Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[Reverend Richard]

........................................
I will present what Dr White the textual scholar I trust the most as well as what Dr Ehrman said in the debate.

...................................
This site and the transcript are very much worth reading. Dr White is as good as they get. I believe he has personally read more codecices than any one. I know that is his goal. I have learned more from his debates with critics about textual criticism that I would have ever thought. I highly recommend a reading of that debate. His pedagree and accomplishments are too many to post but if you are interested they can be found here: http://vintage.aomin.org/James.html

1robin - I can appreciate the effort you went to to extract what you felt were the pertinent points in this (single) debate. Unfortunately, you and I are both making the same mistake in relying on one debate to prove a point.

Also, you may find me quoting scripture from time-to-time, but only rarely will you find me posting paragraph after paragraph of a single point-of-view from a single source. Nor will you find me spamming this forum with the titles of dozens of books or manuscripts to support my point of view. I find that technique, for the most part, unhelpful, and generally annoying. But that's just my humble opinion.

However, what you will find when I post here is my point of view with a few, and generally very few, reasons as to why I believe what I do.

I have seen the Bible and Christianity from your perspective, and for the first part of my life I believed as you did, generally for all the reasons you gave. However, what you cannot know is that although I was a Baptist until I was in my 20s, I converted to Catholicism in my late 20s, and I was a devout Catholic for almost 10 years. It was only later in life, when I began to expereince the world from other societal and cultural perspectives that I realized I had an extremely narrow perspective on faith and religion. I also began to understand why others had different beliefs. After that, I began to read more about other religions and other faiths. That was a big turning point in my biased view from the strictly Christian perspective.

As I said, you won't find me quoting scripture very often, but I do have a few favorite verses that I try to apply to my life. One of my favorites is:
"But Jesus said, suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 19:14, KJV

I believe a similar verse also appear in the book of Luke. What I understand from that verse is that we do not need some complex theology of heaven and hell, or punishment versus salvation. We only need the simple faith of a child.

IMHO, God loves us much more that we can conceive. The God of the Bible who "keeps score" of our transgressions, and is a jealous, vengeful God as described in most of the Bible - that God sounds all too human and is a God who is subject to all of baser human emotions that seem to be most of humanities downfall. That God does not exist, and never did.

Conservative Christianity, for me, is carrot and stick salvation. Believe our way or you will go to hell and experience eternal damnation.

Sorry, I just no longer buy into it. Salvation based on the choice of heaven or hell is not salvation, it's being held hostage to fear.

 

[Vansdad]

Our rich history of magnificent myth and stupid superstition amply demonstrates our ability to believe any number of things.

It can be taken either literraly or symbolically. To me the latter makes more sense. And then it can be a teaching book for all of us.

 

[Reverend Richard]

It can be taken either literraly or symbolically. To me the latter makes more sense. And then it can be a teaching book for all of us.

Very true. And some people seem to apply both techniques both liberally and simultaneously. When you take that approach all manner of beliefs and philosophies are possible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It can be taken either literraly or symbolically. To me the latter makes more sense.

And this, of course, is convenient. But to render the bible 'infallible' by acts of semanticide strikes me as being intellectually dishonest. Better to acknowledge the work for what it is, a multivalent human effort, and then re-envision it such that it can continue to serve as a source of inspiration.

 

[1robin]

Having a degree in Christian theology is the same as having a degree in mythology. You might as well have a B.S. degree and by that I don't mean a bachelors of science.

This is subjective non-sence. There are no facts here just an emotional rant. I do not value Muslim apolagists but would not begrudge their competence based on personal bias.

I also was a "born again" Christian and had the same life changing experience. The problem with such an experience is that it is simply a form of religious ecstasy that is generated in the brain through the release of brain chemicals and has nothing to do with spirit or soul. Because you place such spiritual importance on this purely physical reaction your life changes. It essentially an advanced form of the placebo effect.

This is pseudo-psychology and others experiences are not accessable by you. I guess all the billions of Christians over the years are just liars. In my case habits I could not break after years of trying were just gone, depression over the loss of my mother, and my desire the were greatly lessened. I went from literally cursing like a sailor (as I was one) to not being able to stand cursing the very next day. Etc...... You description may match what ever happened to you but not me or the other Christians I know who have gone on to live years of life consistent with their new found faith and inconsistent with their old lives.

Again despite if it is historical errors, textural errors, or questionable sources of information, it makes the Scripture itself highly questionable. When you do not know the author who wrote something then that authors authority to write what is supposed to be fact is at that point is very meaningful.

I have defended hundreds of these error claims and outside a few scribal errors I have yet to see one challenge that stood up. I did not say we do not know the authors most are reliably known only a few are questionable but even they are probably correct. You would have to produce specific claims instead of general assertions to make any of this stick.

 

[1robin]

1robin - I can appreciate the effort you went to to extract what you felt were the pertinent points in this (single) debate. Unfortunately, you and I are both making the same mistake in relying on one debate to prove a point.

I appreciate you appreciation. That debate is only one of hundreds I have seen. I have seen every professional religous debate I can find. I have run out. However in a forum posting a hundred debate transcripts is just not practical. I just selected that one because it was Ehrman discussing this particular issue and it is a very good one. That one debate is in no way what I use to adopt a position.

Also, you may find me quoting scripture from time-to-time, but only rarely will you find me posting paragraph after paragraph of a single point-of-view from a single source. Nor will you find me spamming this forum with the titles of dozens of books or manuscripts to support my point of view. I find that technique, for the most part, unhelpful, and generally annoying. But that's just my humble opinion.

You are quite right. If you will notice I originally just gave the link to his credentials and would have left it at that but someone challenged his competence and so I went the exhaustive route. That was not meant for our discussion.

However, what you will find when I post here is my point of view with a few, and generally very few, reasons as to why I believe what I do.

You sound like you are accusing me of over posting when I believe two posts ago you were saying I was not supplying enough. I may be lazy or over the top but I ain't both.

I have seen the Bible and Christianity from your perspective, and for the first part of my life I believed as you did, generally for all the reasons you gave. However, what you cannot know is that although I was a Baptist until I was in my 20s, I converted to Catholicism in my late 20s, and I was a devout Catholic for almost 10 years. It was only later in life, when I began to expereince the world from other societal and cultural perspectives that I realized I had an extremely narrow perspective on faith and religion. I also began to understand why others had different beliefs. After that, I began to read more about other religions and other faiths. That was a big turning point in my biased view from the strictly Christian perspective.

I have spent agreat deal of time on Islam and my Christian life has been quite different from yours. I was raised in church until my Christian mother got cancer, the sicker she got the madder at God I was. She finally passed away and me and God were mortal enemies. I joined the Navy and experienced quite a few things. Anything was fine except Christianity, drugs, philosophy, psychology, intellectualism, other religions, astral projection, spiritualism any thing but God. Well to cut this short. God wasn't done with me and after he got through with me I gave up and excepted Christ and had an unmistakable experience that has changed me forever. Since then I have went back and formally studied many of the things I used to believe in or on and have found them wanting in every respect. Anyway enough personal stuff. Didn't mean to bore you.

As I said, you won't find me quoting scripture very often, but I do have a few favorite verses that I try to apply to my life. One of my favorites is:
"But Jesus said, suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 19:14, KJV

Very good verse.

I believe a similar verse also appear in the book of Luke. What I understand from that verse is that we do not need some complex theology of heaven and hell, or punishment versus salvation. We only need the simple faith of a child.

Well true or not I have very little time for ceremony and complex laws or rituals. I believe we have sinned and fallen short and must be born again to be united with God. That could only be defended or explained by the bible and I find it reliable and that is why I defend it.

IMHO, God loves us much more that we can conceive. The God of the Bible who "keeps score" of our transgressions, and is a jealous, vengeful God as described in most of the Bible - that God sounds all too human and is a God who is subject to all of baser human emotions that seem to be most of humanities downfall. That God does not exist, and never did.

Well the God of Judaism and Islam is far more dictatorial. Where are you drawing this concept of a teddy bear God from? That was not sarcasm. I also suspect that hell is more of an anihilation and seperation from God than a perpetual torture. In the end he gives us exactly what we chose. My understanding of God comes from the life of Christ described this way.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.
No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian James Stuart

That is about what I believe God to be.

Conservative Christianity, for me, is carrot and stick salvation. Believe our way or you will go to hell and experience eternal damnation.

That depends on what you define as our way. I was saved without affiliation with a church and spent over two years determining what I believed the bible to say with help from prayer and the Holy Spirit and reading the bible cover to cover twice and concentrating on core doctrine. I then chose the baptist church as the one that most closely matched. It is all together fitting that God would perscribe one way by which man is reconciled and put it in one religion. If not then he apparently hid bits of truth in tons of garbage in many religions and I find that inconsistent with what I know.

Sorry, I just no longer buy into it. Salvation based on the choice of heaven or hell is not salvation, it's being held hostage to fear.

I can't ever wrap my head around a person claiming to have been born again then to decide later that he doesn't believe in the premise that made his original claim true. Maybe it is just me but that just does not compute. Claiming I was saved now I no longer believe in salvation must mean something other than it seems.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is subjective non-sence. There are no facts here just an emotional rant. I do not value Muslim apolagists but would not begrudge their competence based on personal bias.

What a truly marvelous sentence ...

But, getting back to the topic, on what grounds does one claim infallibility of text whose authors are anonymous?

 

[Scoop Of Faith]

Good point.

 

[Vansdad]

And this, of course, is convenient. But to render the bible 'infallible' by acts of semanticide strikes me as being intellectually dishonest. Better to acknowledge the work for what it is, a multivalent human effort, and then re-envision it such that it can continue to serve as a source of inspiration.

I tend to see it as a persons belief. To take it literally means that a lot of science is ignored. That just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I tend to see it as a persons belief.

Of course it's a person's belief, but not all beliefs are created equal.

 

[1robin]

I tend to see it as a persons belief. To take it literally means that a lot of science is ignored. That just doesn't make sense to me.

What science is it that must be ignored?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What science is it that must be ignored?

Evolution ... Archaeology ... Geology ... etc.

But, that aside, on what grounds does one claim infallibility of text whose authors are anonymous?

 

[Vansdad]

Of course it's a person's belief, but not all beliefs are created equal.

And who's to say what belief is most equal? It's all rather subjective.

 

[Vansdad]

What science is it that must be ignored?

I think some aspects of the bible if taken literally show people to have lived many hundreds of years. I don't think there have been any fossil evidence to support this.

 

[waitasec]

And who's to say what belief is most equal? It's all rather subjective.

there's power in numbers.

mob rules.

 

[Vansdad]

there's power in numbers.

mob rules.

But is there truth in numbers?

 

[waitasec]

But is there truth in numbers?

i would venture to say yes... as truth is understood subjectively
(when it comes to belief)

 

[Alceste]

And who's to say what belief is most equal? It's all rather subjective.

I'm jumping in late here, but do you honestly believe that ALL beliefs are equally subjective? in other words, do you think evidence-based beliefs are exactly as subjective as myth-based beliefs?

This is subjective non-sence. There are no facts here just an emotional rant. I do not value Muslim apolagists but would not begrudge their competence based on personal bias.

* nonsense, apologists.

This is pseudo-psychology and others experiences are not accessable by you. I guess all the billions of Christians over the years are just liars. In my case habits I could not break after years of trying were just gone, depression over the loss of my mother, and my desire the were greatly lessened. I went from literally cursing like a sailor (as I was one) to not being able to stand cursing the very next day. Etc...... You description may match what ever happened to you but not me or the other Christians I know who have gone on to live years of life consistent with their new found faith and inconsistent with their old lives.

I had this exact same transformation after my first LSD trip, AND I still get to sleep in on Sundays and have lots of casual premarital sex. I win!

I can see The Bible being infallible. The problem is not the bible it is the humans interpreting it.

I am pretty confident you would reconsider this position if you took the time to actually read the Bible. How can a book that continually contradicts itself be considered "infallible"? Where there is a contradiction, either one assertion is true and the other false, or both assertions are false. It's simply not possible for two contradictory assertions to both be true.

Formal Debates (see bookstore for audio and video recordings)
Sola Scriptura, August, 1990 vs. Gerry Matatics, Long Beach, CA
Perseverance of the Saints, December, 1990 vs. Gerry Matatics, Phoenix, AZ
The Papacy, December, 1990 vs. Gerry Matatics, Tempe, AZ
Justification by Faith, January, 1991 vs. Fr. Mitch Pacwa, El Cajon, CA
The Mass, January, 1991 vs. Fr. Mitch Pacwa, El Cajon, CA
Justification by Faith, May, 1991 vs. Art Sippo, Toledo, OH
Sola Scripture, November, 1992 vs. Gerry Matatics, Omaha, NB
The Mass, November, 1992 vs. Gerry Matatics, Omaha, NB
Justification by Faith, April, 1993, vs. Gerry Matatics, Boston College
The Apocrypha, April, 1993, vs. Gerry Matatics, Boston College
The Papacy: NT Evidence, July, 1993 vs. Gerry Matatics, Denver, CO
The Papacy: Early Church Evidence vs. Gerry Matatics, July, 1993, Denver, CO
Sola Scriptura, September, 1993 vs. Patrick Madrid, San Diego, CA
Is the KJV the Best Translation, vs. D.A. Waite, 1994
Justification, July, 1994, vs. Dr. Fastiggi, Austin, TX
Indulgences, July, 1994, vs. Dr. Fastiggi, Austin, TX
Mary, July, 1994, vs. Dr. Fastiggi, Austin, TX
Papal Infallibility, July, 1994, vs. Dr. Fastiggi, Austin, TX
[truncate]
Island, NY
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary, October, 2003, vs. Gerry Matatics, Salt Lake City, UT
Jesus: God or a god?, December, 2003, vs. Gregory Stafford, Tampa, FL
Are Temples Consistent with NT Christianity? April, 2004, vs. Richard Hopkins, Salt Lake City, UT
Is Gay Marriage Consistent with NT Christianity? April, 2004 vs. Dee Bradshaw, Salt Lake City, UT
Is the Apocrypha Canonical?, May, 2004, vs. Gary Michuta, Long Island, NY
Are Roman Catholics Our Brothers and Sisters in Christ?, November, 2004, vs. Douglas Wilson, Los
Angeles, CA
Regeneration and Faith, April, 2005, vs. Robert Wilkin, Oklahoma City, OK
Can Non-Christians Enter Heaven? June, 2005, vs. William Rutland, Long Island, NY
Is the Bible True? August, 2005, vs. John Dominic Crossan, Seattle, WA
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ vs. Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan (with James Renihan),
August, 2005, Sun Princess (at sea)
Calvinism vs. Arminianism, April, 2006, vs. Dr. Jonathan Wright, Sedalia, MO
Is the New Testament We Possess Today Inspired? May, 2006, vs. Shabir Ally, Biola University
Baptism for Believers Only? October, 2006 vs. Pastor William Shishko, Long Island, NY
Is Homosexuality Consistent with Biblical Christianity? November, 2006, vs. Bishop John Shelby Spong,
Orlando, FL
Did Jesus Offer Himself on the Cross as a Willing Sacrifice for the Sins of God's People? October, 2007,
vs. Shabir Ally, Seattle, WA
　
Teaching
Church History, Grand Canyon University, 1991-92, 95
Scholar in Residence, Grand Canyon University, 1995-1996
Apologetics, Grand Canyon University, 1996
Beginning Greek, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001
Greek Exegesis of Ephesians, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 2001
Beginning Hebrew, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1996, 1998, 2000
Hebrew Exegesis, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1997, 1999
Christian Philosophy of Religion, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1998-2003
Christology, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1997
Systematic Theology, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1996, 1998, 2004
Apologetics, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 2003-2004
Development of Patristic Theology, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 2004
Current Issues in Apologetics, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005, 2007
Islam, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008
</title> <style> </style> </head> <body link="#003399"> <html> <head> <meta name="description" content="Christian Apologetics, Theology, Information on Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. A reformed ministry dedicated to sharing t

Yeah this guy doesn't know what he is talking about. Not. He is very respected in the field and has taken on all the major debaters from the opposing side and usually destroyed them in every debate I have seen. If you have greater credentials then post them. The attempt to dismiss what you find inconvenient when the effort is so obviously futile is the sign of an emotional percomittment to a weak position. If he can't be countered he must be smeared. It might work in politics but the NT demostrates it doesn't in theology.

Oh, my. Professional credibility is judged more by quality than quantity. I can write you a list of thousands of "deep thoughts" I've scribbled in my own feces on the walls of the asylum I live in, and a list of all the people I've argued with that you'd need to live longer than Methuselah to get through. I don't need any academic credentials of my own whatsoever to immediately recognize that these scribblings and arguments you've listed are not real "academic credentials".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And who's to say what belief is most equal? It's all rather subjective.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

And who's to say what belief is most equal? It's all rather subjective.

Irrational or baseless beliefs are naturally accorded sub-prime intellectual space.