Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[waitasec]

Humor us and do just a skosh of scholarship, will ya? Just a bit? Huh?
Satan =/= serpent-in-the-garden. Never has, never will. The culpability (if you bothered to read the story) rests with Adam and Eve -- not the serpent.

culpability
Deserving of blame or censure as being wrong, evil, improper, or injurious.
culpability - definition of culpability by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

can you explain how a & e were culpable in their state of innocence?

in order to understand what the words good and evil meant, they would first have to know what those words meant...however, they were forbidden from knowing what good and evil meant.

 

[sojourner]

culpability
Deserving of blame or censure as being wrong, evil, improper, or injurious.
culpability - definition of culpability by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

can you explain how a & e were culpable in their state of innocence?

in order to understand what the words good and evil meant, they would first have to know what those words meant...however, they were forbidden from knowing what good and evil meant.

Sure. They were told not to eat the fruit. In other words, they were forbidden to cross the line between humanity and divinity. They would eat the fruit and "become like God -- knowing good and evil." They were culpable for the act of crossing that line.

 

[1robin]

all this without elaborating on the 95%
you are also conveniently leaving out
the gospel of thomas, mary, judas and many more.

1. I have already explained the 95% figure many times in several threads.
2. I said that the 95% was explained in the three links I provided plus many more.
3. The great scholars on both side in those debates can do a better job than I can to explain it.
4. The videos our much longer and contains vastly more details than I could provide.

What you do in here is more accurately described as badgering believers rather than offering scholarly challenges to the faith. It's is semantics, technicalities, and constant nit picking and in no way rises to the level of a meaningful counter position. The 95% is a well known number and can be found in countless places on the net. Being that this is the most profound, important, and has the greatest implications of any issue in human history I would think it deserves much more serious effort at examination than drive by pot shots.

 

[waitasec]

Sure. They were told not to eat the fruit. In other words, they were forbidden to cross the line between humanity and divinity. They would eat the fruit and "become like God -- knowing good and evil." They were culpable for the act of crossing that line.

the concept of "not" is contingent on knowing what "no"means.
how can one be expected to understand the concept of "no", as being created in a state on innocence which essentially means "yes" to everything?
every thing was permissible accept for one thing...but in order to understand what is not permissible a boundary would have to be placed before hand in order to understand what the boundary "no" meant when it came to the forbidden fruit.

consider the 1st time you heard the word "no", did you understand what it meant? the 1st time your child heard the word "no" did they understand what it meant?
mine didn't...am i going to hold them accountable for not knowing what "no" means? absolutely not...then why would anyone just ignore why god would hold an innocent person accountable for not knowing when it comes to god?

 

[waitasec]

1. I have already explained the 95% figure many times in several threads.

bummer...i missed that

What you do in here is more accurately described as badgering believers rather than offering scholarly challenges to the faith.

i was only bringing the fact of the other gospels existence to your attention...:sorry1: to rain on your parade...if you consider that badgering then perhaps you would feel much more comfortable in the DIR section

 

[sojourner]

the concept of "not" is contingent on knowing what "no"means.
how can one be expected to understand the concept of "no", as being created in a state on innocence which essentially means "yes" to everything?
every thing was permissible accept for one thing...but in order to understand what is not permissible a boundary would have to be placed before hand in order to understand what the boundary "no" meant when it came to the forbidden fruit.

consider the 1st time you heard the word "no", did you understand what it meant? the 1st time your child heard the word "no" did they understand what it meant?
mine didn't...am i going to hold them accountable for not knowing what "no" means? absolutely not...then why would anyone just ignore why god would hold an innocent person accountable for not knowing when it comes to god?

They weren't innocent as to right/wrong. They were innocent as to good/evil. One can be right and not be good. One can be wrong and not be evil. The text assumes that they knew how to obey God. They knew right from wrong. That much is evident from Eve's argument with the serpent.

 

[Scuba Pete]

They weren't innocent as to right/wrong. They were innocent as to good/evil.

Frubals for this! That puts it in a good perspective.

I don't believe in the concept of "original sin" as taught by many sects of Christianity today. The OT clearly states in Ezekiel 18:4 The one who sins is the one who will die. NIV. It's one of the few places where the scriptures claim to quote God. How accurate is it to what God really said? We'll find out when we slip the surly bonds of this earthly existence.

FWIW, Ezekial 18 is a great read on how the OT denies the possibility of Original Sin. Just click and enjoy.

 

[waitasec]

They weren't innocent as to right/wrong. They were innocent as to good/evil.

there are 2 levels of their understanding we need to clarify
1. how were they to qualify that disobeying was the wrong thing to do if everything else was permissible?
2. was being ignorant of good and evil gods intended state for mankind to remain in since the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden?

One can be right and not be good. One can be wrong and not be evil.

can you please elaborate?

The text assumes that they knew how to obey God. They knew right from wrong. That much is evident from Eve's argument with the serpent.

which is why the text is a myth for the purpose to explain
1. why we have the ability to acquire knowledge
2. and the reason we die is contingent on our ability to acquire knowledge

 

[1robin]

bummer...i missed that

It is very well known and can be found on countless sites and can be easily found in many threads. Even the ultra critical but qualified Bart Ehrman supports these figures.

i was only bringing the fact of the other gospels existence to your attention...:sorry1: to rain on your parade...if you consider that badgering then perhaps you would feel much more comfortable in the DIR section

No, you brought up something you already knew because the anti bible claim toolbox is empty. Those other texts were ruled out long ago for good reasons by hundreds of scholars and their decisions have stood the test of time. What is in the new testament is determined by it's apostolic nature. The early church fathers did a great job. The more extraordinary the text the more scrutiny it got. They were very demanding of what went in the bible. I would rather have less information that is extremely reliable than a bunch of junk that is sometimes accurate sometimes not.

 

[waitasec]

It is very well known and can be found on countless sites and can be easily found in many threads. Even the ultra critical but qualified Bart Ehrman supports these figures.

bart ehrman does not share your view, nice try.

No, you brought up something you already knew because the anti bible claim toolbox is empty. Those other texts were ruled out long ago for good reasons by hundreds of scholars and their decisions have stood the test of time.

these other gospels don't exist?
curious how much time are we talking about?

[youtube]pAr18jQcnS0[/youtube]
The Lost Gospels.wmv - YouTube

btw, bart ehrman makes several appearances in this documentary

 

[1robin]

bart ehrman does not share your view, nice try.

Oh yes he does concerning the percent of errors that are meaningful and the total numbers. In fact I use the numbers he gives in a Dr White vs Dr Ehrman debate when I post the bibles reliablilty.

these other gospels don't exist?
curious how much time are we talking about?

I didn;t say they didn't exist. I said there are suffecient reasons to reject them and they have been for over a thousand years.

[youtube]pAr18jQcnS0[/youtube]
The Lost Gospels.wmv - YouTube

btw, bart ehrman makes several appearances in this documentary

I do not have time for Davinci code scholarship. The issues were settled long ago and have remained settled for good reason.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

how can one be expected to understand the concept of "no", as being created in a state on innocence which essentially means "yes" to everything?

Where in the Torah do you read of a state of innocence?

 

[sojourner]

there are 2 levels of their understanding we need to clarify
1. how were they to qualify that disobeying was the wrong thing to do if everything else was permissible?
2. was being ignorant of good and evil gods intended state for mankind to remain in since the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden?

1. Everything else wasn't permissible. They also could not eat of the tree of life.
God told them not to. They knew it was wrong, but they did it anyway. Here we have a clear example of the blurring of good/evil and right/wrong. It was wrong for them to disobey, but not evil.

2. Apparently, by the story, it was.

 

[waitasec]

1. Everything else wasn't permissible. They also could not eat of the tree of life.

that isn't correct. everything but the tree of knowledge was permissible. it became forbidden only until AFTER THE ACT and then the tree of life was forbidden...remember, "you shall surely die"?

God told them not to. They knew it was wrong, but they did it anyway. Here we have a clear example of the blurring of good/evil and right/wrong. It was wrong for them to disobey, but not evil.

is sin evil, and is disobeying a sin?

 

[waitasec]

Where in the Torah do you read of a state of innocence?

not knowing the difference between good and evil...

 

[waitasec]

Oh yes he does concerning the percent of errors that are meaningful and the total numbers. In fact I use the numbers he gives in a Dr White vs Dr Ehrman debate when I post the bibles reliablilty.

give me an example of something meaningful...

I didn;t say they didn't exist.

yes you did. your reference to my "tool box" implied it.

I said there are suffecient reasons to reject them and they have been for over a thousand years.
I do not have time for Davinci code scholarship. The issues were settled long ago and have remained settled for good reason.

why would you expect anyone to view your links?
there you go....:ignore: looks intelligent, don't it?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

not knowing the difference between good and evil...

See here and here.

 

[waitasec]

See here and here.

am i missing something?

 

[Awoon]

People never argue about the score of a baseball game when it is finished.

 

[sojourner]

that isn't correct. everything but the tree of knowledge was permissible. it became forbidden only until AFTER THE ACT and then the tree of life was forbidden...remember, "you shall surely die"?

Still. The point stands. What was forbidden was clearly forbidden and it is indicated that they were aware of that demarcation.

is sin evil, and is disobeying a sin?

Sin is not always evil.