Heyo
Veteran Member
No, but I'm not yet sure if @Darkforbid does.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bible Fails
- Thread starter Galateasdream
- Start date
Galateasdream
Active Member
A reflection upon my own OP:
In my own limited expereince, when moving away from inerrantist beliefs or talking to inerrantists, some problems are more impactful than others.
Apparent moral failings seem, to me, to not be much use. Whilst they may generate some internal dissonance or emotional difficulty, they can also be dismissed easily in terms of argument since a believer can ultimately just say that their own moral sense is wrong and the bible right. Though more likely these moral issues will be contextualised away, especially if in the OT.
Scientific issues are likewise not so effective, in my opinion. Very few people are well versed enough in science to really see the problems, and things like evolution are often contentious enough and disputed to enough for the believer in inerrancy to just side with the bible over science, which they point out as being fallible and subject to change.
Historical inaccuracies are stronger, and generally give pause for thought, but they can still be dismissed in terms of the bible being the source that gives the most accurate history and that it was simply the other sources that were wrong.
Indeed, in any comparison between the bible and extra-biblical evidence/sources the bible will always be favoured by default by the inerrantist - for obvious reasons. And this can't even be faulted - since if someone has come to believe (through independant argumentation/evidence) that the bible is the inspired word of God (and that this necessitates inerrancy), then it makes obvious sense to place the infallible text of a omniscient being over any other source.
So, it seems to me, that the strongest line of attack on biblical inerrency must come from internal problems - contradictions and misquotes.
In my own limited expereince, when moving away from inerrantist beliefs or talking to inerrantists, some problems are more impactful than others.
Apparent moral failings seem, to me, to not be much use. Whilst they may generate some internal dissonance or emotional difficulty, they can also be dismissed easily in terms of argument since a believer can ultimately just say that their own moral sense is wrong and the bible right. Though more likely these moral issues will be contextualised away, especially if in the OT.
Scientific issues are likewise not so effective, in my opinion. Very few people are well versed enough in science to really see the problems, and things like evolution are often contentious enough and disputed to enough for the believer in inerrancy to just side with the bible over science, which they point out as being fallible and subject to change.
Historical inaccuracies are stronger, and generally give pause for thought, but they can still be dismissed in terms of the bible being the source that gives the most accurate history and that it was simply the other sources that were wrong.
Indeed, in any comparison between the bible and extra-biblical evidence/sources the bible will always be favoured by default by the inerrantist - for obvious reasons. And this can't even be faulted - since if someone has come to believe (through independant argumentation/evidence) that the bible is the inspired word of God (and that this necessitates inerrancy), then it makes obvious sense to place the infallible text of a omniscient being over any other source.
So, it seems to me, that the strongest line of attack on biblical inerrency must come from internal problems - contradictions and misquotes.
sooda
Veteran Member
I'd like to know that too.
stvdv
Veteran Member
IMO:
A First Big one is "First human on earth was ca. 6000 years ago"
I do not see it so much as a Bible fail. I mean:
1) Bible writers did not have Google at their disposal
2) Bible writers just failed to "Peer Review" check their facts with India
sooda
Veteran Member
Snake cults were all the rage in the Indus Valley, the Levant, Egypt, Arabia and Mesopotamia long before Adam and Eve.
Indus Valley Civilization - Ancient History Encyclopedia
Ancient History EncyclopediaIndus_Valley_Civilization
Oct 30, 2013 · The Indus Valley Civilization was an ancient civilization located in what is Pakistan and northwest India today, on the fertile flood plain of the Indus River and its vicinity. Evidence of religious practices in this area date back approximately to 5500 BCE. Farming settlements began around 4000 BCE and around 3000 BCE there appeared the first signs of urbanization.
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
It list the authors of the books in the bible in most Bibles, ever read one?
sooda
Veteran Member
This is a link to Early Christian Writings. It may be helpful to you.
Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Only if you think like halfwitted 16th century clergy
stvdv
Veteran Member
IMO:
A bigger flaw in "biblical inerrancy" claims comes from making claims where it's ONLY a belief (=personal subjective opinion)
They sneakily try, using Bible verses again, to twist the definition of "belief", so the definition seems to come closer to "knowing"
Last edited:
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Why would you think that
For Roman Catholics, inerrancy is understood as a consequence of biblical inspiration; it has to do more with the truth of the Bible as a whole than with any theory of verbal inerrancy.
As for Genesis think of it as a
'prequel' to the whole. Its often done in movies sometime after a number of sequels, and offer the explanation of their beginning.
God breathed or inspired does not mean that God dictated and the human authors were court stenographers. The 'word' in God's word is human, with limited human knowledge.
sooda
Veteran Member
It helps to understand the Bible.
For instance,
Jonah - Early Jewish Writings
www.earlyjewishwritings.com/jonah.html
Jay G. Williams writes: "The book of Jonah is unique among the books of the prophets, for it is not a collection of oracles at al. Rather it is a well-wrought, comic novella which, through its broad humor, makes a very decisive prophetic point.
stvdv
Veteran Member
So, that means 7500 years ago, instead of 6000 years ago
Then Bible evidence was quite good; without all resources we have now
I met a Master who told us that King Rama, in India, lived 20.000 years ago
Proving now, something happening 20.000 years ago is a bit hard
But 20.000 seems okay to me, knowing they already have evidence of 7500 years ago
Scientific evidence just give us the earliest we know off, it does not give us the Truth
3rdAngel
Well-Known Member
If I defined Christian as I think you do, and held to the same theology as you do, then I would definitely agree that this would be somewhat shameful.
Obviously, though I do not, so I can't admit to feeling any shame.
I don't mind us agreeing to disagree, though. That's fine
Out of curiosity and a desire to be clear, how do you define 'Christian' so I can assess whether or not I am a Christian by your standards?
Just the fact you are asking the question what is a "Christian", to me, only shows you do not know what one is. Yet here you are professing to be "Christian" but your fruit is denying God and his Word and trying to lead others to do the same... I believe the scriptures call these people wolves in sheeps clothing *ACTS 20:29; MATTHEW 7:15.
Their fruit is to lead others away from God and his Word. The question we must ask ourselves as "christian" is what are our fruit? JESUS says we shall know them by their fruit. Yours it seems is to lead others away from God and his Word. This is your fruit. This is how I know you are not from God. We are told to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith or not. What are your fruit?
This alone only shows you do not know what christianity is yet you would lead us to believe you are "christian" - perhaps in name only. Something to think about. You call yourself "christian" like some others here. Yet your fruits are to lead all who listen to you away from God and his Word.
You are free to beleive as you wish. As a "christian" you would know we all stand before God come judgement day *JOHN 12:47-48
For many however at this time it will be too late - You shall know them by their fruits we are told. The question we need to be asking ourselves is what is our fruit? Something to think about
sooda
Veteran Member
Just the fact you are asking the question what is a "Christian", to me, only shows you do not know what one is. Yet here you are professing to be "Christian" but your fruit is denying God and his Word and trying to lead others to do the same... I believe the scriptures call these people wolves in sheeps clothing *ACTS 20:29; MATTHEW 7:15.
Their fruit is to lead others away from God and his Word. The question we must ask ourselves as "christian" is what are our fruit? JESUS says we shall know them by their fruit. Yours it seems is to lead others away from God and his Word. This is your fruit. This is how I know you are not from God. We are told to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith or not. What are your fruit?
This alone only shows you do not know what christianity is yet you would lead us to believe you are "christian" - perhaps in name only. Something to think about. You call yourself "christian" like some others here. Yet your fruits are to lead all who listen to you away from God and his Word.
You are free to beleive as you wish. As a "christian" you would know we all stand before God come judgement day *JOHN 12:47-48
For many however at this time it will be too late - You shall know them by their fruits we are told. The question we need to be asking ourselves is what is our fruit? Something to think about
What are the fruits of leading people away from science and education.. What are the fruits of leading them back to the Bronze Age?
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Read my profile below.
exchemist
Veteran Member
The phrase "in my view" seems to be doing a lot of work here.
Most mainstream Christian denominations take a nuanced view of the meaning of stories in the bible, bearing in mind that it is collection of writings by different people in different eras. It is written by imperfect people, after all, whatever the inspiration behind it. The whole issue of biblical "inerrancy" seems to be very largely a N American preoccupation: Biblical inerrancy - Wikipedia
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Humans fail.
Galateasdream
Active Member
Just the fact you are asking the question what is a "Christian", to me, only shows you do not know what one is. Yet here you are professing to be "Christian" but your fruit is denying God and his Word and trying to lead others to do the same... I believe the scriptures call these people wolves in sheeps clothing *ACTS 20:29; MATTHEW 7:15.
Their fruit is to lead others away from God and his Word. The question we must ask ourselves as "christian" is what are our fruit? JESUS says we shall know them by their fruit. Yours it seems is to lead others away from God and his Word. This is your fruit. This is how I know you are not from God. We are told to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith or not. What are your fruit?
This alone only shows you do not know what christianity is yet you would lead us to believe you are "christian" - perhaps in name only. Something to think about. You call yourself "christian" like some others here. Yet your fruits are to lead all who listen to you away from God and his Word.
You are free to beleive as you wish. As a "christian" you would know we all stand before God come judgement day *JOHN 12:47-48
For many however at this time it will be too late - You shall know them by their fruits we are told. The question we need to be asking ourselves is what is our fruit? Something to think about
Ok, we can agree that to you I am not a Christian, I am a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing, I deny God, I lead others astray, I produce 'bad fruit', and by one of your implications I'm going to be judged (and I assumed damned) post-mortem.
But how do you define Christian? I'd still like to know your stance on what makes someone a real Christian.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
You are talking about laws given to a specific people, for a specific reason, for a specific time. 4,000 years ago.
You got anything for the last 3,000 years?