Trusting the Bible

[Willamena]

No, you don't "get me" at all.

You are quite mistaken when you associate your artlessness with me.

If you can't trust the Mona Lisa or Bach's masterpieces, and therefore cannot trust Scripture at all, you're beyond unqualified to even make that kind of judgment.

I suspect it's a tactic, recently escalated on the forums. "Stupid" people not getting it, on purpose.

 

[jojom]

If you can't trust the Mona Lisa or Bach's masterpieces, and therefore cannot trust Scripture at all, you're beyond unqualified to even make that kind of judgment.

Just what kind of trust do you expect people to put into the Mona Lisa or Bach's masterpieces? In what manner do you trust them?

.

 

[Kapalika]

If the Bible is not 100% accurate in what it says, then how can you trust it at all? If small, insignificant verse #6 is wrong, then how can you put your faith in the belief that immensely important verse #22 is right? So isn't inerrancy mandatory?

nothign is 100t% accurate by definition of accuracy, but the bible is obviously much less accurate than say even 50%

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Just what kind of trust do you expect people to put into the Mona Lisa or Bach's masterpieces? In what manner do you trust them?

.

Well, first of all they exist imperfectly in the same way that the Bible exists... that is to say that the inerrant Bible does not exist and never has existed. Bach - for example - is performed and experienced differently every time it is played ot heard... it is played on imperfect instruments by impefect players and heard by imperfect people - it is a symphony of human error but to most of us it can be an uplifting wholesome experience. In spite of all of this error, I can trust that I hear Bach - my soul is enriched...

.... or I can experience the wonder of the Mona Lisa, with its flawed paints and canvas - its much more plastic than music but it is nevertheless defined by our inability to fully experience its message - but I can trust that I am experiencing it.

The Bible isn't something to be trusted for its purity of form - otherwise we wouldn't be able to relate to it at all. It's a message on a thoroughly human canvas and our only choice is ti trust it for what it is - not something that it cannot even pretend to be.

 

[jojom]

Well, first of all they exist imperfectly in the same way that the Bible exists... that is to say that the inerrant Bible does not exist and never has existed. Bach - for example - is performed and experienced differently every time it is played ot heard... it is played on imperfect instruments by impefect players and heard by imperfect people - it is a symphony of human error but to most of us it can be an uplifting wholesome experience.

Not talking about the performance, but the work. When you said "It's just as trustworthy as Bach's symphonies" it implies his composition, not its execution, such as the New York Philharmonic or the Patrick Henry Jr. High school band might play it. Had it's execution been in mind, a literate person would phrase it as " trustworthy as the performance of Bach's symphonies"; the performance being the paramount object of trust.

... or I can experience the wonder of the Mona Lisa, with its flawed paints and canvas - its much more plastic than music but it is nevertheless defined by our inability to fully experience its message - but I can trust that I am experiencing it.

So you trust that what you're experiencing you're experiencing. Hardly an earthshaking observation is it. Sorry, but both of these rather peculiar twisting of the word "trust" are pretty wacky, and I'm sure you know it..

The Bible isn't something to be trusted for its purity of form - otherwise we wouldn't be able to relate to it at all.

Couldn't agree more.

It's a message on a thoroughly human canvas and our only choice is ti trust it for what it is - not something that it cannot even pretend to be.

"Human canvas"??? Anyway, how about the choice of not trusting it all because what it says cannot be trusted to be true? I know cherry picking helps, and ignoring troublesome passages allays doubt, but is this really the wobbly construction one should be putting their faith in?


.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, first of all they exist imperfectly in the same way that the Bible exists... that is to say that the inerrant Bible does not exist and never has existed. Bach - for example - is performed and experienced differently every time it is played ot heard... it is played on imperfect instruments by impefect players and heard by imperfect people - it is a symphony of human error but to most of us it can be an uplifting wholesome experience. In spite of all of this error, I can trust that I hear Bach - my soul is enriched...

.... or I can experience the wonder of the Mona Lisa, with its flawed paints and canvas - its much more plastic than music but it is nevertheless defined by our inability to fully experience its message - but I can trust that I am experiencing it.

The Bible isn't something to be trusted for its purity of form - otherwise we wouldn't be able to relate to it at all. It's a message on a thoroughly human canvas and our only choice is ti trust it for what it is - not something that it cannot even pretend to be.

Dang! That was good! (And he still doesn't get it.)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not talking about the performance, but the work. When you said "It's just as trustworthy as Bach's symphonies" it implies his composition, not its execution, such as the New York Philharmonic or the Patrick Henry Jr. High school band might play it. Had it's execution been in mind, a literate person would phrase it as " trustworthy as the performance of Bach's symphonies"; the performance being the paramount object of trust.

And an intelligent person would remember what he is arguing.

There is no composition of the Bible, as we've already established. All we have is performance, so I am comparing apples and apples, at least inasmuch as it's possible to trust Scripture, music, and art. All we have is the experience - we have no inerrant text, and indeed the texts that we have, this artificial thing that you call 'the Bible' is an arbitrary translation of a collection of text. If we are going to trust it, we must trust it as it is and not as we would like it to be (in your case, a straw man).

So the argument cannot possibly be that we can only trust an inerrant Bible, because an inerrant Bible doesn't exist (and never has).

However, the Bible is trustworthy for what it is -- for what it can possibly offer us -- in the same way that we can trust other imperfect media (like music and art) that enrich the human experience.

In fact, there is nothing - or very, very little - in the human experience that is inerrant. Perhaps mathematics and physics can get us as close as possible to perfection (only for a short time) - but everything else is subject to continual development and change.

 

[jojom]

And an intelligent person would remember what he is arguing.

And not make silly analogies.

There is no composition of the Bible, as we've already established.

You must be daydreaming, because we never did any such a thing. Might want to rub your eyes and check your previous posts.

All we have is performance, so I am comparing apples and apples, at least inasmuch as it's possible to trust Scripture, music, and art.

And because you've failed to show how we trust either music or art, it stands to reason scripture isn't trustworthy either.

All we have is the experience - we have no inerrant text, and indeed the texts that we have, this artificial thing that you call 'the Bible' is an arbitrary translation of a collection of text.

"Arbitrary? I think not. The translations were made with a good deal of forethought and deliberation.

If we are going to trust it, we must trust it as it is and not as we would like it to be

Now you're talking sense.

So the argument cannot possibly be that we can only trust an inerrant Bible, because an inerrant Bible doesn't exist (and never has).

And another one!

However, the Bible is trustworthy for what it is -- for what it can possibly offer us

And that comes down to one's standard of trust. Some people have a very high standards while others have next to none.


.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A more appropriate response would be:

Or something by Willie Nelson.

[If you refuse to interact intelligently with the topic, at least post something entertaining]

 

[Desert Snake]

I trust the bible because I understand it.

 

[jojom]

I trust the bible because I understand it.

Do you think you're capable of understanding Mein kamph? It actually reads more easily than the Bible.


.


.

 

[Desert Snake]

Do you think you're capable of understanding Mein kamph? It actually reads more easily than the Bible.


.


.

Your getting agree with, mixed up with understand.

 

[Desert Snake]

If I read the Bible according to some peoples interpretations, it doesn't make sense.

 

[jojom]

Your getting agree with, mixed up with understand.

Not at all. Your only qualification for trust was understanding, "I trust the bible because I understand it."


.

 

[Desert Snake]

Not at all. Your only qualification for trust was understanding, "I trust the bible because I understand it."


.

So, you are disagreeing, with the Bible, or don't understand it? I thought that you didn't understand it at all.

 

[Desert Snake]

Also, are you sure you understand the Bible? Many people don't, even people who think there 'Christians'.

 

[jojom]

[If you refuse to interact intelligently with the topic, at least post something entertaining]

And if you refuse to post something entertaining (dancing preschool children of all things---are you kidding? (I know you're not)) at least post something intelligent:

for starters.


.

 

[jojom]

So, you are disagreeing, with the Bible, or don't understand it? I thought that you didn't understand it at all.

This is soooo sad.


.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm not mad -- just disappointed.

I know that you are either unwilling or unable to communicate like a reasonable person, but maybe you can appreciate this:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you think you're capable of understanding Mein kamph? It actually reads more easily than the Bible.


.


.

It's easy to pretend to understand anything.

Especially if you're a muppet.