological argument (your worth statement), saying that some other benefit is to be had in the final analysis (end-based justifcation) to make up for the contradictions. That may be true, but it's a questionable assertion, if not backed up with proof.
I look at the bible as a tool - pointing to Christ, showing us some of what the people who wrote the individual books thought and believed; witness accounts of things that happened, moral lessons, history, parables, prophets. A visual aid for those people who have not learned to walk fully by faith; but need to SEE or TOUCH something. Sort of the way that the Israelites needed the ten commandments written on stone... because those laws were not written on their hearts (as the law of Christ and love is supposed to be now); and because they were 'lacking' faith. Maybe not belief... but faith and trust in God, yes.
Sure, I can agree with that, as most people don't feel they have a personal chat-line connection with God which magically allows a down-loading of information into their brains. Most people need something TANGIBLE and written, in order to read and learn of ideas that are attributed to God.
Surely though, you're not saying that having a book or tablet imparts faith: if that were true, we'd all just own a Bible, and we'd all have faith?
BTW, to split hairs, but faith in God IS a belief, a sub-set of it. and just because people believe certain things doesn't mean there's any rational basis to justify holding such beliefs.
In logic, that considered a fallacious reasoning called 'an appeal from one's own personal ignorance'. It's tantamount to saying, "well, I was personally never aware of a condradiction, therefore it wasn't a problem for me, and hence it shouldn't be a problem for you, too".
Actually, it was not an appeal to anything. It was just another perspective for the OP to consider.
The fact is, Bible inerrancy is part-and-parcel of any religion that doesn't choose to overlook scriptures like "ALL scripture is inspired by God, beneficial for teaching, for setting things straight".
Actually, the FACT, is that the bible does not claim that it is, itself, inerrant.
The FACT is that the 'bible' was not created at the time that verse was written. ALL scripture IS inspired by God (in spirit), but not everything written in the bible is scripture. Luke states that his gospel is from investigation... he did not receive it from God. He interviewed and recorded things that others and himself observed.
Prophets are scripture (they were in spirit when they received it)
Paul's letters were not scripture. Not everything he wrote in them was from God, and that was a FACT that He himself admitted to. (this is from god... this is from me, but I THINK I have the spirit of God to speak thus)
And even that "All scripture is inspired by God, beneficial for teaching or setting things straight' does not state that it is inerrant or infallable. Just beneficial. Would you agree that these are not the same thing?
That's also an appeal to personal ignorance (there ARE books without contradictions, although you may not personally know of them; many books, such as textbooks, are actually REVISED in subsequent editions to remove any discovered errors in earlier editions).
I'm not just speaking about contradictions, but that nothing in them is wrong (not just for the understanding of the time... but not wrong EVER) That they can be revised later due to discovered errors in earlier editions shows that they are not inerrant, and there might even be errors found later. They CAN have mistakes. ALL books can. None claim to be inerrant. (I don't know if other holy books claim to be inerrant)
Maybe a math book is without error though, come to think of it. I don't think math changes...
That's followed by a teleological argument (your worth statement), saying that some other benefit is to be had in the final analysis (end-based justifcation) to make up for the contradictions. That may be true, but it's a questionable assertion, if not backed up with proof.
No, it is just based on the fact that books have worth without being called inerrant or infallable. We read them all the time. Including science books... which change as our understanding and tools change. They have worth, even though they are not inerrant or infallable, yes?
Surely though, you're not saying that having a book or tablet imparts faith: if that were true, we'd all just own a Bible, and we'd all have faith?
I am not saying anything of the sort. That is correct.
BTW, to split hairs, but faith in God IS a belief, a sub-set of it. and just because people believe certain things doesn't mean there's any rational basis to justify holding such beliefs.
If you want to split hairs, then you could use the word... but... it would depend upon what you are referring to with it.
Belief in His existence... well that is belief. Faith in God is not about his existence (that is a given). Faith is believing IN Him (as in trust, as in entrusting yourself to Him, what He says and does) Faith is a knowing, not a 'maybe'. One of the reasons so few have it; and one of the reasons Christ questioned if he would find any of it when he returned. He might find plenty of belief, but there is a difference between belief and faith.
When Peter walked on water... was it because he believed he might be able to do it, or did he have faith in Christ who told him, he could do it? When he doubted and started to sink, did he doubt that it was possible? How could he, Christ was right there on the water? Or did he lack faith in what Christ told him, he could do?
The apostles did not 'believe' in Christ. They knew Him; He was right there. So when it is written that the apostles had faith IN Him, it has nothing to do with existence. Because that is a given.
Peace,
tammy
TEC said:
Actually, it was not an appeal to anything. It was just another perspective for the OP to consider.
Tams, anytime ANYONE writes something that takes the form of an argument, it is automatically assumed to be an appeal, an attempt to persuade or inform. That's a fundamental principle upon which logic and discussions are based. Whether the appeal is done to change someone's mind, give them food for thought, or buy a brand of toothpaste, it's all automatically assumed to be a attempt to influence. Most people don't write just to see themselves type.
The fact is, Bible inerrancy is part-and-parcel of any religion that doesn't choose to overlook scriptures like "ALL scripture is inspired by God, beneficial for teaching, for setting things straight".
Actually, the FACT, is that the bible does not claim that it is, itself, inerrant.
The basis for inerrancy claims are IN the Bible, although some choose to ignore them.
The Bible asserts uneqivocally that God cannot lie, and the Bible is the word of God: combining those concepts found in the Bible (which MUST be true if you believe in the Bible) is the root for inerrancy claims that the Bible must be wholly true.
Jesus referred to the OT as if it was reliable, saying every last detail down to every last letter must be fulfilled, which implies that every last detail MUST be correct (Mt 5:18).
The argument extends to the NT, due to 2 Tim 3:16 (as pointed out above).
I don't get your goal: are you actually admitting that the Bible IS errant? Fallible? If so, you are forced to reject it all as possibly flawed, and hence all questionable.
The FACT is that the 'bible' was not created at the time that verse was written. ALL scripture IS inspired by God (in spirit), but not everything written in the bible is scripture. Luke states that his gospel is from investigation... he did not receive it from God. He interviewed and recorded things that others and himself observed.
Prophets are scripture (they were in spirit when they received it)
Paul's letters were not scripture. Not everything he wrote in them was from God, and that was a FACT that He himself admitted to. (this is from god... this is from me, but I THINK I have the spirit of God to speak thus)
Just like the principles from logic, you cannot change basic, commonly-accepted theological definitions at will, eg 'scripture'.
Wikipedia says:
Religious texts, also known as scripture, scriptures,holy writ, or holy books, are the texts which various religious traditions consider to be sacred, or of central importance to their religious tradition. Many religions and spiritual movements believe that their sacred texts are divinely or supernaturallyrevealed or inspired.
So when you try and claim that 'scripture' includes the living/breathing homo sapien prophets: NOPE. They are human beings, not TEXTS made of cellulose. Texts are WRITINGS: that's the basis of the word, text (the WRITTEN representation of language). Spoken words are NOT text, but may be transcribed or written INTO text. But they are completely different forms of communication that you're trying to blend into a mix.
And even that "All scripture is inspired by God, beneficial for teaching or setting things straight' does not state that it is inerrant or infallable. Just beneficial. Would you agree that these are not the same thing?
Sure, I'd agree there's a difference, as I never claimed they WERE the same: I included "beneficial for teaching" in the quote primarily to clarify which passage I was referring to, and not to support my point.
But since you brought it up, "beneficial for teaching" does imply that they are valid facts, worthy of being taught: most people don't intentionally perpetuate known-lies or falsehoods, right? That's not intellectually honest, is it, spreading KNOWN falsehoods?
That's also an appeal to personal ignorance (there ARE books without contradictions, although you may not personally know of them; many books, such as textbooks, are actually REVISED in subsequent editions to remove any discovered errors in earlier editions).
Maybe a math book is without error though, come to think of it. I don't think math changes...
That would be a good example: a book of basic arithmetic can be written that is completely inerrant, being proof-read by multiple editors to verify the final printed edition is inerrant. Textbooks also are updated, if a better way of expressing the point is found. So the old version wasn't errant per se, just not as concise and clear.
That's followed by a teleological argument (your worth statement), saying that some other benefit is to be had in the final analysis (end-based justifcation) to make up for the contradictions. That may be true, but it's a questionable assertion, if not backed up with proof.
No, it is just based on the fact that books have worth without being called inerrant or infallable. We read them all the time. Including science books... which change as our understanding and tools change. They have worth, even though they are not inerrant or infallable, yes?
But textbooks don't claim to be divinely-inspired: that's the point. They can, and in fact MUST be modified, to maintain their utility to the readers with the most current, up-to-date information. Old textbooks have utility, but reading 2,500 yr old didactic textbooks for any other than historical purposes (eg to study ancient beliefs) is the height of foolishness.
BTW, to split hairs, but faith in God IS a belief, a sub-set of it. and just because people believe certain things doesn't mean there's any rational basis to justify holding such beliefs.
Belief in His existence... well that is belief. Faith in God is not about his existence (that is a given).
God's existence is "NOT a given". It's very much in question, as you well know. YOU may personally choose to believe without evidence, but that's hardly a reasonable position to take, based on available facts.
Faith is believing IN Him (as in trust, as in entrusting yourself to Him, what He says and does) Faith is a knowing, not a 'maybe'. One of the reasons so few have it; and one of the reasons Christ questioned if he would find any of it when he returned. He might find plenty of belief, but there is a difference between belief and faith.
And why is believing without evidence such a virtue? People who believe based on hope, or on what they WANT to be, are simply victims of scams waiting to be found by a scammer. Encouraging belief without evidence is emotionally crippling those who do, as it demands unconditional surrender, always relying on the kindness of others, being at their complete mercy.
Where else, except in Xianity, is such a Worldview considered a BENEFICIAL personality trait?
When Peter walked on water... was it because he believed he might be able to do it, or did he have faith in Christ who told him, he could do it? When he doubted and started to sink, did he doubt that it was possible? How could he, Christ was right there on the water? Or did he lack faith in what Christ told him, he could do?
I don't believe it ever happened: people can lie, and DO lie, even in books.
The apostles did not 'believe' in Christ. They knew Him; He was right there. So when it is written that the apostles had faith IN Him, it has nothing to do with existence. Because that is a given.
Even the story found in the Bible mentioned a certain Doubting Thomas. What did he know that the others didn't know?
Gotta go to work, talk with you later, don't even have time to read past this:
the bible is the word of God...
Christ is the Word of God. Not the bible. Can you show me where the bible states that it is the word of God? I think you would have to prove that for every single piece of work within the bible, as well, since it is not one book. Someone just put it together as one book.
Anyway, talk with you later...
Peace,
tammy
Tams, anytime ANYONE writes something that takes the form of an argument, it is automatically assumed to be an appeal, an attempt to persuade or inform. That's a fundamental principle upon which logic and discussions are based. Whether the appeal is done to change someone's mind, give them food for thought, or buy a brand of toothpaste, it's all automatically assumed to be a attempt to influence. Most people don't write just to see themselves type.
Yes, but you labeled my 'appeal' as a fallacy. I simply offered another perspective to consider. People do that in discussions, right?
The basis for inerrancy claims are IN the Bible, although some choose to ignore them.
The bible is many books... so even if one claimed to be inerrant (and I have yet to see any do this); that does not translate to the bible claiming itself to be inerrant.
The Bible asserts uneqivocally that God cannot lie, and the Bible is the word of God: combining those concepts found in the Bible (which MUST be true if you believe in the Bible) is the root for inerrancy claims that the Bible must be wholly true.
See my post above. God cannot lie... but the bible is not God, nor the word of God. Christ is the Word of God. Inspired writings are still written, translated, and handed down by men... some who do so as accurately as possible, but might make mistakes. (not necessarily lie)
Jesus referred to the OT as if it was reliable, saying every last detail down to every last letter must be fulfilled, which implies that every last detail MUST be correct (Mt 5:18).
I am pretty sure he referred to the letter of the law... and the entire OT is not law. Plus, their understanding of the law had become warped, at least in some areas. Christ corrected many things. "You have heard it said, but I tell you now..." If Christ is the image of God, the word and truth of God... and God does not change OR lie... then God is as Christ showed Him to be. God did not all of a sudden change. Christ came and showed the people the TRUTH of God.
For example, He also said that even though Moses gave them the law on divorce, it was NOT that way that God intended. That the truth was that one could only divorce on the basis of adultery.
So there was nothing wrong with the law. But which part of the law was added to or warped, or taken away from, or simply misunderstood... because of the hard-heartedness of those listening?
The argument extends to the NT, due to 2 Tim 3:16 (as pointed out above).2Tim is referring to scripture, and not everything in the NT OR the OT is scripture. (inspired... IN SPIRIT... when it was received)
I don't get your goal: are you actually admitting that the Bible IS errant? Fallible? If so, you are forced to reject it all as possibly flawed, and hence all questionable.
LOL.. where have you been?
The bible is not infallable. That is proven. People can change it. We know that from the NWT. They add to or take away from. There are changes made (or verses ommitted) because translators are uncertain of how to translate the verse properly. Verses get translated a certain way based on current understanding of doctrine as well. There are contradictions, so it is also not inerrant. (Judas committing suicide; Judas falling from his horse) I don't see how anything handled by men can claim to be inerrant... but the bible does not claim that about itself anyway.
I am not forced to do anything though. For one, as I said, just because a book is not considered infallable or inerrant, does not make it worthless. Have you never read any book on psychology, or philosophy, or morality, or any such thing... these are not inerrant. Is there no worth in them? Einstein made some pretty awesome statments, but he is not inerrant. Should we reject everything that is not inerrant or infallable, just because it could be in error? Or do we test, measure, etc? I do this. I don't take anything as 'gospel' (forgive the pun), unless Christ has confirmed it for me. And I do test everything against Him (at the very least I would test anything written in that bible against the His written word), and love.
Science is not inerrant or infallable either, and its 'conclusions' change throughout time, as new discoveries and tools are made. But you do not reject science out of hand, right?
Just like the principles from logic, you cannot change basic, commonly-accepted theological definitions at will, eg 'scripture'.
Commonly accepted does not make something correct. Isn't accepting something because it is common a fallacy of some sort? Appeal to tradition perhaps?
Wikipedia says:
A MOST reliable source ;)
Religious texts, also known as scripture, scriptures,holy writ, or holy books, are the texts which various religious traditions consider to be sacred, or of central importance to their religious tradition. Many religions and spiritualmovements believe that their sacred texts are divinely or supernaturallyrevealed or inspired.
Key words: Consider to be... and believe...
Based on what? Tradition?
So when you try and claim that 'scripture' includes the living/breathing homo sapien prophets: NOPE.
I did not claim this, and do not think this. When I said prophets, I meant what is written by them (or transcribed for them as they explained to a scribe)
Scripture is the written words of what was given to someone (prophets in this case). Not the prophets themselves. That makes no sense.
Sure, I'd agree there's a difference, as I never claimed they WERE the same: I included "beneficial for teaching" in the quote primarily to clarify which passage I was referring to, and not to support my point.
So we are in agreement that they are not the same thing.
But since you brought it up, "beneficial for teaching" does imply that they are valid facts, worthy of being taught: most people don't intentionally perpetuate known-lies or falsehoods, right? That's not intellectually honest, is it, spreading KNOWN falsehoods?
It implies that they are beneficial. No one said anything about known-lies or falsehood.
Love your neighbor as yourself is beneficial, do not repay wrong for wrong, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, be merciful, etc, etc. I assume you would not think that these have to be thrown out, just because the book it is written within is not inerrant or infallable? They are beneficial,yes? They have merit? You can see this for yourself if you test them out. Hence, test the inspired expression.
God's existence is "NOT a given".
It is to one who has faith IN Him, and that was my point.
It's very much in question, as you well know.
Yes, but my point was in relation to a person of faith IN Him. Not a person without faith in Him.
YOU may personally choose to believe without evidence, but that's hardly a reasonable position to take, based on available facts.
True, I could choose to do this... but that is not what I actually DO. I do have faith IN Him, based on evidence.
I did make a choice as to something though. I did choose to follow Christ when I read his words and teachings... because I loved Him, and saw truth in all He taught. And the more i trusted in Him, the more He answered the faith I put IN Him, and that continues today.
And why is believing without evidence such a virtue?
Who says it is?
People who believe based on hope, or on what they WANT to be, are simply victims of scams waiting to be found by a scammer. Encouraging belief without evidence is emotionally crippling those who do, as it demands unconditional surrender, always relying on the kindness of others, being at their complete mercy.
None of that has anything to do with me. If it did, I would simply choose the church or religion that offers the most of whatever i guess I want, and never mind looking at Christ at all.
Where else, except in Xianity, is such a Worldview considered a BENEFICIAL personality trait?
You will have to ask someone else this question, Sol.
I don't believe it ever happened: people can lie, and DO lie, even in booksBelieve it happened or do not, it does not matter to the teaching/lesson from the story.
Even the story found in the Bible mentioned a certain Doubting Thomas. What did he know that the others didn't know?
Nothing. He was wrong. He did not doubt Christ, btw. He doubted the resurrection. He was shown otherwise.
Peace to you,
tammy
