Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[John Boanerges]

...as well a filled with specific and glaring historic and scientific anomalies, as well as unfulfilled prophecies.

Surely you don't seriously believe that Moses wrote part of the bible??? The texts didn't come into existence until well after Moses' time .

Please name them. ("specific and glaring historic and scientific anomalies")

Again, you as a "leader in the church", seem to be missing out of some important things about what's in the Bible (e.g. anti-homosexual passages) as well as its authorship. Moses is credited by the vast majority of theologians as being the author of the Torah...the first 5 books of the Bible...and is believed by many (e.g. Jewish Rabbis) to have written the Book of Job as well. If you don't understand how that could have happened and how it was passed down thru the generations, then you might want to read up on that process.

Do you use a different scripture in the Celtic Christianity?

 

[1robin]

Finally! Something we agree on ...

Then why are you posting issues that only apply to a discussion in which one side believes that all bibles or at least theirs is perfect? The bible is supernaturally accurate (approx 95%) but not perfect that is the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

 

[sojourner]

Please name them. ("specific and glaring historic and scientific anomalies")

Again, you as a "leader in the church", seem to be missing out of some important things about what's in the Bible (e.g. anti-homosexual passages) as well as its authorship. Moses is credited by the vast majority of theologians as being the author of the Torah...the first 5 books of the Bible...and is believed by many (e.g. Jewish Rabbis) to have written the Book of Job as well. If you don't understand how that could have happened and how it was passed down thru the generations, then you might want to read up on that process.

Do you use a different scripture in the Celtic Christianity?

Glad to comply.
First, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the world was not created in six days (and don't hand me that crap about "day in that time = more than 24 hours" -- "Day" is "day." Period.) Second, when the sky is spoken of in Genesis, the Hebrew term is raqiya, which denotes a rigid dome. We all know that the sky isn't a rigid dome.
Third, there's no archeological evidence either that a large number of outsiders lived in Egypt at the time of the Exodus, nor is there any archaeological evidence that there was an invasion of outsiders into Palestine at the time of the Exodus.
Fourth, there's ample archaeological evidence to support the fact that David's army could not have been nearly as large as the Bible says it is. Not enough food to support that many people.

Again: There's nothing in the bible that condemns homosexuality. They didn't know about sexual orientation back then. The acts that are referred to are, by and large, acts of violence and not acts of sexual attraction. (I thought we'd agreed that you wouldn't play theologian and I wouldn't practice medicine...)

Authorship? Since it's apparent to anyone with a brain stem who's studied the origins of the texts that we didn't begin to see actual text until after the year 700 b.c.e., it's impossible that Moses wrote any of it. It is obvious to many of the world's finest scholars that at least four different authors produced Genesis. In fact, there's a whole viable and well-accepted "source theory" to that effect.
"Vast majority of theologians?" C'mon! Hyperbole doesn't suit you.

Perhaps you should read up on the process, yourself. You're waaaaaaay out of step with biblical scholarship.

We use the canon texts, just like everyone else does. We're not real doctors, but we play them on TV. Perhaps you'd like to rethink your cameo appearance as an exegete... Just a suggestion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The bible is supernaturally accurate (approx 95%) ...

How does one measure and confirm something to be 95% supernaturally accurate?

 

[sojourner]

How does one measure and confirm something to be 95% supernaturally accurate?

With a Bat-O-Meter?

:super:

 

[1robin]

How does one measure and confirm something to be 95% supernaturally accurate?

I do not know if my grammer is confusing you or just the claim. I did not mean the supernatural events of the bible are known to be 95% accurate. What I meant is that the bibles reliability of approx 95% is so astronomically improbable that for a Christian we usually start to examine a supernatural explenation for it. The textual tradition of the bible is by many, many times over vastly more reliable and richer than any work of antiquity. Supernatural in the way I used it is a relative quality not a literal description. I wish you would address the issues instead of my semantics. I am the farthest thing from an English scholar there can be. However the bibles reliability does not suffer the same infirmity.

 

[waitasec]

What are you talking about? My point was that all scholarship must be compared and then the most likely or reliable is selected.

until the discovery of the texts that i pointed out to which you dismissed....yes you are very selective....

according to your reasoning...scholarship made to say "this is truth" is to ignore new discoveries that shed light on the context of these books...(the accepted NT)
:ignore: new discoveries is selective scholarship...no matter how you look at it.

how much time have you actually studied judaism in order to further understand the principles christianity was based on?
how much time have you looked into the history of the canonization of the NT?
i would imagine not enough especially when one is to base their fundamental beliefs on a limited understanding of what is out there...

but of course, your faith will fill the gaps...must be nice to be so selective...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I do not know if my grammer is confusing you or just the claim. I did not mean the supernatural events of the bible are known to be 95% accurate. What I meant is that the bibles reliability of approx 95% is so astronomically improbable that ...

How does one determine that the Bible is "approx 95% reliable"? Do you take all of the Biblical assertions, classify them as correct or incorrect, and then divide the former by the total?

 

[waitasec]

How does one determine that the Bible is "approx 95% reliable"? Do you take all of the Biblical assertions, classify them as correct or incorrect, and then divide the former by the total?

:spit:


frubals

 

[1robin]

until the discovery of the texts that i pointed out to which you dismissed....yes you are very selective....

It never entered my mind that you think those texts are in any way reliable counter claims to the bible. Since neither I nor you have access to them then I will rely on the scholar’s conclusions. Since they are so unimportant and have made such a small impact that I have never heard of them except in references to heretical bogus texts I do not think they are going to overturn a book God wrote. They are in effect if not substance meaningless (silence) at this time then any appeal to them is desperate and fallacious. Some of the ones on the list are well known and have been eliminated long ago for good reason. Something with zero credibility has no explanatory power. If they make some difference in the scholastic community believe me I will soon be aware of it.

according to your reasoning...scholarship made to say "this is truth" is to ignore new discoveries that shed light on the context of these books...(the accepted NT)

new discoveries is selective scholarship...no matter how you look at it.

I am unaware of any new discoveries that have any meaningful negative impact on the bible. You are arguing from silence.

how much time have you actually studied judaism in order to further understand the principles christianity was based on?

Years and years. Enough to capitalize it most of the time anyway.

how much time have you looked into the history of the canonization of the NT?
i would imagine not enough especially when one is to base their fundamental beliefs on a limited understanding of what is out there...

Years and years. I am aware of just about everything that deserves attention. Your texts at this time and probably not ever demand my attention.

but of course, your faith will fill the gaps...must be nice to be so selective...

You couldn't make it through a whole post without an incorrect statement from you telling me what I believe. I sure am glad that my position does not demand such absurd appeals to rhetoric because I couldn’t make them in good conscience. If you actually have something that rises to the level of credability to enable it to challenge the bible then bring it on but this stuff ain't it.

 

[1robin]

How does one determine that the Bible is "approx 95% reliable"? Do you take all of the Biblical assertions, classify them as correct or incorrect, and then divide the former by the total?

Are you confusing accuracy of claims with textual accuracy. In the age of computers it can even be done by idiots like me at home with some software. When a major bible version is compared against the oldest codices or manuscripts it can even highlight all of the inconsistencies. I have already given the most impoortant numbers in several threads and provided links to comprehensive sites. A very good place to start would be a transcript of the Ehrman vs White debate. Even Ehrman agrees with most of what I have come to understand concerning biblical textual reliablity.

I have never heard anyone address what it's claims are concerning history percentage wise. I imagine it is pretty high. I have seen many sites that claim over 25,000 historical claims in the bible have been verified. I do not know the accuracy of that but I have never seen a historical claim that shows the bible as incorrect that is not easily seen to be a scribal error. I have no claim about how accurate (%) the bible is historically but have every reason to believe it is very accurate.

 

[waitasec]

It never entered my mind that you think those texts are in any way reliable counter claims to the bible.

why would you assume counter claims...?
just as the narratives in mark are different from luke so are these books different from one another...
it sheds a deeper meaning into the dynamic of what was happening when all these gospels were in circulation. it gives the believer a fresh perspective of how the bible we know of today exists as it does...
how many pastors give up this information to their congregations?
very few.

Since neither I nor you have access to them then I will rely on the scholar’s conclusions.

scholars haven't dismissed the gospel of mary, thomas and judas though.

 

[1robin]

:spit:


frubals

Why don't you two meet up have dinner and plan in tandom how to distort what I say. At least it would only be half as long that way. 95% concerns textual accuracy not historical accuracy. I thought that was obvious guess I over estimated the discusees. I would offer up no number but I believe the bible to be similarly accurate in it's actual claims but this is a far harder thing to show. It's textual accuracy can be done by anyone with a little software. :fishing::golf::surf::bonk: By now you must realise that the force is not with you concerning emoticon wars.

 

[waitasec]

Why don't you two meet up have dinner and plan in tandom how to distort what I say. At least it would only be half as long that way. 95% concerns textual accuracy not historical accuracy. I thought that was obvious guess I over estimated the discusees. I would offer up no number but I believe the bible to be similarly accurate in it's actual claims but this is a far harder thing to show. It's textual accuracy can be done by anyone with a little software. :fishing::golf::surf::bonk: By now you must realise that the force is not with you concerning emoticon wars.

i wonder what the percentage of the textual accuracy of the spiderman movie compares to the screen writers version

:sarcastic

 

[1robin]

why would you assume counter claims...?
just as the narratives in mark are different from luke so are these books different from one another...
it sheds a deeper meaning into the dynamic of what was happening when all these gospels were in circulation. it gives the believer a fresh perspective of how the bible we know of today exists as it does...
how many pastors give up this information to their congregations?
very few.


scholars haven't dismissed the gospel of mary, thomas and judas though.

I am out of time so this is it for today even though there were many emoticons to deploy yet. If they are so meaningful (which by the way would have to come from a higher authority than a novice bible critic) why are they virtually unknown outside of academia. How does the teaching of heretical texts that have never been accepted as from eyewitnesses or even Christians add anything to a book that said it's self that it is complete and nothing is to be added to it. A book that never refers to any of these other books. Why is it that these heretical, rejected, unbiblical books mean so much to you when you reject the accepted, reliable, most studied book in human history. If not hypocritical it is at least inconsistent but why am I looking for it to be. Chrsitianity and it's authors made such an impact over the years that it has been copied and used to validate other incompatable religions for over a thousand years. Why do these texts have anything more reliable to offer than the hundreds of other pretenders that have been rejected over the years. I am out, so you and Jayhawker Soule can get a game plan together. :fight::fight::fight::fight: Man these things are silly.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you confusing accuracy of claims with textual accuracy.

I am asking you a question. If you cannot or will not answer it that is both fine and, to a certain degree, predictable.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... why are they virtually unknown outside of academia.

Intellectual incapacity? Fear? Apathy? It very much depends on the ignorant individual in question.

 

[waitasec]

I am out of time so this is it for today even though there were many emoticons to deploy yet. If they are so meaningful (which by the way would have to come from a higher authority than a novice bible critic) why are they virtually unknown outside of academia.

they are not. you just presume they are.

How does the teaching of heretical texts that have never been accepted as from eyewitnesses or even Christians add anything to a book that said it's self that it is complete and nothing is to be added to it.

first you have to qualify as to what the heck does heresy mean...and there is no criteria anywhere that can determine that. unless you would rather join the masses. by all means.

A book that never refers to any of these other books.

what are you talking about willis?

Why is it that these heretical, rejected, unbiblical books mean so much to you when you reject the accepted, reliable, most studied book in human history.

i reject it as the word of this idea of god....i reject those other books as the word of god as well...

If not hypocritical it is at least inconsistent but why am I looking for it to be.

put on some glasses, your shortsightedness is becoming apparent

Chrsitianity and it's authors made such an impact over the years that it has been copied and used to validate other incompatable religions for over a thousand years.

the bible is contrived. badly.

Why do these texts have anything more reliable to offer than the hundreds of other pretenders that have been rejected over the years.

what are you talking about? what was rejected over the years...? these books were missing...and were recently discovered, relatively speaking and are being studied by your buddy ehrman.

I am out, so you and Jayhawker Soule can get a game plan together. :fight::fight::fight::fight: Man these things are silly.

yup...
:banghead3

 

[Curious George]

I am out of time so this is it for today even though there were many emoticons to deploy yet. If they are so meaningful (which by the way would have to come from a higher authority than a novice bible critic) why are they virtually unknown outside of academia. How does the teaching of heretical texts that have never been accepted as from eyewitnesses or even Christians add anything to a book that said it's self that it is complete and nothing is to be added to it. A book that never refers to any of these other books. Why is it that these heretical, rejected, unbiblical books mean so much to you when you reject the accepted, reliable, most studied book in human history. If not hypocritical it is at least inconsistent but why am I looking for it to be. Christianity and it's authors made such an impact over the years that it has been copied and used to validate other incompatable religions for over a thousand years. Why do these texts have anything more reliable to offer than the hundreds of other pretenders that have been rejected over the years. I am out, so you and Jayhawker Soule can get a game plan together.

Ready for a point by point?

"If they are so meaningful (which by the way would have to come from a higher authority than a novice bible critic), why are they virtually unknown outside of academia?"

This is a question but the implication that they would have to be known outside of academia in order to be relevant is begging the question and argumentum ad populum

"How does the teaching of heretical texts that have never been accepted as from eyewitnesses or even Christians add anything to a book that said it's self that it is complete and nothing is to be added to it?"

Again this is a question but the implication that they are heretical is begging the question.

"How does the teaching of heretical texts that have never been accepted as from eyewitnesses or even Christians add anything to a book that said it's self that it is complete and nothing is to be added to it?"

Even after the first implied fallacy we have to revisit this one. The implication that these are not parts of the bible is either begging the question by assuming you knew all of the parts of the bible or it is Affirming the consequent by concluding that your bible says it is complete, and your bible doesn't have these parts, therefore the original bible which said it was complete did not have all of these parts. Essentially, maybe the original bible said it was complete because it had all of these parts.

"A book that never mentions these parts."

Choosing to use this as an argument against the validity of the texts as a part of the bible is either Denying the Antecedent or a sweeping generalization.

"Why is it that these heretical, rejected, unbiblical books mean so much to you when you reject the accepted, reliable, most studied book in human history. If not hypocritical it is at least inconsistent but why am I looking for it to be."

Ad Hominem- need I say more?

"Christianity and it's authors made such an impact over the years that it has been copied and used to validate other incompatable religions for over a thousand years. Why do these texts have anything more reliable to offer than the hundreds of other pretenders that have been rejected over the years"

I think you meant "has been copied and used to invalidate other non-compatible religions..." Otherwise, the statement is very contradictory to the validity of the bible. If I did interpret your claim correctly you are again drawing a sweeping conclusion, begging the question, and drawing an irrelevant conclusion. That is three fallacies in one statement.

I am out, so you and Jayhawker Soule can get a game plan together.

suggestive... possibly argumentum ad hominem but I am not sure. Possibly argumentum ad misericordiam. But certainly nothing to do with the debate at hand.

To be fair I should probably find some of the the other two's posts and do the same, but to be honest is was the punching emoticons that riled me up.

 

[1robin]

I am asking you a question. If you cannot or will not answer it that is both fine and, to a certain degree, predictable.

First since you did not clarify whether you meant textual or historical reliability it makes the question hard to answer. So I answered both in brief and suggested a source of extensive detailed info explaining the reliablity issue from two of the issues most respected scholars on both sides. To which you apparently ignored, refused to clarify again, and seem to suggest I never made the posts I mention. Go figure.