If there was no global flood - does this mean that the Bible is not inspired? (page 3)

awildflower

Great point about getting away from the worship of the Bible. When you think about it, ANYTHING we attach ourselves to would be considered idolotry, not just the cross but the Bible itself, a group or organization, all the way down to our own beliefs and thoughts can end up being a form of idolotry........wf

Olin Moyles Ghost

Thanks to all for the diverse comments.

It's interesting that some Bible believers are willing to accept that the Bible is not 100% accurate, and yet was inspired by God. I don't think I can take such a position. To me, it strains credulity to think that there is a God who is wise and powerful enough to create the entire universe and every single living thing in it...but for whatever reason he cannot (or chooses not to) convey it accurately to his scribes.

I'm not trying to offend anyone, but such reasoning seems disingenuous. It is like grasping at straws--construing the facts in any way necessary to arrive at the desired conclusion.

Personally, I'm a fan of Ockham's razor--if you have two possible explanations, choose the simplest one (for example, if you're in the western USA and you hear galloping animals, you assume it's horses not zebras). So, when it comes to the Bible I see two possible explanations, either: (1) it is inspired by an all-powerful God who, for some reason, could not cause his human scribes to write it without contradictions, exaggerations, and falsehoods; or (2) it is simply the product of men. To me, all the evidence points towards #2. Is it possible that #1 could be true? Of course...I can't prove a negative. But it seems highly unlikely.

cognizant dissident

That's right. If you say the Bible is inspired by God, and you admit it contains errors, then in effect, you are saying God inspired the Bible writers to write errors. What would be the point of that? How is that enlightening and beneficial for teaching?

If you say God inspired them to write the Bible from their imperfect human viewpoints and that's why it contains errors, then you are saying the Bible is a book of human viewpoints, not God's viewpoints. It is not his Word then, is it? It is the Word of Man.

You cannot have it both ways. No matter how hard you try to reconcile it, it is impossible to do.

hamsterbait

Jesus is quoted to "prove" a global flood.

Words are being put into his mouth. He says "the flood" - but where exactly does he say GLOBAL?

The ancients did not think of the earth as a globe (round ball)

The WT has transposed its 20th science onto a bible that taught no such thing.

HB

The Almighty Homer

Most of the writings in the bible are imaginary metaphors trying to convey a certain message by the writers and speakers

themselves ( including JC ) revolving around their great and powerful god YAHWEH, you might consider that was their inspiration then.

And could you really blame them since human ignorance about the world they lived in and about themselves was extremely high.

Ignorance and fear does indeed inspire particularly when humans are lamenting on whose god is the greatest ares or theirs.

Olin Moyles Ghost

@Hamster: I agree that the Bible doesn't say "global flood" in its text. But as I discussed in the first post, Genesis says that the water covered "all the tall mountains that were under the whole heavens." It seems crystal-clear that the writer is describing a global flood. Any other interpretation of that scripture directly contradicts its plain language.

Thus, when Jesus refers to Noah's day and the flood, he is referring to the flood as described in Genesis--which, as explained above, is a global flood. To me, the only reasonable conclusion from this is that the Bible writer who penned Jesus' words believed in the global flood as described in Genesis.

As has been well-documented, there was no global flood at the time Noah was purported to live. Thus, Genesis and the other writings contain inaccuricies. This leads to the conclusion that the Bible is not inspired.

rocketman

Could the story of the global flood be, well, nothing more but a story, told to drive home a point, much like Jesus' story of the Good Smaritan? If Jesus repeatedly used parables to teach, would God have used them to teach as well?

Narkissos

OMG: I could more or less agree with your last post (with the important provision previously made by HB, i.e. that the "earth" was not a "globe" to the Genesis writers, to begin with) until the last sentence, which to me is non sequitur unless better defined: "This leads to the conclusion that the Bible is not inspired."

Why, or how could that lead to such a conclusion? Only if you assume that "inspiration" implies that (1) every Bible story was meant to be taken literally and (2) such literal meaning has to reflect (anachronistic) "scientific accuracy". But actually whose claim is that? Certainly not "the Bible"'s. Only a certain fundamentalistic fringe of Judaism or Christianity which may be prevalent where you live but do not reflect the totality, or even the majority, of their own confessions.

It seems to me that the constant ping-pong game between self-proclaimed "Bible apologists" and "Bible sceptics" (much like the game between Trinitarians and neo-Arians on another topic) requires the same kind of entrenched symmetrical positions, hijacking "the Bible" into false dilemmas on which both "sides" tacitly agree. More nuanced views from believers or unbelievers are simply not taken into account.

sir82

A safer statement to make: If there was no global flood - then the Watchtower's interpretations of the Bible are not true.

Actually, if the Genesis stories are not literally true, pretty much the whole WTS doctrinal structure comes crashing down.

undercover

Ever noticed that the face of religion and their established "truths" and "beliefs" change as more scientific discoveries are made?

All the religions that have held up the Bible as their Holy Book handed to them directly from God have erred in interpreting it therefore cannot possibly be speaking for God, thus not deserving the position they've given themselves.

At the same time, if the Bible were inspired, would God (if he existed) allow hundreds or thousands of charlatans to swindle, steal, torture and kill in his name?

While it may not be proof enough to convince all people who want to believe, it is proof enough for me to conclude that it is not inspired.

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

Share this