Are we really asking questions...

[secondeve]

In another Apologetics thread started by emeraldgirl, I was just reading a side-debate between systemstrike7 and Floatingaxe. The argument was about the infallable word of God, and whether or not it actually is infallable: systemstrike7 said no, whileFloatingaxe said yes.

The debate is an old one. If you have faith, then God's word is perfect, regardless of the imperfection of its human scribes - a perfect, all-powerful being would permit no corruption or falsity to enter the Bible. On the other hand, it can seem to some that the Bible is not a perfect book - seemingly contradictory ideas appear, and entire sections and stories are told twice, often with differences in the telling. If the person believes in God, this leads to the suspicion that human error has, in places, clouded the word - but this is a dangerous belief, as it imperils the idea of faith: if there is any human falsehood at all in the Bible, and if no means exists to separate this from the divine word, then how can any of it be trusted, if it is all potentially incorrect?

But in the debate, systemstrike7 asserted that he wanted to keep asking questions. Floatingaxe assured him that this was still possible at the same time as putting faith in the Bible's infallability - but I'm not sure this is the case. If I am reviewing the actions of the accused in a murder trial in order to establish the likelihood of their guilt or innocence, I must be as impartial as possible. If I have already reached the conclusion that the accused is guilty, then I will read the evidence in that context: no matter how stretched my reasoning becomes at times, I will be looking for a certain outcome. Even if I were voicing questions, I would not necessarily be asking them - because I would already have assumed the answer.

Systemstrike7 was talking about questions in the context of asking about the fallability or infallability of the Bible. If he were to do this from a position of faith, he would be prejudicing his outcome - either that, or asking a completely different question. From a position of faith, it would not be possible for him to ask 'is this fallable' - instead, he would be asking, 'how is it that this seems fallable,' which is entirely different. Similarly, in the murder trial example, if I already believe the accused to be guilty, then I am not asking of the evidence, 'is this person innocent,' - I am asking 'how is it that this person seems innocent.'

So, my question is: If certain truths are presumed to be divinely infallable - which is, I think, distinct from being scientifically infallable - beyond the ability for their truth to be questioned, then can it actually be said that these questions are being asked? Or is the only question ever for an explanation which can more readily confirm the existing worldview?

[systemstrike_7]

Very interesting post. And a very true post.

The only way I can answer this question, would be to ask another question.

If the bible is fallible, does this make God less of a god?

[Floatingaxe]

If the bible is fallible, does this make God less of a god?

He is not a god--He is God.

So your question is unanswerable.

[systemstrike_7]

Ya ya ya.....

But hopefully you understand what I'm saying.

Is God's "godness" completely dependant upon the claims of a book?

[secondeve]

If the bible is fallible, does this make God less of a god?

Is God's "godness" completely dependant upon the claims of a book?

I see what you're asking: if God still exists, is he weakened by the fallability of the Bible, or is he still God?

[systemstrike_7]

There ya go. Exactly.

[stafy]

In another Apologetics thread started by emeraldgirl, I was just reading a side-debate between systemstrike7 and Floatingaxe. The argument was about the infallable word of God, and whether or not it actually is infallable: systemstrike7 said no, whileFloatingaxe said yes.

The debate is an old one. If you have faith, then God's word is perfect, regardless of the imperfection of its human scribes - a perfect, all-powerful being would permit no corruption or falsity to enter the Bible. On the other hand, it can seem to some that the Bible is not a perfect book - seemingly contradictory ideas appear, and entire sections and stories are told twice, often with differences in the telling. If the person believes in God, this leads to the suspicion that human error has, in places, clouded the word - but this is a dangerous belief, as it imperils the idea of faith: if there is any human falsehood at all in the Bible, and if no means exists to separate this from the divine word, then how can any of it be trusted, if it is all potentially incorrect?

But in the debate, systemstrike7 asserted that he wanted to keep asking questions. Floatingaxe assured him that this was still possible at the same time as putting faith in the Bible's infallability - but I'm not sure this is the case. If I am reviewing the actions of the accused in a murder trial in order to establish the likelihood of their guilt or innocence, I must be as impartial as possible. If I have already reached the conclusion that the accused is guilty, then I will read the evidence in that context: no matter how stretched my reasoning becomes at times, I will be looking for a certain outcome. Even if I were voicing questions, I would not necessarily be asking them - because I would already have assumed the answer.

Systemstrike7 was talking about questions in the context of asking about the fallability or infallability of the Bible. If he were to do this from a position of faith, he would be prejudicing his outcome - either that, or asking a completely different question. From a position of faith, it would not be possible for him to ask 'is this fallable' - instead, he would be asking, 'how is it that this seems fallable,' which is entirely different. Similarly, in the murder trial example, if I already believe the accused to be guilty, then I am not asking of the evidence, 'is this person innocent,' - I am asking 'how is it that this person seems innocent.'

So, my question is: If certain truths are presumed to be divinely infallable - which is, I think, distinct from being scientifically infallable - beyond the ability for their truth to be questioned, then can it actually be said that these questions are being asked? Or is the only question ever for an explanation which can more readily confirm the existing worldview?

I'm going to gently wage my way into this, god's exitence is not dendent on the exitance of the scriptures, is this what your trying to get at.

[billie]

That depends on what question or questions are being asked.

If Person A takes the position that the Bible's infallible, their question will run along the lines of, "How do I reconcile these two seemingly conflicting ideas?" or "Why do these accounts differ if they're describing the same thing?"

If Person B takes the position that the Bible is fallible, no questioning is needed, for they'll choose to believe only what makes sense to them and never dig any deeper.

If Person C takes the position that the Bible could be either, it's going to come down to who they choose to listen to and trust. For thousands of years people have been trying to prove/disprove the Bible or parts of it. Scholars upon scholars have waged this war tooth and nail. Both sides of this debate are confident of their position, and will be quick to offer up "proof". Anyone who chooses this route, my hats off to you. Let us know how your research goes.

[Hypathia]

Very interesting post. And a very true post.

The only way I can answer this question, would be to ask another question.

If the bible is fallible, does this make God less of a god?

No, it would just mean people wrote it. It wouldn't have any bearing on God.

[Guest Biblicist]

Ya ya ya.....

But hopefully you understand what I'm saying.

Is God's "godness" completely dependant upon the claims of a book?

The claims of the Book are completely dependant upon the "godness" of our God.