Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[1robin]

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

Or not a single reason that would merit their consideration as meaningfull texts but just another in a long line of crap that tries to gain validity by associating it's self with the bible. There are entire religions that fit that description not just heretical texts.

 

[1robin]

they are not. you just presume they are.

They are not what? Meaningless, unknown, or both?

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.

heretical - definition of heretical by the Free Online Dictionary ...




Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free DictionaryhereticalCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
he·ret·i·cal (h -r t -k l). adj. 1. Of or relating to heresy or heretics. 2. Characterized by, revealing, or approaching departure from established beliefs or standards. By webster.

There are only two possabilities. Either these text agree in everyway with the bible and so are redundant and useless. Or they reveal teachings outside the bible and are useless and heretical.

what are you talking about willis?

The obvious conclusion that God would have mentioned these books in the bible not to mention keeping them in tact and available the way he has done with the actual biblical texts.

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

Well you sure are cheering quite loud for some of these useless texts and condemning others for some reason.

put on some glasses, your shortsightedness is becoming apparent

I couldn't read this statement, apparently I need glasses.

the bible is contrived. badly.

If it is you sure haven't proven it.

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 do not like Ehrman but he is a good scholar. I will review his works when he and a few more are done. Until that time I have no reason to regard these as any different than any other desperate attempt to gain validity by sounding bibleish.

yup...
:banghead3

Uh-huh.

 

[waitasec]

Well you sure are cheering quite loud for some of these useless texts and condemning others for some reason.

only because there is no way anyone can qualify what gods intention is, if there is one...

and that is a big if.

 

[1robin]

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.

You are a rabid anti-emoticonite. Actually I apolagise for that. I never use emoticons but because waitsec uses them sometimes as her whole post I have been sending them back and had no idea which ones I was even using so please ignore those things I can't stand them and have never used them until yesterday I think.

Ready for a point by point?

R U

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

Here we go. You can't show that a claim is wrong so appeal to the fallacy bandwagon. They usually only deal with value statements that suggest proof which I did not make. In fact a question is not subject to fallacies involving proof in anyway. Since the bible is believed to be the word of God and has been apparently watched over very well. Which explains why very radical teachings given to a primitive, mostly illiterate, and minor group of people have shook the world more than any other world view or religion in the history of man. It also means that if God wanted these texts read he wouldn't have let them dissapear and he would probably have mentioned them in the scripture we have. I make claims and defend Christianity, I do not spend much time debateing the issue of religion from a secular view point.

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

Everything outside of Christianity and not consistent with it falls into an informal def of heretical. Besides all three sites I found these texts mentioned in said that they are considered heretical. If these texts were truly as valid as biblical tests they would be the greatest find possible and would have made a much bigger impact.

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.

You use an argument from silence to falsely show I violated some other fallacy. Amazing. The bible is an approved cannon of 66 books. You may claim these texts are just as valid but you sure as heck can't claim my statement that they are not part of the bible is innacurate. I constantly find claims that I could dismiss by a PROPER application of logical phallacies but I instead would rather show why it's wrong than just declare it is. It's seems more sporting and honorable to me.
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.

Ad Hominem- need I say more?

I sure hope not.

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.

Wrong again. It doesn't invalidate the claim as far as religion is concerned just as far as Christianity is. Incorrectus ad infinitum. If a claim is made that two claims to absolute truth are both correct then by your beloved logical law both cannot possibly be true. If the bible is shown as reliable then a competing contradictory claim must be invalid. This is an infinately brief principle of the vast subject of textual scholarship.

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

Good lord, argumentational semantics is boring. It would probably have been no longer to just show how a claim is invalid if it could be instead of appeals to technicalities which I am too bored to verify. It also makes the discussion useful to others instead of only latin philosophers.

 

[1robin]

only because there is no way anyone can qualify what gods intention is, if there is one...

and that is a big if.

God could and IMO he did. Which is why we have the bible and these other texts have been MIA. If you accept God then my statement is a logical implication consistent with everything known about God. If there isn't a God then this whole thread as well as those texts are pointles. Either way doesn't bode well for those texts. Why don't you reserve inclusion of them until you actually know what it is you are including?

 

[1robin]

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

:sarcastic

If you can show relevance I might just check. NOT

 

[waitasec]

God could and IMO he did. Which is why we have the bible and these other texts have been MIA. If you accept God then my statement is a logical implication consistent with everything known about God. If there isn't a God then this whole thread as well as those texts are pointles. Either way doesn't bode well for those texts. Why don't you reserve inclusion of them until you actually know what it is you are including?

your opinion is wrong...

 

[s2a]

Interestingly, and not wholly unexpectedly, a stirring of the wasp’s nest has taken place, soon after my simple post here.

This is exactly what I have encountered and seen debated amongst the pious faithful and less strident believers that do not adhere to strident doctrines of “literalism” as unequivocal historical fact…

As we see, the give and take is most earnest, emotional, and laden with apologetics…which again is predictable, expected, and provides no resolution of any sort.

Not to be the harbinger of unpleasant recall, but shall we not again at least effort to lend definitive answer to the OP as presented?

“Can you believe in the infallibility of the Bible”?

Seems like a fairly straightforward “yes or no” inquiry to me, and I don’t even have a dog in this fight.

As footnote, l’ll only lend my experienced and informed observational insights, as I reside in a part of the US that is commonly deemed as “The buckle of the bible belt”, though other locales claim similar “distinction”…


Believe it or not, and as incredulous as it may seem to any capable and rational adult, there remains a significant percentage of our population that identify themselves as “Biblical Literalists”; Southern Baptists most vocal and pronounced in affirmation of that claim, but other sects like the snake handlers of the Appalachians would swear to even greater levels of piety, if you don’t look to closely…

When I put forward, simply enough, with no favor or bias,

“Which is the truly inerrant version/translation of ‘The Bible’”, we then see this fog of cognitive dissonance arise even amongst the most personally ardent and pious believers of christian faith dissolve into philosophical and apologetic remonstrances of otherwise like-minded “brothers and sisters” (and skeptics) as demonstrated in the last 20-30 posts…

It would seem that Christian “outliers” of “fundamentalism” and “Inerrancy” are wandering in a fog of this very dichotomy of “interpretation” of Scripture. which in and of itself seems to allow for individualized “revelations” compliments of the Holy Ghost…

From my own atheistic perspective and vantage point, this very failure of consensus as to what may even constitute “literal fact” & “historical record” from Biblical metaphors, similes, anecdotes, and third-hand “testimonials” of Scriptural “truths”, in and of themselves…invalidate any “logical” objections (of legitimate “doubts”) or peer reviewed critiques of evidence-laden and overwhelmingly agreed upon consensus in support of scientifically derived methodologies and procedures that empirically suggest that a/any “god”, or otherwise attributable “divine interventions” as causal explanations or resultant outcomes are empty at best, and meet no measurable standards from which to derive any valid experimental comparisons.

If there is no “ONE” infallible and unimpeachable Biblical standard from which to conduct experiment or falsify by empirical evidence. all we are left with is anecdotal testimonies of “faith”… not exactly a foundation from which to even craft a working toaster, much less a Hadron collider or a manned mission to the moon, or beyond.

Just saying…

 

[waitasec]

If you can show relevance I might just check. NOT

it's ok, i don't expect you to understand

 

[gseeker]

I think what it comes down to is that the Bible has a major human element and when humanity and God collide then the godliness of any writing at that point is questionable is is no longer the purely inherent word of God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you confusing accuracy of claims with textual accuracy.

I'm confusing nothing. I'm simply asking a question.

Very well: by 95% accurate you are referring to textual accuracy, which you seem to deem important.

(Yet, when I ask you about textual variations conserning Goliath you get all huffy and pontificate about how that has nothing to do with doctrine. Cute ...)​

So tell me, how might one measure the textual accuracy of something like Isaiah? Is Isaiah 95% accurate? How do you know?

 

[sojourner]

“Which is the truly inerrant version/translation of ‘The Bible’”, we then see this fog of cognitive dissonance arise even amongst the most personally ardent and pious believers of christian faith dissolve into philosophical and apologetic remonstrances of otherwise like-minded “brothers and sisters” (and skeptics) as demonstrated in the last 20-30 posts…

It would seem that Christian “outliers” of “fundamentalism” and “Inerrancy” are wandering in a fog of this very dichotomy of “interpretation” of Scripture. which in and of itself seems to allow for individualized “revelations” compliments of the Holy Ghost…

From my own atheistic perspective and vantage point, this very failure of consensus as to what may even constitute “literal fact” & “historical record” from Biblical metaphors, similes, anecdotes, and third-hand “testimonials” of Scriptural “truths”, in and of themselves…invalidate any “logical” objections (of legitimate “doubts&#8221 or peer reviewed critiques of evidence-laden and overwhelmingly agreed upon consensus in support of scientifically derived methodologies and procedures that empirically suggest that a/any “god”, or otherwise attributable “divine interventions” as causal explanations or resultant outcomes are empty at best, and meet no measurable standards from which to derive any valid experimental comparisons.

If there is no “ONE” infallible and unimpeachable Biblical standard from which to conduct experiment or falsify by empirical evidence. all we are left with is anecdotal testimonies of “faith”… not exactly a foundation from which to even craft a working toaster, much less a Hadron collider or a manned mission to the moon, or beyond.

Just saying…

The problem is basically one of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Too many uninformed and over-ardent folks are trying to fashion an absolute out of something that was never intended to be an absolute in the first place.

The canon was not intended to become the "be-all-end-all -- the-buck-stops-here" kind of absolute measure ("canon" literally means "reed," which is what the ancients used as a measuring-stick) that many folks employ it as today. The canon was meant to be a starting point -- not an end result. In the beginning, all the canon was designed to say was, "this is the stuff that's OK to read in church." it never meant to exclude other texts as "heretical," "false," or "unnecessary."

There never was a "real bible." There never was an "original bible." There were always widely-dispersed snippets of text, collections of texts that sometimes varied widely in their contents, and differing opinions of what "ought to be included" in a standard collection. Always.

This vapid argument about "what belongs" and "what's the 'real' word of God" takes our attention away from the real task of biblical exegesis.

 

[sojourner]

I think what it comes down to is that the Bible has a major human element and when humanity and God collide then the godliness of any writing at that point is questionable is is no longer the purely inherent word of God.

There never was a "purely inherent word of God."

 

[1robin]

I'm confusing nothing. I'm simply asking a question.

Very well: by 95% accurate you are referring to textual accuracy, which you seem to deem important.

(Yet, when I ask you about textual variations conserning Goliath you get all huffy and pontificate about how that has nothing to do with doctrine. Cute ...)
​

So tell me, how might one measure the textual accuracy of something like Isaiah? Is Isaiah 95% accurate? How do you know?

Are you suggesting textual accuracy is not vitally important? For the third time I believe any one could do it with a home computer and some software. It is not rocket science to get the software to compare any major modern version of the bible against the oldest texts in existance. Or you could even use just Bart Ehrman's worst total error figures and compare them to the total number of words. He is a competent scholar but is slightly biased. For example he claims there are 400,000 errors in the bible but will only admit when challenged that the number is not in any single bible but in the textual tradition as a whole. I have broken these numbers down at least three times and can be easily found in this forum. If that isn't good enough you could actually look up the transcript of the DR White v/s Dr Ehrman debate where they spent hours on this issue alone and contains more details than you could possibly need. I hope you will not ask me how to determine this percentage again.

As far as Goliath or even numbers of Jews in the exodus goes. Even Ehrman admits that even the majority of errors that do exist are meaningless, i.e.... two Ns in John or Goliaths height. The most common type of error in the bible is a scribal mistake concerning figures in the OT. Both of your examples are this type. Sometimes a zero was dropped and sometimes one was added. These are all very easy to see why they happen and almost all are known and footnoted. Since even if
your claims are true they do not have any meaningful effect on the reliability of the bible I do not think they are worthy of much discussion. If you could show that Jesus never was crucified then we have something, as it is we don't.

 

[1robin]

your opinion is wrong...

First even if wrong you would have no way of knowing. Second the fact that you claim you do anyway is dishonest. Third there is more evidence suggesting my opinion is right than that for your position. Fourth This will do no good and so why am I bothering.

 

[sojourner]

It also means that if God wanted these texts read he wouldn't have let them dissapear and he would probably have mentioned them in the scripture we have.

And if God hadn't wanted the little girl to get hit by the bus, he wouldn't have placed her there in the first place. This is fallacy writ large, my friend. The construction of the canon is a purely human exercise and has become one that is mostly futile. Texts disappeared because the world at that time was tenuous. Do you realize how close Revelation came to being excluded and lost? Yet many Xtians hold it up as even more important than the gospels. Certain texts (such as Thomas), while very important locally, had little influence in wider circles due to distribution problems. it doesn't mean that "God didn't want it in there." Thomas is a HUGE find in exegetical circles. it doesn't mean much to the average Xtian -- especially the average fundamentalist, because it's not widely translated, and not widely treated to commentary. It's non-narrative form is boring. Plus, they are suspicious of any value it might contain because "it's not in the bible."

If these texts were truly as valid as biblical tests they would be the greatest find possible and would have made a much bigger impact.

Impact upon whom? Recently-discovered texts have a rather large impact upon the scholastic community, as they seek to determine authenticity and impact upon interpretation.

 

[1robin]

it's ok, i don't expect you to understand

If you post a statement to someone you know won't understand it then is it anymore than filler. Many times I think you feel obligated to reply but have nothing to say so you punt and just make some filler that can be sent back as a place holder for meaningful dialogue that seldom appears in your counter claims.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm confusing nothing. I'm simply asking a question.

Very well: by 95% accurate you are referring to textual accuracy, which you seem to deem important.

(Yet, when I ask you about textual variations conserning Goliath you get all huffy and pontificate about how that has nothing to do with doctrine. Cute ...)​

So tell me, how might one measure the textual accuracy of something like Isaiah? Is Isaiah 95% accurate? How do you know?

Are you suggesting textual accuracy is not vitally important?

Are you simply incapable of answering the question? Frankly, I don't believe you have a clue what textual accuracy means or how it might be measured. Now, again, how might one ascertain the textual accuracy of Isaiah?

For the third time I believe any one could do it with a home computer and some software. It is not rocket science to get the software to compare any major modern version of the bible against the oldest texts in existance.

You clearly have no idea how remarkably stupid that statement is. But perhaps I'm wrong. Let's try an experiment using two hypothetical texts labeled [OLD] and [NEW] ...

• [OLD] And Mosed led the people out of Egypt. And the number of people he led was six hundred thousand men old enough to bare arms.
• [NEW] And Aaron led the people out of Egypt. And the number of people he led was six contingents of men old enough to bare arms.

What is the textual accuracy of the above? (Stop squirming. After all, it's not rocket science.)

I hope you will not ask me how to determine this percentage again.

Please see above.

Since even if your claims are true they do not have any meaningful effect on the reliability of the bible ...

To what claims are you referring. You seem to have this disconcerting need to fabricate things out of thin air. This does not lead one to have a great deal of confidence in your ability to discern textual accuracy.

If you could show that Jesus never was crucified then we have something, as it is we don't.

Lot's of people were crucified. Why do you so desperately need to change the subject?

 

[waitasec]

First even if wrong you would have no way of knowing. Second the fact that you claim you do anyway is dishonest. Third there is more evidence suggesting my opinion is right than that for your position. Fourth This will do no good and so why am I bothering.

i don't understand this at all.

if there is more evidence suggesting your opinion is right and we are dealing with spirituality, something you even say is no way provable, how can this be?

 

[waitasec]

If you post a statement to someone you know won't understand

my spiderman comment should have spelled it out for you, but hey thats ok if you don't get it...perhaps after reading jays post you may...but even if you don't get it then, reading your responses is fodder for entertainment