Not doubting you, but how do you know this? Even being true, couldn’t it still be a translational or copy error? Even the text we have were copied or translated from something right? It’s the fact that so very many of these types of errors, and quite a few more meaningful ones, exist that seems the relevant fact.
I find it telling that doctrines of the Bible’s inerrancy seemed to have evolved as more information and scholarly studies have become available to the average citizen {thank you Mr. Ehrman} Now rather than the Bible is inerrant period, it’s well yes there are a few minor errors but the message itself is still intact. God didn’t allow that to be altered. Eventually even that hold out will have to be released.
I was thinking last night about something I left out of my previous post and here you are providing me the opportunity to express it. Thanks.
The question isn’t whether God is able to protect his word. The proper question is, was that ever God’s plan and intention, as I have asked over and over again.
You have already acknowledged that there are some human errors in the Bible. You have also acknowledged in an earlier post that even people who seek the Holy Spirit are subject to the influences of their own culture and preconceived notions and that leads to misinterpretations.
What if your original premise is wrong? The original text was not dictated by the Holy Spirit to be perfect but instead reflected the limited understanding and cultural bias of the author. You might want to consider that since you have no scriptural reference to support that original premise.
That might explain Paul’s comments about women and the passage where he says
“I have no commandment but I’ll give my opinion”
We know that many evil things have been done in the name of God and Christ. We know there are charlatans out there using God’s name to line their pockets and victimize people who want to believe. You’re saying that while God would allow evil to be committed in the name of Jesus Christ, he would not allow any significant changes to occur in the Bible.
It doesn’t seem consistent with free will as we see it exercised. It especially doesn’t seem consistent with free will when we consider the evidence that biblical scholars provide. Add to that the fact that there is no scriptural support for the original premise that the Holy Spirit dictated the original text and that it was God’s plan that we have this authoritative guide.
I think what the evidence reveals to the seeker of Truth is that the Holy Spirit can use many sources , including the Bible, to lead us, teach us and guide us toward knowing God. It is an internal spiritual act of surrender. We must be willing to make that seeking our first priority and be willing to release our fears, our preconceived notions, and our religious traditions when the inner voice of the spirit calls us to. Those teachings are in the words of Christ in the NT.
Your belief about the dictating of the original text is not.
Because I don’t want you to beat this horse (and chariot) to death, and because I don’t want to quit winners (considering your previous lost debate), I feel compelled to make one final response to you by saying: You win this one. I must admit I’ve never even looked at this scripture involving the difference in numbers and have simply took Valteron’s word that a discrepancy exists due to some kind of human error. This type of inconsequential Biblical criticism never even comes up on my radar screen and will probably remain insignificant to me in the future. Human errors in copying and translation is just a part of the sometimes flawed distribution process which involves flawed humans using flawed languages. None of these affect the life & death issues being clearly communicated to us by God and which are intended to save us from destruction. To reject such an important message because the messenger failed to cross a T, is a rather foolish basis to ignore it and not to consider the vital instructions on how to proceed.
My advice is to at least look for a better excuse than human frailty to dismiss a solemn warning that keeps landing on your doorstep. But in the meantime, congratulations on being the debate winner. Although I’m not for sure, there probably is indeed this human error in the Scripture as reported by Valteron (if you can’t trust your fellow bloggers, then what has the world come to?), my only position is that minor flaws in the human message system don’t really prove as much as you would like about the trustworthiness of the Bible.
I’m not exactly clear on what you’re asking. How do I know that this error is present in the Hebrew or how do I know we still have the Greek and Hebrew source manuscripts from which the English versions were copied? Either way, you’ve read Ehrman so you know how it works.
I think I get you now. I wasn’t claiming the discrepancy was in the autographs (because how would we know). I just meant that it was in the source texts used for translation. Yes, a copy error is extremely plausible and that would actually be my guess. I actually don’t bother much with these kinds of minor errors because I think there are far more significant problems for inerrantists than that. I only weighed in on it in this thread to correct a claim that the discrepency is translational.
The RCC holds a position comparable to this. There actually is a distinction between an inerrantist position and a literalist one, although the two can overlap.
[QUOTE=Stalky]
there are people out there who will get taken in by your illogical unfounded but ferverent assertions…your half baked, half witted humerous charming and deceptive writing style…you may be a pathological liar… a writing style that, above all, resembles sleight of hand…your many logical inconsistancies…what you are writing is counter to the idea of Truth…by evasion, lies and misdirection… your nebulous ad hominem indictment of Valteron…Hypocrisy is rife throughout your posts…you are not free to confuse your belief with Truth and then use deceitful tactics on a rationalist message board… I hope that as few people buy into the garbage you appear to be spouting./QUOTE]
I’m pretty disappointed with your post, it usually takes much longer before my underhanded scheme is exposed. I’m usually able to trick more into accepting eternal life thru Christ and receiving the free gift of the Holy Spirit before someone finally wakes up and unmasks my evil plan. Another downer is that I didn’t even sell one BibleMan cape. I wonder if they give membership refunds here…
But before I scamper off to look for other rubes, I feel obligated to make a couple of corrections and\or clarifications to your post:
To clarify: There are paradoxes (ie,seeming contradictions) in the Bible, which are resolved within the Bible itself. Non-believers stumble over them, while disciples seek out their solution in the Scriptures and come to deeper understanding by resolving them. I previously listed a few, here are some more examples:
-How can Christ be called the Lamb of God as well as the Lion of Judah?
-How can Christ say that He came that we may have a more abundant life yet say we must take up our cross and follow Him to death?
-Why does Jesus say He did not come to do away with the Law and Prophets but Paul says that no person will be justified by observing the works prescribed by Law?
How can the Scriptures teach Christ’s soon coming but also indicate a delayed return?
These paradoxes are all answered and resolved within the Bible thru study.
To clarify: All interpretations must be first checked against the Scriptures themselves (remember the Bereans (Acts17:11)), and ultimately the only valid interpretation is the one the Holy Spirit Himself intended - that can only truly be attained from a personal relationship with Him through Christ (see John14:26, “I will send you the Holy Spirit and He will teach you all things”)
To clarify: Christians believe that the Bible contains the Truth and the revealed will of God, it is our standard of Faith and conduct. We indeed test and prove all things by the standard of the Scriptures (see 2Pet1:20-21 and 2Tim3:1).
To clarify: The few minor translation and copiest errors do not change the substance of the message of the Bible and are not a proof that what God originally spoke had any errors. It only indicates that man is capable of making some mistakes in transmission that God has already decreed will not affect His purposes (see Isaiah 55:11)
Very ironic: I used to be lost and blind, now I see; you used to see and have now become lost and blind. I truly hope you recover what you once possessed
For those who would like to see the thread (and post) mentioned here, turn to this
However, as far as I can tell, in that thread you, Bible man, simply proclaimed your victory and never showed your face in the thread again.
Usually that signifies anything BUT a victory to me.
Add to that that you won’t accept the argument that you can’t prove the veracity of anything by pointing to the content of that same thing, and you have the poster definition of someone who simply won’t debate honestly.
While this may be acceptable practice within the faith you should not expect it to hold water on the internet, unless you are posting in a faith based forum, which, of course, you are not. Also, my wife just wrote this out on a peice of paper,
"The Gospel of Stalky
1 Stalky is the supreme being and all, especially Bible Men, must worship him in sprit and in truth. 2 This paper is divinely inspired and useful for teaching, rebuking, and generally stirring things up."
We will now bury it and wait for the inevitable influx of cash when it is dug up, as it will be interpreted by those blessed by the Stalkyspirit to give me large sums of cash.
Plus it says it’s true right there, and no inconsistancies either. Do you see the problem of relying on evidence within a text to determine that text’s validity. I suspect it’s obvious to passersby.
I must say, I admire your optimism.
The definition of irony: Responding to an indictment of obfusification, evasion, and needless repitition with obfusification, evasion, and needless repitition.
I’m glad you found the thread. Maybe those math bloggers will come back and work out that error percentage that was racked up on just one of those false assertions about what he claimed the Bible stated (I had it figured at 50,000 percent, but I’m not a math guy). I had no choice but to quit what you loosely term a debate - would you believe that my computer began clearing itself of useless internet files and it immediately recognized all those unsupported statements, false claims, and just plain baseless arguments for what they really were: meaningless internet clutter (not a debate at all). Cleared them right off. I’m glad you have a record so others can avoid having the same type of computer trouble: simply avoid the source.
I agree, there is a difference. I tend to think the inerrant position is an adjustment of the literalist position.
Bibleman provided a good example IMHO, when he claimed the original text was dictated by the HS but a few minor errors have slipped in since then. God allowed them of course but made sure the important stuff was left intact so that Bibleman and those who see the Truth as he does could try to enlighten the rest of the lost souls like us.
Bible man it’s unfortunate that you chose to ignore my last few posts. I’m sure you have some convenient excuse.
I’ve tried to present logical arguments not from atheists to believer, but from one believer to another. We seem to agree that the Holy Spirit is the source of Truth. What we don’t agree on is how that truth is communicated to mankind and the purpose of the Bible.
I’m certain you know what Jesus says about choosing the traditions of men over the truth. I hope at some point you are willing to take an honest look at arguments presented by myself and others and take a hard look at the facts.
Some things are a matter of faith, such as belief in the Holy Spirit at all. There are no facts or objective evidence to indicate that what moves us, calls to us, and whispers within is indeed that Holy Spirit Jesus spoke of. We act on faith that listening to that inner voice is the best way. It is the experiences that come our way that helps us learn how to hear more clearly. It is the facts that are presented that help us discard mistaken concepts and to discern tradition from truth. To ignore or deny the facts brought your way in order to hang on to tradition is a choice you are free to make. I understand how hard it is to release beliefs considered sacred. I understand how hard it is to believe something other than what your chosen group has declared to be God’s will. It takes a certain courage and commitment.
Ultimately it is between you and your own inner voice to judge the sincerity of your choices and actions.
So. If I understand correctly, you engaged in “just plain baseless argumentation” with some people, and, at the drop of a hat decided you had “won”? What does that even mean?
And since when does a self-proclaimed “win” hold any weight at all? And since when does a “winner” have to concoct ludicrous explanations as to why he abandoned the “argument”?
She’s hard to reach at times, but next time I’ll try to have a written excuse from my mom (!). Anyway, I was under the impression that you were probably just rehashing the same issues and thought further discussion was pointless considering your response to this post from the Rhymer:
To which your responded:
I might go back and review your posts and respond, you usually bring up some valid points that should be clarified. But for now, you’ll have to accept my (unverified) excuse that I was spending some time answering some of the Bible-hating whiners on this website who feel that posting Christian and Biblical threads and comments is okay as long as no one drops in to support them or clear up misunderstandings about them. It’s quite acceptable for anyone here to insult, misquote, misinterpret and misunderstand the Bible and its doctrines, but considered bad form to actually support, defend, and clarify them. Here’s a small spattering of some of the recent comments directed to me (especially notice the last one):
-the sad part is there are people out there who will get taken in by your illogical unfounded but ferverent assertions of the Truth
-your half baked, half witted humerous charming & deceptive writing style should be a warning sign that you may be a pathological liar
-It is a writing style that, above all, resembles sleight of hand
-…your many logical inconsistancies…
-what you are writing is counter to the idea of Truth, at least where Truth is established by reason and debate, and not by evasion, lies and misdirection.
-reading your nebulous ad hominem indictment of Valteron was the last straw
-hypocrisy is rife throughout your posts.
-I hope that as few people buy into the garbage you appear to be spouting
-you are not free to confuse your belief with Truth and then use deceitful tactics on a rationalist message board.
And by the way, I’m only a Bible literalist where the Bible should be interpreted literally. To a great degree the Bible uses symbolism to communicate to the hearers.
Considering most of these quotes are mine, and I’m a VERY recent member here (check the post count) it doen’t follow logically that they have anything to do with the message board in aggregate. Although it seems likely that the logical incostistancy doesn’t bother you much. Also, I don’t mind HONEST debate and exposition of the scriptures, where reasonable people reasonably trade and explain meanings.
I stand by the entirety of that analysis of your writing style, though i’ll admit it’s probably more appropriate in the pit. If you wish to nail yourself to the cross with it, be my guest.
Wow. HUMOR! Okay, you just went up a bit in my estimation.
I had this exact same discussion with my sister once, save that she was opining that the Old Testament laws no longer binding on Christians were the ones about rituals, but those with a moral context were still in effect. (She was explaining why she was sure our gay cousin was doomed to burn in Tartarus if he did not repent before his then-imminent death.) So I’ll ask you the same question I asked Sister the Rhymer: how do you distinguish between those passages which must be taken literally and those which should be taken symbolically? Are the Old Testament admonitions to cut off the hands of women who touch other men’s penises while attempting to defend their husbands in the literal/binding category, or in the symbolic category?
And, most importanly, why am I arguing **badchad’s ** position?
It is not considered bad form, at all. There are a number of posters who will find defenses of the bible to be inadequate from their perspective and there are (a fairly small number of outspoken) posters who are rather contemptuous of the religious traditions surrounding the bible.
However, the aspects of your posts that have irritated most posters has to do with the fact that you are generally dishonest in your argumentation while you assume an attitude of superiority that is not supported by your dishonest argumentation.
As an example of your continued dishonesty: several posters have asked questions regarding explicit contradictions and historical inaccuracies in the bible when challenging your claim that there are no such discrepanciees. Rather than respond to to their questions, you have posted a list of titles ascribed to Jesus or the Messiah and have purported to “resolve” those contradictions as paradoxes. However, no one would seriously challenge the “discrepancies” between a lion image and a lamb image; that is simply a red herring that you throw out as if it had any relevance. Making a to-do over such symbolism while deliberately ignoring issues of actual contradictions appears dishonest. Coming back following such distractions to smugly claim that your opponent is probably damned is deliberately insulting. It is that sort of silliness that has earned you the negative comments, not some imagined attitude of “bad sport” to (legitmately) defend scripture.
It does follow, logically or not. And I wasn’t trying to pick on you by using mostly your comments - being relatively new to the site, yours were actually kind of mild-mannered compared to some I might have chosen, for instance:
