Monday, February 25, 2008

Now that’s original

When an inerrantist is pressed, we often hear the battle cry, “Well, I only believe the originals were inerrant.”

Curiously, the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy does not quite arrive at this conclusion. The Statement brushes it by claiming the autographs (originals) are inspired, and “copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.” (Not having the original, it doesn’t do us much good to say “where they agree with what we don’t have, they are the same as the original.”)

Humorously though, the long-winded statement designed to persuade toward inerrency, loses its entire argument by conceding: “the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.”

That’s a fancy way of saying “We see errors in what we have.”

And I have always wondered, when the statement says
Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.
What “apparent inconsistencies with no convincing solution” these esteemed authors were referring to. If they couldn’t find a “convincing solution”—why should I believe there is one?

This is a bit like saying, “I bought a lottery ticket, and while I don’t have it anymore, I am certain the numbers on it match last night’s multi-million dollar drawing.” Funny how they don’t give out money on such a claim!

But when the topic switches to Textual Criticism, I am assured by astounding percentages, we have narrowed the field to 99.5% of the original. The last bastion is that persnickety .5% we can’t quite cover.

Er…hello? If our copies are 99.5% accurate to the originals (a completely speculative face-flop in the mud, in my opinion) and these copies we have include errors—doesn’t that mean the originals have errors too?

When it comes to errors, the poor copies are blamed. When it comes to integrity, the copies are lauded. Why is it I feel someone wants to have their cake and eat it too?

62 comments:

  1. What really makes me chuckle is that when it comes to things like Biblical inerrancy and authority, everybody's got an opinion. You'd never catch most of us trying to pretend we've got a sweet clue about the authenticity of ancient manuscripts, historicity, archaeological evidence, etc., but when it comes to the Bible, suddenly we're all experts and can discuss ad nauseum. I, too, have proved myself a total fool in speaking about things for which I have neither intellectual authority nor educated understanding.

    If this were really the issue, we'd be far better off spending our time learning about how the reliability of any document (not just the Bible) is established, instead of stretching out our ignorance of the realities for the wide world to see.

    Go ahead and remove all the punctuation; cut out any Biblical passage that is even in dispute by anyone qualified to judge; call the whole book a patchwork: there remains for the intellect (educated or not) a message loud and clear that is both in harmony with the evidence of the natural world and resonant with what we know of ourselves as human beings - that we as humans are in our essence something precious, something that has been broken and needs to be restored; that God, the Creator of the Universe, is both personal and full of Love; that nothing in our world nor in our imagination offers us any solution to that brokenness except Jesus Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You’re right, jennypo. It does seem as if people think they are experts when it comes to the Bible in areas they would never do so elsewhere. Luckily there are experts out there writing books which we can read and make some discernment. I just wish people would read all sides of the issue and grant each position similar biases.

    I was curious about one thing. You state, “…cut out any Biblical passage that is even in dispute by anyone qualified to judge;…” How much do you think would be left?

    For example, due to the numerous and significant variances between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels—John has been called into dispute. Do you agree the Gospel of John should be “cut out” of consideration?

    ReplyDelete
  3. **I was curious about one thing. You state, “…cut out any Biblical passage that is even in dispute by anyone qualified to judge;…” How much do you think would be left?**

    The snarky part of me wants to say Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Because that would require people reading them in order to then decide what to cut out.

    And then it's a matter of determining the qualified judges ...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Of course, DagoodS, I wouldn't LIKE to see the book of John cut out of the Bible any more than I'd like to see Numbers cut out. However, if you have looked into the matter sufficiently to be a good judge of what is under dispute in current scholarship, then suppose you do cut it out. Losing John, we lose valuable things, to be sure - teachings, nuances, understanding, helps, perspectives - but not the basic message.

    ReplyDelete
  5. jenny, dag--

    i was having a conversation with an inerrantist the other day (live, not online), and as long as we agreed on conclusions, judgements, and beliefs, it was 'our' bible. as soon as we disagreed, it was 'her' bible. i told her that even if we disagreed, it was still 'our' bible; i have as much vested interest in it's value and worth as she does, even if we differ. her response was to tuck her copy close to her body so i couldn't touch it.

    i think it is this sense of 'it's my bible' that gives so many the feeling they are 'experts.'

    peace--

    scott

    ReplyDelete
  6. There is a difference between the inspired word of God and the Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God (John 1) and the term is also used in 1 Samuel 6. God himself is the Word. But that is quite another debate than this.

    No matter how convincing one is on casting doubt on the Bible, it is a skepticism of the inspired word, not the Word.

    What's fascinating is that the limits of language are acknowledged by that distinction. When someone has given you "their word" they have given something of themselves. If you write that down it loses something. It's still important but it is not the person standing before you any more.

    Another point is that the Bible could be perfect but interpreted wrong. It could also be inerrant in the sense that it does not misguide us. But the real issue in my opinion considering this written word is, Was it inspired? Does it just look like a hodge-podge of men writing to please themselves or does their seem to be an agent at work that is more than elaborate human conceit. I for one have never gotten that impression from the inspired word.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jennypo,

    Not so sure I would be qualified to judge, but I have read others who are.

    O.K.—we’ve lost the Gospel of John. Moving to Matthew and Luke. Neither is an eyewitness. Both utilize other sources, specifically Mark, to write their stories. Both demonstrate a propensity to manufacture legend (i.e.—Birth Narrative). Neither self-identifies the author. Both have dating difficulties. Both are writing to bolster doctrine to a particular community.

    Luke gets some facts wrong. Matthew gets both Jewish idioms wrong, and pulls prophecy out of the air.

    Both have been called into question by experts as having any historical value. Do you agree Matthew and Luke should be “cut out” of consideration?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Scott Gray,

    You may well be right about the individualization of one’s view of the Bible. We have become a society where each person is encouraged to obtain out of the Bible what they particularly and individually need.

    And who are you to question their individual need and the Bible’s ability to solve it? For a group which prides itself on absolutes, it degrades to pluralism without thought of the disconnect.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jim Jordan: There is a difference between the inspired word of God and the Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God (John 1) and the term is also used in 1 Samuel 6. God himself is the Word. But that is quite another debate than this.

    I have to admit—I always get a chuckle out of this. When the skeptic uses the term “Word of God” (capitalized “Word”) they often hear how Jesus is the logos or “Word” (capitalized) whereas the Bible is the “word” (not capitalized) of God.

    First of all, I would note I was quoting the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy which capitalizes “Word of God” when referring to the Bible. You are free to disagree with them; I know I do! *grin*

    Secondly, and fall-down-on-the-floor funny, I see that you refer to the Bible as the “Word of God” (capitalized):

    Here and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here.

    If you can’t tell the difference between the “word of God” and “Word of God”—who am I, but a humble atheist, to be able to do likewise?

    More: It could also be inerrant in the sense that it does not misguide us.

    Sure. Or it could be “inerrant” in that it was copied pretty well. Or “inerrant” in that it describes spiritual truths—not physical ones. Or “inerrant” in its suggestions on how to live. Or “inerrant” in how many chapters and verses it has.

    If we are able to re-define the word “inerrant” to no longer mean “without error” then I am sure we can eventually find a nitch in which to fit the Bible. ‘Course by doing so, it would appear to the skeptic one is recognizing the classical term of “inerrant” meaning without error is being recognized as inapplicable.

    I do think you are right—the key question remains “It is inspired?” Which includes the question of “what does ‘inspired’ mean?” and “how does it become ‘inspired?’’ and “what method do we use to determine a certain string of words is ‘inspired’ and one is not?” and “how do we reconcile words once thought ‘inspired’ but no longer considered as such?” and “is it only the Greek which is ‘inspired?’” and “if it is only the Greek—how come so very, very minusculely numbered Christians ever bother to learn Greek?”

    ReplyDelete
  10. I also find it interesting that the Chicago Statement tap dances around the transmission problem by asserting “that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter.” The Westminster Confession says that by this singular providence, the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek had been “kept pure in all ages.” That sure sounds to me like God was watching over the scribes as well.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Funny enough, the Chicago Statement is one of those silly things that conservative evangelicals have been trying to push (thankfully without success) onto my beloved Presbyterian Church (USA) for years now. Yes, it is Presbyterian, because if any self-respecting Baptist read the Westminster Confession they'd jump out of their skin.

    Congregations of the conservative splinter denominations (PCA, OPC, etc) have signed on en masse to the Chicago Statement, but it is rejected even by most self-described evangelicals in the PC(USA) because it is contrary to our tradition of scholarship and discernment.

    The fact is that within the mainline denominations, we don't believe in inerrancy. The problem is that the noisiest Christians do and tend to get all the attention.

    As my pastor says, "I take the Bible seriously, but not literally."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dagoods: So what if I write an article about Scripture and call it the Word of God in that post? I'm assuming my readers can read and understand that Scripture is not Jesus Himself. If you like I can try to accomodate those brilliant atheists and skeptics who visit my site. From now on I'll say "inspired word of God" or "iwoG" for short when discussing Scripture.

    “what does ‘inspired’ mean?”

    ?? Inspired by God, our Creator.

    ‘Course by doing so, it would appear to the skeptic one is recognizing the classical term of “inerrant” meaning without error is being recognized as inapplicable.

    It's almost impossible to defend against a skeptic. I have never bothered to write even one article solely devoted to defending inerrancy. The closest was to a post on the infallibility of Scripture. It's a non-starter for me as learning the Scriptures and what they teach me is an inexhaustable study in any event.

    ReplyDelete
  13. DagoodS,

    I'd be very surprised to see a credible scholar who would toss out the gospels wholesale on the basis of historical reliability. What historical manuscripts could he/she accept?

    I have taken a couple of classes on Biblical history in secular universities. This by no means makes me an expert, nor do I make any judgements based on it. But it has taught me that determining historicity is not just as simple as it seems. According to both of my professors, (one an atheist who taught Old Testament History, the other an agnostic of Jewish descent who taught post-diaspora Jewish and New Testament History) the New Testament is thought to be the best-supported collection of writing in antiquity. Experts argue over bits and pieces, just as they do with any historical document. Josephus and Herodotus make numerous errors in their histories, but no one with any credibility tosses them out in entirety. Neither do those who argue for a flawed Bible ask that entire books be removed because they see mixed-up idioms in it.

    Of course, there are actually two issues involved in historicity, the first being, "Has the meaning been preserved? Can we be reasonably sure that the text we have is close to what the original was?" The second is much more complicated, and deals with a much deeper problem, "Was the information true to begin with? Is the message one that I can accept?"

    Aye, here's the rub. The first question is dealt with by historical scholars. History has a little, but only a little, to tell us about the second. The responsibility for that one is ours.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Flycandler,

    It IS a bit silly, considering after all its huffing and puffing, in two (2) relatively submerged afterthoughts it takes away everything it had previously crowed about.


    Jim Jordan,

    Well, I figured Christians could figure out the difference between the Bible and Jesus when the phrase “word of God” was used (capitalized or not)—but you seemed to think it was a problem. I’ve had this conversation before. Like I said, I find it funny when the Christian takes me to task and I go on their website and find them doing the same thing!

    Not who inspired it—but what does it mean to be “inspired”? On one end of the spectrum, we have inspiration meaning God actually taking pen to papyrus and writing the thing. On the other, we have inspiration meaning a completely human work, with no divine intervention whatsoever. I think we all agree that when a Christian uses the term “inspired” coming from the word ”theopneustos” in 2 Tim. 3:16—the Christian means something between those two extremes.

    But what? And how do we determine which writings constitute ”theopneustos”?

    Jim Jordan: It's almost impossible to defend against a skeptic.

    Yep.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jennypo,

    Ah…I wondered how long it would take for “cut out any Biblical passage that is even in dispute by anyone qualified to judge” to become a study of who you consider “qualified.” OneSmallStep saw the problem right away. (Clever woman.)

    Now you require them to be “credible” scholars. Soon we would discover that “credible” would default back to people you consider “credible.” And I would guess no matter the credentials, they wouldn’t quite meet your criterion for credibility if they ended up eliminating that which you desire.

    Seems there will always be at least some determination to keep disputed texts.

    (P.S. you might study Robert Price, Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier regarding the reliability of the Gospels as well as other scholars who write about them not being written in historical vein. While I do not agree with these three author’s conclusions, I would not be foolhardy to say I would cut out “any passage in dispute” because ALL passages are in dispute.)

    ReplyDelete
  16. But what? And how do we determine which writings constitute ”theopneustos”?

    What that means is that we should never stop studying them. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  17. ***I would not be foolhardy to say I would cut out “any passage in dispute” because ALL passages are in dispute. (Dagoods)

    Ha ha, I thought this might be where you were headed. Seriously, though, I'm not trying to play any games with you here. There are rather widely accepted ideas in humanities and social sciences fields about what makes a scholar "credible". It usually comes down to a number of things, like either a doctorate and published work in peer-edited journals, or quite outstanding peer-recognized experience in the field.

    This doesn't have to come down to "my guys" and "your guys", because I freely admit to not having studied this at all outside of the scraps thrown out in my history classes. I'm sure you had to write papers for your degree, and I'm sure you didn't have too much trouble determining whose work was going to look good in your bibliography. Even if there's a couple you might slide in that I might not, or vice versa, deciding who is or is not qualified isn't THAT subjective.

    The real difficulty in the historicity question lies not in determining how reliable our copies are, but in determining whether or not the writers were lying, deluded, or otherwise mistaken. That's where the real research comes in. Since they are talking not about a guy who did cool stuff, but God, then the only way to prove that they are telling the truth is to prove that God is who they say he is. And in order to do that we have to begin with the premise that there is a God.

    So we're back where we started, and I'll admit that I (even with my vast brilliance :^)) indeed can not prove the existence of a spiritual being with physical evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  18. See, jennypo, it is NOT just some message or story running through the writings contained within the Bible—we ALL use some method of determining what is factual and what is not. To avoid the topic by hand-waving and discounting all scholarship and simply rely upon what a person likes is the worst methodology possible.

    Even unconsciously we are making that determination. So I continually look (and beg) for the theist to recognize what method they are actually using. Sometimes they cough out a method. And I start to apply it. What happens then is they realize the application of the method proposed will get them in trouble (their very own method)—that the train is heading to a conclusion they cannot abide.

    What do they do? Modify their original proposed methodology to head the train back to the desired conclusion. Basically, the theist has reached a conclusion and will only employ a method which derives only that conclusion.

    Look what happened here. You originally said we could “cut out any Biblical passage that is even in dispute by anyone qualified to judge.” From my studies, I realized this would encompass a vast, vast portion of the Bible—more than I figured you could stand. So I decided to see how long you would stay consistent with this methodology you proposed.

    We got through the first book: Gospel of John. But when it came to the next two books, Matthew and Luke, you saw where this was heading. You saw application of your proposed methodology would result in a conclusion you could not have. What do you do? The same thing countless other theists do--change the methodology!

    NOW, we no longer use the broad “qualified to judge” but have limited it to “credible scholars.” I could probably still eliminate most of the New Testament, certainly the historical claims, but you only want certain “credible scholars” (I predicted this, if you read my comments)—those being “either a doctorate and published work in peer-edited journals, or quite outstanding peer-recognized experience in the field “ Even within those parameters, you might be surprised how much is in dispute.

    But it doesn’t matter. Seeing trouble on the tracks ahead, you have shifted the methodology to require belief in God—an insurmountable proof, and therefore you can keep your conclusion within such a broad method. Unfortunately, this results in a circular argument (belief in God is required to realize we need belief in God within the “message”) but I have come to lose my optimistic hope in any consistency in methodology from anyone who claims writings have divine influence or nature in some way.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You're forgetting that there is a methodology for transmitting the gospel in the gospels themselves.

    Matt 16:17 - [after Peter's confession of Christ] Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven".

    Remember that the Holy Spirit convinces us. There's no other way to explain how I set out on a mission to disprove the Bible a dozen years ago and now I teach it. I am convinced it is the one book we should never stop studying.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Go ahead and remove all the punctuation; cut out any Biblical passage that is even in dispute by anyone qualified to judge; call the whole book a patchwork: there remains for the intellect (educated or not) a message loud and clear that is both in harmony with the evidence of the natural world and resonant with what we know of ourselves as human beings - that we as humans are in our essence something precious, something that has been broken and needs to be restored; that God, the Creator of the Universe, is both personal and full of Love; that nothing in our world nor in our imagination offers us any solution to that brokenness except Jesus Christ.

    Regarding excisions:

    Take out the Gospel of John and you take out the most unambiguous statements Jesus makes about his own divinity. When I see C.S. Lewis’ trilemma quoted to the effect that Jesus didn’t intend to give us the option of considering him merely a great teacher, I would respond that it is really John (or whoever authored the gospel that goes by that name) who did not intend to leave that option open. The authors of the synoptics are much less explicit about Jesus’ divinity and seem much more willing to allow their readers to draw their own conclusions.

    Take out 2 Peter, whose pedigree is one of the weakest in the New Testament, and you take out the primary proof text for the inspiration of the New Testament.

    Regarding resonance:

    You really have to cherry pick the Bible to reach that conclusion. There is much in the Bible that does not resonate with any modern person’s idea of a God who is personal and full of love such as the various slaughters that the Israelites carried out under Jehovah’s orders.

    I think the existence of so many religions proves that there are plenty of things in the world and in our imagination that offer solutions to those feelings of emptiness or brokenness.

    ReplyDelete
  21. ***"To avoid the topic by hand-waving and discounting all scholarship and simply rely upon what a person likes is the worst methodology possible." (DagoodS)

    Um. Am I supposed to be disagreeing with this? Isn't this my line?

    I'm not sure how advocating better research (on every side) and academically accepted theories has me discounting scholarship or changing my methodology.

    Quite simply, my point is this: if history is the issue, then by all means we ought to study it - but we need to dig deeper than the best-seller list if we want any real understanding, let alone academic authority. I don't mean this as a slam against any one, it goes for both sides of the issue equally.

    Second, we all know that there is disagreement between the experts in any field, but even conceding on every point leaves the Bible with a clear message. (DagoodS, I do not think that there is an academic move to discard the entire books of Matthew, Luke, and John - but even if we do, a clear message remains.)

    Third, even if all the experts agree, we are left with a much bigger problem, which is (isn't it?) the real issue: Is the message true?

    ReplyDelete
  22. jennypo: Second, we all know that there is disagreement between the experts in any field, but even conceding on every point leaves the Bible with a clear message. (DagoodS, I do not think that there is an academic move to discard the entire books of Matthew, Luke, and John - but even if we do, a clear message remains.)

    I did not follow this. Are you now agreeing we can “cut out” Matthew and Luke? Are you ready to move on? It is not so much an academic move to discard the Gospels—more of a dispute as to both their contents and extent of history as compared to myth contained therein. (And a lack of understanding of the language, the culture, the author’s intention and the intended recipients.)

    jennypo: Third, even if all the experts agree, we are left with a much bigger problem, which is (isn't it?) the real issue: Is the message true?

    Herein is the problem—you approach the Bible, a collection of writings, as having a “message.” You’ve skipped the question of whether there even is a message, having already presumed one exists, and have moved on to the question of what the message is. You have skipped THAT question, and moved on to “is the message true?”

    I would agree each author had a purpose when writing—but those purposes vary and conflict among the authors. There is no unified message. No unified audience. No unified purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  23. **Second, we all know that there is disagreement between the experts in any field, but even conceding on every point leaves the Bible with a clear message.**

    I think DagoodS is already touching upon this, but this would come down to how one defines a clear message. What is a clear message for Christianity does not at all match Judaism -- and they're using a good portion of the same books. What's a clear message for one scholar such as Marcus Borg is completely missing the point to someone like William Lane Craig. What's clear to a Unitarian is also missing the point compared to a Trinitarian.

    I don't think a clear unifying message exists. I find that a variety of clear messages exist in the Bible, and they don't always agree.

    **I'm not sure how advocating better research (on every side) and academically accepted theories has me discounting scholarship or changing my methodology. **

    This is a great thing to advocate. I think DagoodS point is that the original claim was anyone qualified to judge -- which could be an average lay person if they've studied enough. It's clear that many who comment here have studied a great deal, so we could all be qualified to judge what should and should not be taken out of the Bible. Or a "qualified to judge" could be someone who has a Bachelor's in Christian studies, but works as an Accountant now.

    But then the claim changed to "credible scholars," which has very much shrunk the "qualified to judge." It's now up to people who are peer-reviewed, and such. That would (I think) eliminate all of us, even though we might have a good working knowledge of the Bible. It would even eliminate the person with the Bachelor's.

    **Remember that the Holy Spirit convinces us. **

    This isn't really an objective methodology, though. This leaves us with "This is true because I feel it to be true." Not one that we can objectively use, because it relies on internal workings. We can even see this in Christian circles. One Christian would say the Holy Ghost told them that homosexuality is okay, and another Christian would condemn it. Both say to be lead by the Holy Ghost.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Jennypo, There is no clear message in the Bible - the OT books are all over the place with regard to content and message. Well, the one "clear message" I ever got from the OT was "I am the Lord Thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me." He was a jealous god, that YHWH.

    I assume you are speaking of the NT when you say there is a clear message, but even then this is demonstrably untrue. If there were a clear message, then you would not have many, many sects of Christianity through the centuries, all acting in good faith based on their interpretation of the Bible, arriving at wildly different conclusions about pretty important stuff like homosexuality, abortion, birth control, divorce, slavery, women's rights, war (is that "killing" or "murder"?), what you must do to go to heaven, whether hell exists as a physical place or metaphysical experience, who will go to hell and on what grounds, and on and on.

    These seem like pretty important issues in anyone's life philosophy, stuff that you may have to deal with or address at some point. Wouldn't you think that if the Bible were a guide to life DIVINELY INSPIRED BY THE CREATOR OF THIS UNIVERSE comprised of billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars it ought to be a little clearer on these issues?

    Especially since your eternal salvation or damnation is supposedly hanging in the balance based on your decisions?

    ReplyDelete
  25. bookjunky,

    When I say that the Bible presents one clear message, I do mean the Bible as a whole. The Old Testament differs from the New Testament in that it deals with humanity's need. Without a clear understanding of the need, the New Testament's solution - Jesus Christ - is made superfluous. I do not say that the Bible is easy to understand - only that its basic message is.

    There are countless other truths communicated in its pages (so many that a lifetime of learning them leaves one only at the beginning!) but they must be interpreted by the Holy Spirit. “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

    Of course, if you accept it as a fact that there is no God, then this is beside the point for you, but then, the authenticity of the Bible ought to be moot too, right? But IF the Bible is the revealed word of God, who is by nature a spirit, then it does follow logically that spiritual things would have to be explained by his Spirit.

    Why are there so many interpretations? Well, partly because the Bible is real confusing to a non-spirit. It's confusing because it talks about things that we've never seen, can't really even imagine, don't understand, and CAN'T understand until we act on the knowledge we do have. Also, partly because the Bible scares people. And anything that scares people can be used by other people to control them. Also, partly because what we do understand, we don't want to accept. It doesn't match our world-view, our personality, or our personal wants. It's not just the Bible that has been widely interpreted. Our national Constitutions and legislations have to be negotiated and interpreted because each of us has a stake in what they say. So with the Bible. Communication is not simply something to be given - it also has to be received.

    The "pretty important" stuff you refer to is indeed pretty important, but it's not part of the basic message of the Bible, nor is our understanding of it leaving our "eternal salvation hanging in the balance". If it were, then salvation would be based on intellectual understanding. It would be more readily available to those with higher IQs, and it would exclude those with mental challenges.

    I thank God he is not the man we expect him to be. :^)

    ReplyDelete
  26. jennypo,

    There is nothing unique or special about a basic message of humanity's need. All religion is predictated on the idea of humanity's limitations. The fact that the Bible might be clear about this need is not terribly impressive.

    It is how man deals with this need that separates the Bible from other religious systems. It is here that the inconsistencies between the various books have lead to countless conflicting interpretations. Arguing that one must have the insight of the Holy Spirit to resolve these conflicts simply concedes that there is nothing loud or clear about it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Jenny,

    **There are countless other truths communicated in its pages (so many that a lifetime of learning them leaves one only at the beginning!) but they must be interpreted by the Holy Spirit.**

    But haven't we now gone from a qualified judge to a credible scholar to the witness of the Holy Spirit, in determining what stays in the Bible and what it means? The problem with the latter viewpoint is that it's too subjective. Both people can be convinced by the Holy Spirit, and both people can have radically different interpretations. And they're left relying on their internal witness or what they feel to be true. Whereas at least scholars can pull from historical data that everyone can access, or a interpretation of a word that everyone can access.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Jenny,

    A correction -- you didn't lay it out the way I did, with the qualified to judge to credible scholar to Holy Spirit. That is how I'm reading it, though, when someone makes a statement that the Bible can only be properly understood through the HOly Spirit. By default, this would remove any credible scholar who was not guided by the Holy Spirit, because they'd be eliminating things, or interpreting things, they'd never properly understand in the first place, per this viewpoint.

    ReplyDelete
  29. OneSmallStep,

    Needing the Holy Spirit to interpret what God understands us in his communication in no way negates the need for peer-recognised scholars to establish the historicity of the documents themselves.

    Why would historical facts require spiritual understanding? The establishment of historical reliability involves no spiritual element - it's only when God gets brought in (the content) that more than physical proofs are logically necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Vinny,
    It's true that every religion in the world tells us what we can do to escape the "fallenness" we find ourselves in. However, none but Christianity reveals to us that we are in need of anything except our own efforts to please God or to live in harmony with the universe. The solutions all religions offer are variations of "do it THIS way" and "do it better". The problem is that we can't. If we could, we would have no real need.

    Only the Bible explains why we can't even live up to our OWN consciences - let alone any concept of holiness, why we expect more from ourselves, why we are so full of beauty at the same time as selfish ugliness. And only Christianity recognizes that if the solution depends on our effort, we are screwed.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Jenny,

    **negates the need for peer-recognised scholars to establish the historicity of the documents themselves. **

    Except when you say that there are countless truths communicated in the Bible, surely those truths must also contain the historical narratives. There really was a Moses, an Abraham, a King David and so on.

    One of the methods I've seen in saying that the Tanakh is historically accurate, or that there was a literal Adam/Eve, is because Jesus referred to both as such. If they weren't true historical figures, then Jesus was either mistaken or lying. Therefore, if the historians say that Moses and other figures were not real, then they are clearly blinded by the world/Satan/so forth. The Bible is no longer matching up with the worldview.

    The problem is that goes along with what Vinny says. If the scholars decide that something like the Gospel of John is not historical, that would really weaken the aspect of Jesus being divine. Or if scholars remove 2 Peter, there goes the aspect of the Bible being inerrant.

    For instance, say all the peer-reviewed scholars start saying that there is no evidence for the idea that Jesus was God made flesh, because a close examination of the creation of the Gospel of John, or artifacts discovered or something, negates that view. Or they start saying that the Gospel of Thomas is in fact much more historically accurate than the Gospel of John.

    Yet the Holy Spirit is convincing a lot of Christians that Jesus was God made flesh. And thus convinces them that Adam literally existed, because that's what Jesus said.

    Which side is more credible and why?

    Now, if you're saying that it's only about spiritual truths, and nothing else, and it doesn't matter if Jesus didn't literally walk on water, or there wasn't literally an Exodus, that's a seperate scenario. But it would lead many to wonder that if the Bible is wrong about physical and historical matters, how can it be relied upon to relay any spiritual truths?

    ReplyDelete
  32. jennypo,

    I don’t know what your background in comparative religion is, but I am vary wary of blanket statements like “[t]he solutions all religions offer are variations of ‘do it THIS way’ and ‘do it better.’” In fact, I suspect that every single religion can claim some unique perspective on the problem of fallenness and the solution thereto and in many cases, that it is something other than or in addition to personal efforts. They all claim to know something that none of the others know.

    Moreover, when you say “only Christianity reveals so-and-so” what you are really saying is “only my preferred flavor of Christianity reveals so-and-so.” There is wide variation among Christians on all these points. The Catholics would say that works are more important than you do. Some denominations attach more importance to election as opposed to the individual’s choice. Some denominations demand a particular type of baptism. Some believe that Christ’s sacrifice can cover people of other faiths. No doubt most would claim that the Bible is loud and clear on their particular beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  33. if the Bible is wrong about physical and historical matters, how can it be relied upon to relay any spiritual truths? (OneSmallStep)

    Oh, yes, this is true.

    What I am trying to separate here is the historical integrity of the documents themselves, and the veracity of the content. The documents are not spiritual, but physical. Their historical value is determined for us by the historians.

    The truth of the message they contain is a different thing. It involves statements about spiritual realities and purports to be a message from a God who is by nature a spirit. No physical evidence could offer us any proof of such a God.

    On the other hand, what if there are errors in the Bible?
    Certainly, the nature of the medium leads us to expect human error where humans have taken part - in the medium. However, if we could be sure that the error lies in the message itself, then I agree with you wholeheartedly that the claim of God-authorship would preclude such a message being trusted. (Here, I do mean all of the messages contained in the Bible, and not only the basic message.) There is, however, a problem.

    A few years ago, I took a job running a retirement home. I always got a giggle over the older folks who were SURE they heard someone say a certain thing (despite the fact that their hearing wasn't good enough to carry on a conversation), or the ones who were SURE that a certain instruction hadn't been given (despite the fact that they couldn't always remember what year it was).

    There one big problem we have in testing the veracity of the Bible's physical claims is not merely that our understanding is limited without the Holy Spirit, but also that our testing methods are inherently flawed. We change them around every few years, and so they can only be used as guides rather than proof.

    The Bible is only true if God is true, not vice versa.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Vinny,
    I am 100% in agreement with you that Christianity the religion is of no more value than any other religion in the world. And maybe even less, when I think of the beauty and wisdom there is in Buddhism and even certain interpretations of Islam.

    ReplyDelete
  35. jennypo.

    You’ve been a little hard to follow regarding any consistency in your method. You started off talking about how everybody thinks they are an expert when it comes to the Bible, and how we should spend our time studying the reliability of other documents and then you made the interesting statement of “…cut out any Biblical passage that is even in dispute by anyone qualified to judge;… “

    You initially maintained this method, conceded the Gospel of John had to go. When I started to investigate this, as previously pointed out (and it looked like more Gospels were going to get the chop)—this switched to “credible scholar” which required a doctorate or published work in peer-reviewed articles.

    Now you have added an additional condition in that “countless other truths…must be interpreted by the Holy Spirit.”

    Question: If you thought it required spirit-infused degreed people to truly delve into the Bible—why did you start off with the claim we could “…cut out any Biblical passage that is even in dispute by anyone qualified to judge;… “

    As OneSmallStep initially stated—the question is in what the person means by “one qualified to judge” and you now seem to be saying the only ones “qualified to judge” are those who happen to agree with you!

    So let me ask my question again—can we cut Matthew and Luke?

    jennypo: There one big problem we have in testing the veracity of the Bible's physical claims is not merely that our understanding is limited without the Holy Spirit, but also that our testing methods are inherently flawed. We change them around every few years, and so they can only be used as guides rather than proof.

    ????

    What “testing methods” have been changed in the last 10 years? The 20 years before that? The 50 years before that? What do you mean our “testing method” is inherently flawed? What is the “testing method” you are referring to?

    ReplyDelete
  36. I think what the bottom line is for jennypo and most modern Christians is that the Bible means what you want it to mean. What seems "right" to you "in your heart" based on communing with "god".

    I find it a bit depressing to realize that folks like this don't have the slightest inkling how such a philosophy is frankly amoral, leading to an "anything goes" mentality. We see this manifested in a lot of Christians, particularly the leadership, who rationalize all sorts of aberrant and immoral behavior based on their interpretation of the holy spirit.

    And again I say, If the SON OF GOD comes to earth IN THE FLESH to give all humankind a message, it ought to be pretty damned clear WHAT THE MESSAGE WAS. None of this interpretation of the Holy Spirit crap should be needed.

    ReplyDelete
  37. BJ
    And again I say, If the SON OF GOD comes to earth IN THE FLESH to give all humankind a message, it ought to be pretty damned clear WHAT THE MESSAGE WAS.

    #1 - It is clear. If you want to know what the message was, why don't you study it? You're a book junky, no? And if you don't like the message, prove it wrong and/or be honest enough to admit why you don't like it. I tried to prove it wrong. Now I teach it.

    None of this interpretation of the Holy Spirit crap should be needed

    Maybe you do need it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Jim Jordan,

    That is twice you have pontificated about your study to prove the Bible wrong. Let’s see how much “study” you put in to it. What is the archeological evidence and literary writings in support of a Global Flood? What are the problems (pro and con) with the size of the Ark to fit the animals? What are the arguments regarding the word “Kind.”? What is the documentary hypothesis theory regarding the Deluge story of Geneses 6-8?

    What is the rate of rain necessary to cover the earth in 40 days? Why does the fossil record contradict a flood?

    If you HAVE studied it and all, these questions should be easily and quickly answered by you…

    ReplyDelete
  39. Jenny,

    I'm having some difficulty following your line of thought here. You say that the documents are physical, not spiritual. If you mean that they have a physical structure, as in on paper and ink, and seen with the five senses, then I agree with you.

    But in connecting this physical-ness to historical value. Do you mean that in the way that the history that occured is also of a physical nature? It can also be seen with the five senses? HOw exactly are you defining physical value, though? Value that historians can measure? Something like the Exodus? Something like the Resurrection?

    The basic message that you are claiming would be tied into physical events -- the Garden of Eden, the Exodus, King DAvid, the prophecies of the Messiah, the virgin birth, the crucifixion.

    **No physical evidence could offer us any proof of such a God.**

    Isn't the resurrection a huge physical proof that sparked the entire religion?

    **There one big problem we have in testing the veracity of the Bible's physical claims is not merely that our understanding is limited without the Holy Spirit, but also that our testing methods are inherently flawed. We change them around every few years, and so they can only be used as guides rather than proof.**

    Your retirement home example can easily apply to those who wrote the documents in the Bible. They could be sure that they heard/didn't hear something as well. And now I have you earlier stating that the physical claims of the Bible are left up to the historians, and thus seperate from the spiritual methods. And yet here you state that we can't really test the physical claims at all without the Holy Spirit? Perhaps your line of difference lies in the veracity of the claims. But the veracity is exactly what historians would test. They would take the events stated and compare them to what other documents, or archeological sites say. How else do you test the historical accuracy of a document unless you go by the contents within? Otherwise, the only thing you seem to be testing is when the documents were produced.

    And I don't think people consider the testing methods "proof." Any testing method is suppose to be a guide to produce proof. The proof is the result of the testing method itself.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Sorry folks, it appears my attempts to deal with different things at the same time are ending up as clear as mud. Let me just point out the distinction I am trying to make:

    There is a difference between establishing the historical reliability of a collection of documents and establishing the veracity of the claims made in those documents.

    What DagoodS was dealing with in this post a looooong time ago was the possible discrepancies between the original documents we now call "The Bible" and the copies we now have. This is a historical concern, not a spiritual one. In establishing how reliable our current documents are, we need to rely on historical study.

    The trouble is, the issue of reliability is not the real issue. Even if I could somehow produce the original manuscripts for every book in the Bible, including primitive recordings of the oral traditions that contributed to the Pentateuch, this would offer no one any proof at all that the CONTENT of said manuscripts is true.

    The methodology has to change if the goal changes, just as the directions to my house and the directions to the mall are different, even though both are in the same city. When I want to know if I'm really reading what Moses et al. wrote, then I learn about how well we can know that kind of thing. But if I want to know whether or not what is contained in the Bible is TRUE, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish, and requires a whole 'nother methodology.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Jenny,

    It sounds more like you're comparing the textual reliability of the documents to the claims the documents make. To me, when evaluating the historical reliability, you are seeing if what the document states actually occured in history. Perhaps it's the matter of using the word 'historical,' but that always seems to entail evaluating the claims of something.

    For example, if I find a document that makes a claim about George Washington, I would test it's reliability by when it was written, as well as what the document said.

    The thing is, I'm not sure if you'd need a historian to tell you about the textual consistencies of a document. The historian tells you what happened -- like where you say, " In establishing how reliable our current documents are, we need to rely on historical study."

    Yes, because part of that reliability involves did the claims happen.

    If we're just discussing the textual claims -- as in comparing a copy to an original to see how faithful the copy is, that's more of a Textual criticism matter.

    So are you defining historical reliability of a document based soley on the textual discrepencies?

    ReplyDelete
  42. There is a difference between establishing the historical reliability of a collection of documents and establishing the veracity of the claims made in those documents.

    To a significant extent, I think this is an artificial distinction. Both questions are just different aspects of the overall inquiry into the relationship between the events of Jesus’ life and the documents we have today that make up the New Testament. How and why did the scribes make the changes they made? How and why did the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John tell the story of Jesus’ life and ministry differently? How and why did the writers of the apocryphal works make the changes they made? How and why did the Apostolic Fathers shape the message the way did they did? How and why did Paul preach the message he preached?

    The textual critic tries to work his way back to the best possible estimate of the original manuscripts by looking at the various changes and branches along the way. This is just one aspect of the historian’s overall effort to work his way back through the various branches and changes in the stories and teachings themselves to make some sort of educated estimate of what the original events and teachings of Jesus’ life might have been.

    ReplyDelete
  43. jennypo,

    I am still looking for an answer to two questions:

    1) Can we now cut Matthew and Luke?

    2) What “testing methods” have been changed in the last 10 years? The 20 years before that? The 50 years before that? What do you mean our “testing method” is inherently flawed? What is the “testing method” you are referring to?

    ReplyDelete
  44. DagoodS,

    I'm not ignoring you, I just started a new job and haven't finished my old one yet, so I'm a *bit* busy at the moment. I'll answer your questions when I get a patch of free time.

    In case you're holding your breath in anticipation... :^)

    ReplyDelete
  45. Vinny, I'm not sure it is an artificial distinction.

    Por ejemplo, if you take William Shakespeare's Henry VIII, probably written within 50-60 years of the title character's death and within the lifetime of his daughter. The questions as to whether the play was written by Shakespeare, John Fletcher or someone else, and to whether the play accurately describes the events it portrays or if it is embellished for dramatic effect (as it almost certainly is) are very much separate questions.

    Just a bit of devil's advocate work on my part. Why would an atheist (or a Martian archaeologist 2000 years from now for that matter) approach textual criticism of the Bible in a different manner than that of Henry VIII, both of which purport to be nearly-contemporary accounts of historical events?

    ReplyDelete
  46. The questions as to whether the play was written by Shakespeare, John Fletcher or someone else, and to whether the play accurately describes the events it portrays or if it is embellished for dramatic effect (as it almost certainly is) are very much separate questions.

    Are they? I confess that I know very little about Shakespeare, but I could imagine that the question of the authorship of Henry VIII could be inextricably intertwined with the question of the extent to which, if any, the play is based on historical facts.

    Different authors are likely to have different sources and those sources are likely to have differing political and religious affiliations. If the historian knew the identity of the author and his sources, it might go a long way to explain why events were portrayed in the way they were. Knowing the affiliations of the author and his sources could enable the historian to make some educated guesses regarding which elements may have been included as propaganda and, correspondingly, which elements are more likely to be based on historical facts. By the same token, if the textual critic could figure out which elements in the play are corroborated by reliable historical sources and which ones are not, that might point to a particular person as the most likely to be motivated to invent the fictional elements.

    Once again, my knowledge of Shakespeare is limited to a couple of plays read in high school and a couple of movies seen since then. Nevertheless, my offhand guess would be that questions of authorship and questions of historicity could overlap a great deal.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Yes and no. If we approach Henry VIII as an entertainment, written to flatter the Tudor dynasty to which Shakespeare's patron was a member, then the two questions (authorship & historicity) take on a very different meaning than if we were to treat it as an unbiased journalistic account or a "divinely-inspired" text.

    With the former, Henry VIII's insight on Henry VIII is how even after his death his legacy was powerful in English politics. With the latter, we begin to have to have to go into hermeneutics and textual criticism to work out who was right, Shakespeare or William Roper (Thomas More's son-in-law).

    We then get further into the woods as we try to determine whether Shakespeare was informed by Roper's work (which he probably certainly was). If so, should Shakespeare's play be considered a derivative work and be set aside in favor of Roper?

    It's a similar question Dagoods is asking about the gospels.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Flycander,

    Would anyone ever approach Henry VIII as either unbiased journalism or divinely inspired?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Of course not. I think it just highlights how we theists treat the Gospel texts differently than we treat others, and how the atheist does not.

    While the play is obscure, the playwright and the topic (which most people remember from "A Man for All Seasons") are reasonably familiar.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Of course not. I think it just highlights how we theists treat the Gospel texts differently than we treat others, and how the atheist does not.

    While the play is obscure, the playwright and the topic (which most people remember from "A Man for All Seasons") are reasonably familiar.


    I would not go so far as to say theists in general treat the Gospel texts differently, but I would certainly agree that evangelical Christians do. I think that goes to my original point about the distinction between “establishing the historical reliability of a collection of documents and establishing the veracity of the claims made in those documents.” A historian or literary critic would recognize the overlap, while the evangelical Christian insists upon separating the inquiries in order to avoid the implications of textual criticism on historical criticism.

    I actually watched the movie last week. I particularly enjoyed Robert Shaw as Henry.

    ReplyDelete
  51. The movie is terrific, though I saw it after the 1988 TV-movie version directed by Charlton Heston and starring him as More, Sir John Gielgud as Wolsey, and Vanessa Redgrave as Lady Alice. Both screenplays are written by the guy who wrote the original play. The Heston version is truer to the play, but the Scofield performance is incredible.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Charlton Heston is very hard to imagine as Thomas More. Not that I don't think he was great in The Ten Commandments, Ben Hur, and Planet of the Apes, but I just don't see the nuance in any of those performances that Scofield brought to A Man for All Seasons.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Used to be whenever I heard Charlton Heston's name, I'd think "you maniacs, you blew it up! God damn you! God! Damn! You! All! To! Hell!", now it's "when you pry it out of my cold! dead! hands!".

    He did surprisingly well in "Man for All Seasons", but nowhere near as good as Scofield. But he wasn't nearly as bad as, well, Charlton Heston for once.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Let's not forget: "Soylent green is people!!!"

    ReplyDelete
  55. And coming full circle, when I watched that gem last year on AMC, it was pointed out that "Soylent Green" was the last movie that Edward G. Robinson ever starred in (Heston's tears in the death chamber scene were reportedly real, since he had just found out about Robinson's terminal cancer).

    The other movie that both men starred in was of course "The Ten Commandments", itself responsible for a lot of mistaken notions about what is actually in the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Don't know if you're still even reading this, but...

    *** Can we now cut Matthew and Luke? (DagoodS)

    The short answer was and is , Yes. If you like. A clear message remains.

    But my original point is, DagoodS, it's not up to me to make that call. Have you studied it seriously? Are you sure that real, peer-recognized historians really advocate tossing out Matthew, Luke, and John as historical documents based on what they have to say about history? Do you really understand how these things are established?

    These arguments are totally useless unless we base our thinking on knowledge. The answer is not in an argument - it's in understanding how answers are arrived at in historical study - what history has to tell us about ANYTHING.

    ***What “testing methods” have been changed in the last 10 years? The 20 years before that? The 50 years before that? What do you mean our “testing method” is inherently flawed? What is the “testing method” you are referring to? (DagoodS)

    Any methods we have for testing physical truths, as opposed to spiritual truths.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Yes, jennypo, I have studied it seriously. That was the reason I was attempting to point out the naiveté of a statement such as “cut out any Biblical passage that is even in dispute by anyone qualified to judge.”

    Due to the significance of the Bible, you would find if you studied, that ALL of it has come under scrutiny at one point or another, and although I don’t know it for a fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if every single verse, at one point, was cut out by someone who was qualified to judge.

    And no, “a clear message” most certainly does NOT remain if we cut out Matthew, Luke and John. See, each of the authors was writing to a different audience. With a different need; the author portraying a different purpose. It is simply wrong to presume the same message from the following scenarios:

    1) Matthew, Mark, Luke and John;
    2) Matthew, Mark and Luke;
    3) Matthew and Mark;
    4) Mark;
    5) Mark, Luke and John;
    6) Mark and Luke;
    7) Mark and John;

    Otherwise, there would be no need for any other Gospel other than Mark! Do you see what you are doing? You are presuming a message, and then forcing that message to fit what is presented, regardless of the material. Bad methodology.

    Imagine I decided every Hallmark card was sending the message, “Life has change.” And then I stood in the aisle, picking through each card, and smashing whatever was written to say, “See? See? This implies change, which is the message in every single Hallmark Card.” I no longer look at intention of the author, or intended audience, and I hardly look at the words themselves. All I look at is “the message” I want to force into every card.

    That is exactly what you are doing.

    I presume from your inability to specifically name a single method that you don’t actually have one. As I suspected.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Dagoods from way back on Feb. 29th said,
    That is twice you have pontificated about your study to prove the Bible wrong.

    No,I have pontificated many more times than that!

    What is the archeological evidence and literary writings in support of a Global Flood?

    Gen 6:4 - The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward

    What is the rate of rain necessary to cover the earth in 40 days? Why does the fossil record contradict a flood?

    Gen 7:11 - on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened

    The fossil record shows a catastrophic flood took place but much work is required before we'll know the extent of it. I highlighted the Nephilim because that contradicts a Global Flood.

    Gen 7:23 - Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the Ark.

    Again I don't see a Global Flood as fundamental. The morality play is that God punished the wicked, saved a family for their faith, and relented.

    Are you not falling into Loftus' trap of confusing debunking fundamentalism with debunking Christianity?

    ReplyDelete
  59. *shrug*

    If you think, Jim Jordan, my comment to you is “debunking fundamentalism” you have only yourself to blame. I took my question directly from a link YOU provided! I will leave it to you to wrestle with the fact you sound like a fundamentalist. To you.

    When I saw your comments in this blog entry about attempting to disprove the Bible:

    Jim Jordan: There's no other way to explain how I set out on a mission to disprove the Bible a dozen years ago and now I teach it.



    And if you don't like the message, prove it wrong and/or be honest enough to admit why you don't like it. I tried to prove it wrong. Now I teach it.


    I wondered where, how and when you set about attempting to disprove the Bible. And in your comment, you have a helpful place to start—the Flood. See, I didn’t pick these questions out of the air, nor the topic. I got it directly from your blog entry, which you mention on Infallibility of Scripture.

    Within that entry you state:

    Jim Jordan: This doesn’t mean that the Bible is not historically accurate, but that if you believe it is not accurate, the Bible either will not help you or it’s help will be limited due to your unbelief.



    I had a number of such grievances against Old Testament stories, most prominently the story of the Flood and the destruction of Jericho. I did not believe that, one, God destroyed all life on earth by a flood, and, two, that God would want to destroy all the residents of a city.

    I disbelieved the Flood because, even though there was archaeological evidence and literary writings about it, it seemed unlikely that it was universal.



    Am I going to beat someone over the head who doesn’t believe that the Flood was universal? No, but I will give the good advice that suspending your disbelief will help you read the truth between the lines about a loving God.


    Apparently you claim there is “archeological evidence and literary writings” about it. Since YOU mentioned and YOU brag about attempting to prove it wrong and YOU did the research, I figured it would be a snap to produce this information.

    Eleven days later, this is the best you can come up with?

    I noticed you failed to mention your study regarding the size of the ark fitting the animals. Or the definition of “kind.” Or documentary hypothesis. Or a working knowledge of the fossil record. These are all very common studies within the question of the Flood. Which causes me to wonder—what DID you study, as a skeptic trying to prove the Bible wrong, if you don’t even know the arguments for these extremely elemental concepts?

    Quite frankly, this comes across as the typical Christian apologist claiming, “Oh, I did the research to prove the Bible wrong back when I was a non-believer, and my study proved the Bible right.” And when we closely question the Christian apologist, we discover they don’t know a thing about even the most basic questions presented in the arguments.

    You mentioned it twice (and say you have done it more.) You seem to think it persuasive that you somehow tried to prove the Bible wrong. How persuasive is it, do you think, when we discover you haven’t done any real research at all?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Dagoods**I noticed you failed to mention your study regarding the size of the ark fitting the animals

    Forgive me if I don't have time over 11 days to write a book over at Dagoods site!

    You complain about my claim that I started out trying to prove the Bible wrong and now I teach it (which is true), yet how many times have you mentioned that you were a true believer and now you're not? I have yet to see an argument for your atheism that holds any water whatsoever. We are mutually unimpressed.

    I don't appreciate you're skewing of my interpretation of the Flood. When I talked of suspending disbelief, just as we do when we read anything if we want to understand it, I was not talking about proofs but getting the message that was there. The theme of that article was that Scripture does not fail us (infallibility). It has lessons for us. My article wasn't meant to be a "for or against proof" of the Flood.

    There are several literary writings of a great Flood in the ancient Middle East and there is also evidence that the Black Sea was created by a catastrophic event (did you not see the link?).

    You don't have to find evidence in the fossil record against a Global Flood. The Bible is not absolutely clear on this. If the Nephilim weren't on the Ark, how did they survive? Was Moses really 600+ [365-day] years old when he got on the Ark? Read the Hebrew translation into the KJV here.

    Ancient writers used literary license in describing events just as we do, only moreso. Water rising "above the highest mountains" says more about the devastation as the writer saw it than the actual height of the waters. Numbers were used as adjectives to emphasize fullness or infinity. That there are idiots who believe that you don't have to forgive someone the 491st time (70 X 7) or that there must be exactly 144,000 people (12 X 12 X 1,000) in the end times doesn't change the intent of the writers to place emphasis. It would be ironic that because the writers didn't have access to italics and bold print [and used these techniques] you would miss the meaning of the passage entirely.

    I don't believe the Flood was nor did it have to be a global event. If somehow it did cover all the mountains on earth and I am wrong, I won't go to Hell for it.
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  61. Jim Jordan,

    Oh, its not that I expect any arguments I have to be persuasive—it is the fact I at least know the arguments for Christianity. If I claimed to be a Christian and have studied the Bible, and then knew nothing about Paul’s various missionary trips, or who Moses was, or why Israel demanded a King, or who was the first Pope—would you be impressed with my claim of having studied Christianity? Of course not!

    If you are telling us (repeatedly) how you did all this study, I would expect you to at least have the very basic understanding of the various positions. It doesn’t require a book—watch:

    The problem with “kind” is whether it is species (in which there would be far too many) or at a higher genera of biologic classification. If it was higher (say one dog who evolved into all the dogs) we have the difficult of beetles evolving faster than they can reproduce. The problem with the size of the ark includes the animals, the food necessary, as well as a system for removal of waste. Further, no wooden boat has ever been built that large, due to structural integrity. It would leak.

    The fossil record is problematic because lighter weighted objects are actually on the bottom whereas heavier weighted objects should have reached the bottom first. The Documentary hypothesis demonstrates the flood story of Genesis is actually two (2) stories woven into one. Finally, we have societies which existed prior to the flood and continued through the flood as if nothing happened—including Egypt and China. Societies which do not live on flood plains do not have flood myths. Those living in flood plains do.

    Your link on the Black Sea flood actually hurts, because this is just another instance of a body of water flooding. We have no set date of when the flood could possible occur.

    There—off the top of my head and no book required. Why? Because I actually have studied it!

    I looked at your link. Nothing there about studying the Bible either, except reading Ehrman’s book, after you were a Christian.

    You have said you tried to prove the Bible wrong—I am still looking for what, if anything, you did in this attempt. What books you read (from either side). What areas you studied. You tell us we should try to “prove it wrong” like you did--but what did you do??

    (P.S. If the authors of the Genesis Deluge didn’t intend it to be a Universal Flood—why did they have Noah build an ark? Do you realize how far he could have walked in 100 years? Wouldn’t that have taken him to a place of safety? And why bring all the animals to him?)

    ReplyDelete
  62. Dagoods**Do you realize how far he could have walked in 100 years? Wouldn’t that have taken him to a place of safety? And why bring all the animals to him?

    You sound like someone who is skeptical about what happens in a Hollywood movie. Why didn't Jamie Lee Curtis call the police right away in "Hallowe'en"? Why did the family stay so long in the haunted house in "Amityville Horror"?

    Again, I find the Flood story as figurative and not literal. It was an historic event to some degree but what we have is not a literal story. Thus all your points are of no value to me.

    You may be a great lawyer but your exhibits are irrelevant (inadmissible?). Sorry.
    :-)

    ReplyDelete