Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[waitasec]

I know. It's a bit like disbelieving for the sake of disbelieving in order to ridicule the believer.

or ridicule the insistence of being selective with ones scholarship

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I commented on Goliath's height and exactly how many Jews fled Egypt and the fact that it has no doctrinal application.

Your doctrine has no relevance to the question of biblical inerrancy. Preach elsewhere.

 

[1robin]

selective scholarship pretty much means willful ignorance...if you are satisfied with that, so be it.

No selective scholarship is a necessary reality unless you are a oriental philospher of a member of Baha'i where everything including contradictions are true. The entire spectrum of academics uses selective scholarship since there is virtually no unanimous concensus on any subject (not even much of mathematics). This goes on in every field of study and is involved with countless decisions you make everyday. However it seems it is an irreconcilable issue for only Christianity. By your claims no one knows anything unless there is unanimous opinion on the subject. Since me and most of us live in the real world where competeing ideas must be evaluated and the most reasonable selected and since my views (developed independantly) line up very close with main stream biblical scholarship there is no issue no matter how hard you look for one.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... there is virtually no unanimous concensus ...

God I love language ...

 

[waitasec]

No selective scholarship is a necessary reality unless you are a oriental philospher of a member of Baha'i where everything including contradictions are true. The entire spectrum of academics uses selective scholarship since there is virtually no unanimous concensus on any subject (not even much of mathematics). This goes on in every field of study and is involved with countless decisions you make everyday. However it seems it is an irreconcilable issue for only Christianity. By your claims no one knows anything unless there is unanimous opinion on the subject. Since me and most of us live in the real world where competeing ideas must be evaluated and the most reasonable selected and since my views (developed independantly) line up very close with main stream biblical scholarship there is no issue no matter how hard you look for one.

oh i see, so when you are looking to buy a house you don't cover all the bases you are aware of
good for you....or me potentially.

hey i got some land to sell for $50,000...here's a picture...of it's view of the pacific

my paypal account is
[email protected]

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... since my views (developed independantly) line up very close with main stream biblical scholarship there is no issue no matter how hard you look for one.

A serious question: How might one determine what constitutes "mainstream biblical scholarship"? Som for example, is a literal interpretation of Genesis 2 mainstream? What about creationism or the Virgin Birth? I ask because I'm not at all sure what you intend by the phrase.

 

[1robin]

Your doctrine has no relevance to the question of biblical inerrancy. Preach elsewhere.

There is no doctrine of biblical inherency I have ever heard of where your trivial facts make any meaningful contribution. No one I have known or heard of believes a modern bible is a perfect copy of the original revelation. My comments were made within that context. Your points aren't points unless you think it is the accepted Christian view that an individual bible is perfect. If you would read what the actual mainstream understanding of biblical inerrancy is, contained in the Chicago statement of faith then you would know that massive earth shattering issues like Goliath's height just don't have any relevance.

 

[1robin]

Adequate for what task or tasks?

Adequite for all nominal Christians tasks. It is completely suffecient IMO for core Christian doctrine.

It's not the translation that provides those things. It's the edition of the translation that provides them. Some NRSVs provide no footnotes at all. Those footnotes are a result of further scholastic work -- not the translated product, itself.

I can't find my orinal post for some reason but I believe that I qualified my remarks by saying modern translations.

"Behind the curve" is more like it.

Tis likely.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is no doctrine of biblical inherency ...

Finally! Something we agree on ...

 

[sojourner]

Adequite for all nominal Christians tasks. It is completely suffecient IMO for core Christian doctrine.

That which constitutes "core doctrine" would need to be pretty stringently defined for me to accept that statement. what if one of the "core doctrines" is the virgin birth? We certainly need something more than the texts, themselves, in order to establish that, because the texts are fairly unclear about that subject. They are also unclear where a possible "core doctrine" of substitutionary atonement is concerned. They are further rather unclear where a possible "core doctrine" of the divinity of Jesus is concerned. For all of these, we certainly need something other than the texts, themselves.

 

[1robin]

A serious question: How might one determine what constitutes "mainstream biblical scholarship"? Som for example, is a literal interpretation of Genesis 2 mainstream? What about creationism or the Virgin Birth? I ask because I'm not at all sure what you intend by the phrase.

I have already posted the doctrine of Orthedox Protestantism. I should have qualified my remarks by adding Protestism. Orthedox protestantism does not require a decision concerning Genesis 2. I have already posted that doctrine in other threads but it mainly consists of three principles:
Scripture Alone, Justification by Faith Alone, Universal Priesthood of Believers
None of these hinge on anything in Genesis. As every other subject has no heaven and hell issues hanging (as far as interpretation goes) on it then they are secondary are not included when I say core doctrine.

I always forget to qualify my remarks by the inclusion of Catholocism. I regard it as almost a cult so I do not incude it in my understanding of what composes mainstream Christianity. My amended view point is standard orthedox protestantism.

I still have no idea what it is you are driving at. What is the culmination of all these random points and claims?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have already posted the doctrine of Orthedox Protestantism. I should have qualified my remarks by adding Protestism. Orthedox protestantism does not require a decision concerning Genesis 2. I have already posted that doctrine in other threads but it mainly consists of three principles:
Scripture Alone, Justification by Faith Alone, Universal Priesthood of Believers
None of these hinge on anything in Genesis. As every other subject has no heaven and hell issues hanging (as far as interpretation goes) on it then they are secondary are not included when I say core doctrine.

I always forget to qualify my remarks by the inclusion of Catholocism. I regard it as almost a cult so I do not incude it in my understanding of what composes mainstream Christianity. My amended view point is standard orthedox protestantism.

I still have no idea what it is you are driving at. What is the culmination of all these random points and claims?

That's what I thought. Thanks.

 

[1robin]

oh i see, so when you are looking to buy a house you don't cover all the bases you are aware of
good for you....or me potentially.
hey i got some land to sell for $50,000...here's a picture...of it's view of the pacific

my paypal account is
[email protected]

What are you talking about? My point was that all scholarship must be compared and then the most likely or reliable is selected. That is the way the world works. Your point appeared to be unless there are unanimous conclusions from every scholar then no decision can be made. Not only that and what makes your arguments insulting you somehow suggest that to evaluate and then decide is willful ignorance even though we do it all day every day. That is sheer sarcasm completely devoid of meaningful content. Christians have composed a large portion of the smartest scientists who have ever lived. So casting dispersion on a group of people that includes many world leaders and great thinkers does more discredit to you than them. So you might get yourself a check in the mail right away. What would you say in the end? Waitasec, why didn't you have faith. "well there was this guy that lived in a shoe box in Skagway who wrote a paper that said the bible was false and he would not agree that the bible was accurate and so I would not decide because to decide I concluded was to be will fully ignorant. Also Richard Dawkin's said x and Christopher Hitchens said y so I punted and ridiculed anyone that had the guts to take a stand. Your argumentation has graduated from emoticons to full pictures now. If you could add a movie and a graph then all that together might make one half of a meaningful point. Just kidding (mostly)

 

[1robin]

That's what I thought. Thanks.

I typed all that for this? What in the world are you trying to get to? Goliath's astetic status has no effect or relevance to any mainstream Christian scholarship. You are arbitrarily posting stuff that never leads to any conclusion.

 

[1robin]

God I love language ...

I will be the first one to admit my Grammatical ineptitude but I do not think this is incorrect. It is at the very least obvious as to it's intention.
... there is virtually no unanimous concensus ...

 

[waitasec]

You are arbitrarily posting stuff that never leads to any conclusion.

that's what you think....and that's what you get from willful ignorance....err i mean, selective scholarship.

 

[1robin]

that's what you think....and that's what you get from willful ignorance....err i mean, selective scholarship.

Back up the truth trolley there coolio. Please answer the post I sent to you before adopting a new rhetorical tangent.

 

[Curious George]

I will be the first one to admit my Grammatical ineptitude but I do not think this is incorrect. It is at the very least obvious as to it's intention.
... there is virtually no unanimous concensus ...

"Virtually no unanimous" would imply that there is nearly not one or almost not one. The use of the word virtually is excessive but in this case presents something akin to a double negative.

Then consensus was spelled wrong also.

But, I would agree that despite grammar, choice your point was communicated.

(edited to capitalize the first word in sentences and add commas and quotations).

 

[painted wolf]

Nothing involving humans is ever infallible.

I can see why the desire for infallibility is hard to resist... especially in issues of faith. But if you aren't allowed to ask questions or look for errors then you are in a bad place.

wa:do

 

[1robin]

"Virtually no unanimous" would imply that there is nearly not one or almost not one. The use of the word virtually is excessive but in this case presents something akin to a double negative.

I always use virtually as a qualifier because the bible critics usually find one guy who graduated from some tech school in the Congo who disagreed and claim that alone is a counter claim. Apparently semantics is just as useful for deciding biblical issues as text. I meant that everything I have ever seen (or the overwhelming bulk of what exists) is in agreement but there might be a few that are in disagreement. I do not see the problem yet.

Then consensus was spelled wrong also.

Now that sounds like me. There is virtually no concensus on spelling concensus.

But, I would agree that despite grammar, choice your point was communicated.

That for me being a math guy is enough.