Biblical Inerrancy

[sylvan3]

I think Emeraldgirl makes some good points.

However, my take, in general, isn't, "why does God not make sense?", as much as ,"doesn't the book sound like it was made up by humans?"

[pointer]

What matters is knowledge, a virtue that must be added to faith.

But the post I responded to said deliberately misinterpreted!

Indeed. The context was of denominational divergences, which is rather different from individuals making varied interpretations, imv.

While I believe some or many do this, many are not deliberately misinterpreting anything; they believe they are the ones who have exegeted this correctly and the others are deceived!

Of course there are sincere but not fully informed people who get different views. If two people who are properly informed disagree on a major doctrine, at least one of them is lying (and often both!).

[Floatingaxe]

I think Emeraldgirl makes some good points.

However, my take, in general, isn't, "why does God not make sense?", as much as ,"doesn't the book sound like it was made up by humans?"

No.

[pointer]

What one cannot do is get ambiguity from Scripture on any important point, and those who really know Scripture know that very well indeed.

I'm sorry, pointer, but I totally disagree. Even salvation is debatable from Christ's own words!

Not even slightly, imv.

And how about the important points discussed here and elsewhere - does God send evil spirits, as he supposedly did to Saul?

How many denominations are split on that? The denominations are agreed on this matter as on all the others you mention.

Most debates go on because most people are not sincere at all

I've seen and been in many debates that have gone on for 20 pages about something like whether God chooses or we choose.

That shows the desperation of people who have realised that Catholicism is now no longer tenable, and hate the idea that they must make a personal choice. 40 pages, sometimes. Very tedious.

How important is is to know that a bat is not a bird? Its that really what we are here for?

I really don't care about the bird/bat thing, but I think it hints at a bigger point. The point, to me, is this: Why would God want or need to depend on something as incredibly fallible and poor as a book if He wants a relationship with us?

What better can you suggest, other than real, live Christians showing the fruits of the Spirit?

The idea of a holy book is so profoundly weak - how many here read Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic,

Is it God's fault if people do not know these languages? Why did Greek koine ever go out of use? God 'chose' this language because it was almost universal, but evil men put an end to that. Why is Hebrew not taught by denominations and supposedly Christian schools to ordinary members? Because they are frightened out of their wits at the thought of the OT being properly understood by ordinary members, I suggest.

We can only depend on the Bible as scholars have compiled and translated it. For years, I didn't have a KJV because it's so much more difficult to read than a "modern" version. Yet, we look at a modern version and we are dependant on how the scholars wished to present it.

Do you really suppose that King James' men were lily-white paragons? There are better choices than that for scholarship, as well as for readability.

Once, the book of James was one of my favorites, because some of it's practical advice was especially relevant to me at the time. I learned later, though, that Martin Luther was suspicious of the "inspired" nature of James and did not want it in the cannon!

Ignore Luther. Stick with James, it's a wonderful book!

Edited July 20, 2006 by pointer

[pointer]

Even if He did want a book, why a book filled with unrelated, tangential stuff?

There is not a surplus word in Scripture. One has to know a lot before one realises that, though.

He could have just made a pamphlet that would include all the necessary essentials

Just read what you consider those, then.

I read before that 90% or more of people who call themselves "Christian" have not read the Bible in it's entirety.

90% or more of people who call themselves "Christian" are not Christian, imv. A Christian 'devours' Scripture.

[emeraldgirl]

There is not a surplus word in Scripture.

90% or more of people who call themselves "Christian" are not Christian, imv. A Christian 'devours' Scripture.

This seems arrogant to me. Some people just don't go at subjects that way. *I* do; I devoured scripture, but that's how I go at pretty much any topic that interests me. To suggest that the many people who are not that interested in scripture are not "true" Christians just seems arrogant to me.

What better can you suggest, other than real, live Christians showing the fruits of the Spirit?

If they all did this, that would perhaps say a lot, but since Christians on the whole make no better example of "the fruits of the spirit" than any "good" person, it doesn't make a strong case for Christianity.

I can suggest better. One can assume there is a God through the perfection, beauty and love that exists, nevermind that evil exists also. One can reach for this understanding of God without ever cracking a Bible or even knowing there is such a thing.

Is it God's fault if people do not know these languages?

This seems to me a rather bizarre statement. Christianity presumes that God inspired people to write the Bible and then protected it by Divine Providence so that the "right" books would be cannonized and the "wrong" one's would not. If He really meant for something as precious as the ONE WAY to be contained in a book, it would behoove Him to protect the language it was written in. And, anyway, who was it that is credited with dividing the languages of mankind????

Do you really suppose that King James' men were lily-white paragons? smile.gif There are better choices than that for scholarship, as well as for readability.

Not hardly! Not my point at all! Just that it was the oldest translation readily available to the consumer. The point is more that there is no translation available that hasn't been tainted by interpretation. Even the mere fact that languages don't translate perfectly to one another is a major down side of trying to have a book contain such crucial information.

[pointer]

There is not a surplus word in Scripture.

I take that as tacit agreement.

90% or more of people who call themselves "Christian" are not Christian, imv. A Christian 'devours' Scripture.

Some people just don't go at subjects that way.

Of course, but 'some people' does not include people after they have been born again of the Holy Spirit, who become His temples. Such people do not treat what the Holy Spirit says with indifference.

*I* do; I devoured scripture

There are two sorts of people who 'devour' Scripture: those who love it, and those who hate it. There may be others, too, but the fact of one's 'consumption' guarantees nothing.

What better can you suggest, other than real, live Christians showing the fruits of the Spirit?

If they all did this, that would perhaps say a lot, but since Christians on the whole make no better example of "the fruits of the spirit" than any "good" person, it doesn't make a strong case for Christianity.

It seems to me to make a good case for saying that over 90% of people who say they are Christians are not Christians.

I can suggest better. One can assume there is a God through the perfection, beauty and love that exists

To what perfection, beauty and love do you refer?

nevermind that evil exists also.

There are those who are convinced that God exists because evil exists.

Edited July 21, 2006 by pointer

[pointer]

One can reach for this understanding of God without ever cracking a Bible or even knowing there is such a thing.

How will that make anyone a better person?

Is it God's fault if people do not know these languages?

This seems to me a rather bizarre statement. Christianity presumes that God inspired people to write the Bible and then protected it by Divine Providence so that the "right" books would be cannonized and the "wrong" one's would not.

That is a typical pagan notion. It is the inspiration that 'canonises', not special protection.

If He really meant for something as precious as the ONE WAY to be contained in a book, it would behoove Him to protect the language it was written in.

He has. There are many older languages that have been or remain undecipherable, but Greek koine, Aramaic and Hebrew are all well understood and always have been in 2000 years. It is just that not many understand them today, and God forces no-one to do anything.

Do you really suppose that King James' men were lily-white paragons? smile.gif There are better choices than that for scholarship, as well as for readability.

Not hardly! Not my point at all! Just that it was the oldest translation readily available to the consumer.

One might as well consider ownership of a Model T Ford desirable, or an iMac. (Actually, the Geneva Bible was the first popular Bible.)

The point is more that there is no translation available that hasn't been tainted by interpretation.

That is my point, not yours. It is a reason for people needing to know original languages, and it is of course directly linked to the fact that they generally don't.

Even the mere fact that languages don't translate perfectly to one another is a major down side of trying to have a book contain such crucial information.

There is nothing to stop mankind from understanding the Bible very well indeed in its original languages, and there never has been any obstacle other than his own attitude. The early church knew all of those languages well, and there is no good reason whatever for that to have changed at all. The fact that it has changed is entirely consistent with the claim that 'Light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness'. For the great majority the Light was locked up in Latin for hundreds of years, and, but for events, might have been extinguished altogether.

Notwithstanding, Christians in parts of the world where their faith has been persecuted have often had little or no Bible possession, yet they have shown faith that has put Western 'Christians' to shame, including their martyrdom- and they still do.

Edited July 21, 2006 by pointer

[emeraldgirl]

Pointer, you are approaching this subject with a VERY different belief framework than I do (namely, that only a tiny percentage of the people in the world are "real" Christians and the rest of the not-real Christians are trying to deliberately throw people off), so I'm not going to continue arguing every tiny point with you.

It is the inspiration that 'canonises', not special protection.

But *who* "decided" what was inspired, hmmm? People still had to come to some concept of which of the 200 or so books and gospels floating around out there were "inspired" and which were "heretical". They were made into the cannon because councils came to an agreement about which books were keepers and which were not. And they weren't even in total agreement. So, "special protection" is what I have always heard to be the explaination as to how mere people came to correctly select only the right books, letters and gospels to be the "Word of God".

And I find it interesting that though I spent some time gathering those errors and contridictions, no one has commented on them. Instead, we're wearing away pages of posts on distractions. Not one single comment on, for example, why Jesus says we are to love our enemies and God says we are to put them to the sword.

And as an aswer to something Sylvan said earlier: I don't think it so much reads like a book written by people with a vivid imagination. I believe it reads very much like a book written by people with ancient notions and pre-scientific knowledge. Back when people thought you sneezed because a little demon possessed you just then, which is why people say, "God Bless You." when you sneeze. Back when they thought heaven was so close, some idealists with a tall tower could threaten God in heaven. Back when ideas like celestial beings having intercourse with humans was a "normal" thing to believe in. Back when storms, earthquakes and other inexplicable phenomena were explained by "God is angry with us".

[pointer]

Pointer, you are approaching this subject with a VERY different belief framework than I do (namely, that only a tiny percentage of the people in the world are "real" Christians and the rest of the not-real Christians are trying to deliberately throw people off)

Those are not my words, and this poster does not deserve any further respect whatever.

so I'm not going to continue arguing every tiny point with you.

This is contemptible behaviour. Alleged difference in approach is no excuse for refusing to answer questions. I take this 'reason' as admission of total failure except on the single point that has been replied to.

It is the inspiration that 'canonises', not special protection.

But *who* "decided" what was inspired, hmmm?

No one decided. Every person decides his or her own canon, and these vary from person to person.

And I find it interesting that though I spent some time gathering those errors and contridictions, no one has commented on them.

There are two possible reasons for that besides inability to reply. One is that they have been answered many times before and have become tedious. Another is that they were introduced improperly, out of context; which does not seem accidental, now.

Be grateful that no-one gave as a 'reason' that your approach was too different, and that no-one put words into your mouth.

Edited July 22, 2006 by pointer