-
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!
Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?
- Thread starter gseeker
- Start date
The bible can be taken literally or symbolically. Most people trying to discredit it will take it leterally, unfortunately the point is oftenm missed because it is a spiritual book, to me, and should be taken symbolically. It does try to provide experiences of God and people so that we may find the same things in ourselves.
So it seems enough people find enough evidence to believe in God, A Creator. So is this not meeting your criteria? And I'm actually not American so this might be why I need the explanation.
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
Those people are not finding evidence.So it seems enough people find enough evidence to believe in God, A Creator. So is this not meeting your criteria? And I'm actually not American so this might be why I need the explanation.
Look, at this point I am thoroughly sick of correcting you on your obvious, crippling total lack of ability to comprehend what you read and absorb the actual definitions of the words you are struggling to use. It really isn't worth the time trying to parse things down.
The fact that you are not American has nothing at all to do with your failures.
Thanks. I'll need it.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
What are you taliking about. I pent two posts talking about the 400,000 errors, I said only the revelation was promised to be pur, I even showed that every bible has 5% or less errors. How is that a claim to infallability.
Pick your worst (outside of the known scribal errors)and let's see if it is actually erroneous.
If you boiled everything Ehrman ever said down to it's essence and then removed everything that doesn't have direct application and is used to seel a book, all that would be left is that the bible has approx 5% errors and section of them are meaningful. That is light years beyond any comparable work and is more of a result of having so many manuscripts and therefore opportunities for errors but at the same time increasing the reliability of what has no errors. All are known and if desired can be ignored and the 95% of pure text can be read alone. I do not see a crisis here. What I see borders on a miracle. If you expected perfection then you won't find it. If you expect reliable texts you have far more than could be expected.
Authorship according to whom? The blue letter bible site is very well respected why would you reject the claims they made I gave you. There are a very many respected scholars that support the traditional authors. I am very familiar with your two examples of scribal error. THey are the only two that involve significant abounts of text, are well known, and are indicated. Just ignore them and rock on. They compose less then .0000001% of the bible yet are used to dismiss the other .9999999% by some strange use of logic.
What infallable book? Your 37,000 is not the more meaningful statistic. The fact that there is one error in every 1425 words is far more helpfull. Just how much damage can be done by two N's in the name John in 1425 words. Again it seems that something besides the data is driving your issues.
Who told you this garbage. THere is more textual evidence for the character of Christ than any aother figure of ancient history by many times over.
Professor Thomas Arnold, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said:
"The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901), English scholar who was appointed regius professor at Cambridge in 1870, said: "Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of if."
Clifford Herschel Moore, professor at Harvard University, well said, "Christianity knew its Saviour and REdeemer not as some god whose history was contained in a mythical faith, with rude, primitive, and even offensive elements...Jesus was a historical not a mythical being. No remote or foul myth obtruded itself of the Christian believer; his faith was founded on positive, historical, and acceptable facts."
Benjamin Warfield of Princeton expressed in his article, "The Resurrection of Christ an Historical Fact, Evinced by Eye-Witnesses":
You can find plenty more like this at Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2
Ehrman is not in these guys league.
I am pretty sure that whatever is going on here is not a simple matter of your reading Ehrman. There is some reason you are seeking out this stuff and assigning it a much higher value than it deserves. As far as parrallelism goes look up Dr James White's apologetics on the subject and you will see clearly that what is claimed to be the same story has so many and so drastic differences as to render them completely exclusive. There can't help but be similarities between texts on the same subject but it ends there. I assume you are reffering to Rome as far as the political and social system contributing to Christianity. You have two choices 1. The one you have arbitrarily chosen that makes Christianity look convenient or 2. The very likely case that God chose the time, place, and circumstances that would make his message available to the most people. The fact you choose 1 instead of 2 means there is more to the issue than facts here. The fact that a message given to a minor middle eastern mostly illiterate tribe has now become accepted by 1 out of every 3 people on earth and the fact that the bible is the most studied and cherished book in human history is a testament to it's value and pedegree. Especially compared with religions that force complience at birth and have a birth rate 8 times the Christian rate, or ones that are cultural expectations that make non compliance almost un heard of, plus the fact it is the largest, fastest growing, and most persecuted religion in history an absolute miracle.
Which came first, bluebirds or beatles?
And if you're wrong and there is a God than who's the failure then.
Last edited by a moderator:
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
lol, It's not an either/or choice. Yet another fallacy to your huge, shameful pile.And if you're wrong and there is a God than who's the failure then.
"Some day, some imaginary event will occur that proves me right, which I cannot manage now, and you'll be sorry!"
No, really, I never, ever will.
Then what are you doing on the Religious Education Forum?
waitasec
Veteran Member
Then what are you doing on the Religious Education Forum?
are you hear to proselytize?
:tsk:
***Mod Post***
Some posts are starting to include personal attacks. Please refrain from attacking other members, and be mindful of Rule 1 and other forum rules while posting:
Some posts are starting to include personal attacks. Please refrain from attacking other members, and be mindful of Rule 1 and other forum rules while posting:
Not me. But why would a devout atheist bother with a religious forum?
waitasec
Veteran Member
you could have fooled me.
because dogmatic religions have ruined a lot of lives...as the religious appoint themselves as the ones who control the ones who do not adhere to their religious beliefs...
i am here to challenge that undue sense of importance...got a problem with that?
Last edited:
otokage007
Well-Known Member
to debate religion? maybe?
waitasec
Veteran Member
Firstly you should note that it was you who made the comment about me being a failure. So I only repeated it back to you. And maybe you just need to take responsibility for your life and stop blaming others'. In other words grow up.
Debate? or put people down?
