Is the Bible pretty much fatally flawed?

Great Debates
81

Dear Skald.

One one of the multitude of other threads that kanicbird is [thread=512377]currently derailing[/thread], he makes the comment that prayers to the wrong god still count with the right god. I pointed out that this was from ‘The Last Battle’, not from the Bible. You might have already left in disgust by this point.

In the course of that discussion, the similarity between kanicbird and Puzzle (the donkey in the lion skin) and Shift (the duplicitous ape) occurred to me, hence calling him Aslan on this thread- not intended to reflect the real Aslan, but rather a donkey-in-a-lion-skin masquerading as Aslan. Really, I suppose I should have called him **Tashlan ** to better reflect the bizarre and bastardized belief system he claims to espouse.

I think the events of The Last Battle would probably apply to kanicbird were he to wind up in Narnia - He might discover the god he’s been worshiping with his idiosyncratic and frankly nasty interpretations of scripture and current events is not in fact the one he thinks he’s been worshiping.

Sorry to have bothered you.

82

Just to add the most ‘correct’ answer appears to be the most evasive answer and the hardest to understand from a objective view.

Many times, as the OP asked, we want a concrete answer, such as the sky is blue. From some you may get that, from others not, and the most descriptive answer of all is the easiest to dismiss as a non-answer.

83

Can we at least get a concrete answer as to which stories in the Bible are parable, and which are accurate history? Can you tell us how Judas died(not some pseudophilosophical why, but how)? By the way, your “what color is the sky” example was crap-of course if different people look at the sky at different times they may see different colors, because they are looking at a different sky!

84

Nah. He’s just yanking us around for his own amusement. I expect he’s actually either as militantly atheist as Der Trihs (though less honest) or a bot.

85

While I not prayed over this, my quick take is the OT is a totally accurate account of what actually happened, the Gospels is also totally accurate except for the parables, while the rest of the NT is totally accurate.

The reason for the parables is the Word is also our story. At first we don’t know Jesus, we know God from afar - this is the OT part of our life. Then Jesus comes personally, at this point we can’t understand the truth, so Jesus tells parables to help us along (this is the gospel time of our lives), analogies that later we can understand better, such as the color of the sky. After a while Jesus leaves us and we get the Holy Spirit and the parables are no longer needed.

Another aspect is you don’t need to know this to come to God, all you have to do is trust Him and let Him teach you, but you have to let go of what you were taught by man. And don’t dictate to God how you will let Him teach you, it doesn’t work like that, God is the King, not us, It’s His decision.

I can tell you parts, but until you understand the world you live in the explanation would not make sense. Never the less the scriptures are totally accurate.

To give you some concept of man’s view of the world and what God reveals to us, man and God are separated by sin, we can’t see God on our own, but God’s Word says that he will protect us with angels. Angels are right by us at all times, yet we see them as very distant and in the past. Angels we view in our fallen world as stars, which are light years away and just images of the very distant past and don’t appear to be ‘alive’ in the living sense.

There is one sky in God’s definition:

And man’s:

86

But the stars we can reach are just starfish on the beach.

That’s … original. There are even a couple of points with which sane Christians might agree.

87

If I asked two people looking at the same sky in that same location and one said black, one said, blue, and one said orange, I’d say someone was mistaken.
If each person was able and willing to acknowledge that their view of God’s will was clearly influenced by thier all to human flaws, and thereby likely flawed as well, we wouldn’t have a disagreement.

What you’re describing here is part of the problem. The 1 year old is claiming he must be right and the person in elementary school is claiming the same thing. They’re both positive their way of percieving God’s will is the only correct way and those who disagree with them just don’t get it. If they really understood that they probably don’t get it either they’d be less judgemental about the beliefs of others.

88

I agree. What I find interesting is his irregular bible knowledge. Is he:

a) well-versed in the bible with odd memory gaps, possibly due to therapy?

b) raised by fundamentalists whose teaching he has cynically rejected, so he has a deep knowledge of the bible he can cynically twist.

c) armed with good google-fu and a couple choice websites for finding an appropriate quote to chuck out at the right time.

89

OK, but what is exactly what each one really saw? Why are you assuming that they must see the same thing?

This doesn’t work that way either. God does know we are imperfect and will make mistakes, but He can and will use them to His glory. If a person makes a mistake in trying to follow God, and that honest mistake is taught to others, He will turn that to the Good. So it is Gods will to show us His perfect glory even using us humans which make mistakes.

And they are both right, as you can see in this example

Those w/o God’s enlightenment will not get it, as they will be using man’s understanding, not God’s (though God may enlighten a person anytime He wishes)

Beliefs of others of the same faith or other faiths?

90

So you say.

So you say.

By your definition, of course.

So you say. I call bullshit.

So you say.

So you say.

Which is your personal and uncritical interpretation of events.

I don’t see any reason to follow Kanicbird unless you are uncritical and gullible. And buy copious crap from late night TV ads and respond eagerly to Nigerian requests for your bank account and SSN. And what was the last price on that bridge in Brooklyn, because I have a buyer list to die for.

91

People do not reject clear evidence or basic reasoning, what you call evidence and clear reasoning is just jibberish that you seem to make up as you go along.
Isn’t it strange that you and a hand full of people are the only ones who seem to posess these qualities? When one says the Bible is the authoritive word of God they are in reality using the word of Humans, that fact can be proven.

92

In trying to correct my last post I was too late in editing. It should have read: Any one who states that the Bible is the word of God is in truth using what some human has stated as the Word Of God, that is a fact that can be proven.

One can believe the Bible or Koran is, but belief doesn’t make it so.

93

Um…Did you mean to post this as a response to me and if you did,…what the hell are you talking about?

94

Why would God not ensure a better Bible isn’t available, that the loose collection of individual books, written by different authors at different times?

I suspect we are supposed to think for ourselves. Some of the early comments jumped on “What is the purpose of the Bible?”. How can a commandment say “Thou shalt not kill” and then a few verses later specify who will be killed? Obvious translation problem. The commandment is “Thou shalt not murder”. Govenment has the obligation to cleanse the population from predators.

Still, people take non violence to stupid conclusions.

95

So there is a general consensus, and all the knowledgeable people agree, that the commandment is actually “Thou shalt not murder” and believing otherwise is stupid?

Do all you knowledgeable people agree with this, so we can move on to the next problem?

96

Let’s clarify the analogy. We’re talking about the possible guidance of the Holy Spirit and how it helps you, and others who employ similar tactics in discussions, to understand things that others see as contradiction and nonsense. That’s why you can’t explain it and don’t really need to because non believers just can’t comprehend the spiritual things of God.

I raised the point that many people who believe they are guided and taught by the same Holy Spirit still don’t agree on what the divine truth is. If the point you’re trying to make that the apparent contradiction is their own flawed humanity affects their perception of what the HS is teaching then we agree.

Wouldn’t you agree there would be no contradiction in divine truth?

So, if two people are looking at the same sky in the same location at the same time I’d expect their description to be pretty similar. If it’s a blue sky I’d expect some shade of blue in the description rather than black or orange. Let’s say it was sunset and the sky was blue as well as red. One might say blue and one might say red but I’d expect they both would acknowledge the other is also correct.

That assumes the person acknowledges their mistake and their imperfection correct? We must be willing to acknowledge where we are wrong and willing to be led, right?

There’s a good theological analogy called The Blind Men and the Elephant They all perceive something partially true but incomplete because of their limited perception. Now imagine several of these men insisting their own limited perception was the only truth and the others must be wrong since they don’t agree. Organized religion compounds the problem by worshiping tradition.

And yet they both claim the other is wrong. That’s the problem. Let’s also recognize that in some cases contradictions cannot be explained as merely different perceptions.

Let’s not go in circles. The point is that even those who claim divine enlightenment don’t agree. Evidently claiming divine enlightenment isn’t enough to “get it” either.

If God judges the inner person then religious labels don’t matter at all.

97

No, there is not a consensus – but there should be. And before I get jumped on that, let me explain.

First, there’s the question of what is morally proper. And I’d suspect you could get a consensus from most people to the premise: “Killing is wrong, except in certain circumstances.” What those exceptional circumstances are in practice is where the consensus will break down, of course – but to the raw premise, withoug the exceptions specified, I believe most thinking people would agree,

But second, there’s the question of accurate translation. And “Thou shalt not murder” is in fact the more accurate translation of that commandment – but tell that to someone who’s deified the KJV. Or to someone whose ethics mandates complete non-violence. Among people who bother to study the text, yes, there would be consensus on the accuracy of “Thou shalt not murder.” But as far as the general public goes, it won’t be happening.

And this same problem exists throughout any referencing of the Bible. Everyone claims to be an exegete, reading principles from the Bible (whether or not they actually believe it to be a valid source, they’ll point to what it says, and attempt to reason from it, even if what they’re actually doing is providing evidence to disprove its authority). But most religious people are eisegetes, reading their own preconceptions back into it. Taking just the morality-of-homosexuality issue, which I’ve been involved in arguing on another site: There is to me nothing clearer than Jesus’s teaching to love one’s neighbor as oneself, to do unto others as you would be done unto, to refrain from judgment of others except as you yourself would be willing to be judged – and that those passages stress to me that I have no business judging and condemning the private acts of another. But those insistent on condemning gay sex will make clear that the truly loving thing, the thing they’d expect done to them, the thing that is not judging people but actions, is to emphasize that Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27, and so on, mean (to them at least) that God finds gay sex abominable – and theirefore their loving Christian duty is to point that out (for the benefit of any deaf-and-blind gay person who hasn’t already encountered it). In short, they’re marshalling arguments sifted from the Bible in support of a preconceived position.

So, while there ought to be a consensus on how to read Scripture, many people bring to it an exaggerated respect derived from its supposed origins as God’s inerrant Word (see that thread) and use it as a tool to support their own social and theological hoppyhorses.

For me, I believe one can derive a lot of truth, and a lot of benefit, from it, by treating it as what it is: a compilation of a large set of writings, mostly dealing with how the Jews and early Christians believed they encountered God, written in many genres and with many points of view expressed, using many cultural presumptions. The marriages of Abraham, Jacob, and Judah and his sons are not divinely given models of what an ideal marriage ought to be; they’re accounts to be studied by cultural anthropologists. Jesus’s parables are for me the supreme example of haggadah, the teaching story of Jewish culture. And so on.

98

It’s not boasting if you simply share the information in response to a request. Please tell us what scientific or technical degrees you possess. I can understand not wishing to share too many details, such as the specific year you graduated from university, but surely you can specify the discipline(s) and specific degrees (bachelor, master, or doctorate).

Well?

99

I am sorry cosmosdan, I was refering to kanicbird’s response. You make sense; (kanicbird does not in my humble opinion).

100

I stopped reading kanicbird’s posts 3 or 4 in, but I’m still trying to understand what it is you’re trying to tell him.

Is there a contradiction in the fact that we still teach Newtonian physics to grade schoolers? There’s an apparent contradiction in that it has been superceded by relativity and quantum mechanics. So, why don’t we drop grade schoolers straight into quantum mechanics?

So, can we agree that there is a value in teaching someone something that isn’t strictly true, but gives them the basis for understanding greater truths?

And then we have students coming out of grade school believing Newtonian physics, and students coming out of university believing quantum mechanics. But this isn’t a contradiction, is it? Even though two different people could be taught two different ‘truths’ from the same school system.

But some people never get past the level of understanding for Newtonian physics, (or even to that level of understanding.)

Well, I’d agree with this. A person who has only had Newtonian physics classes hears about quantum mechanics and tries to pass the idea on to someone else. I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets it wrong.

I didn’t see that assumption. I mean, I agree that people should admit their mistakes, but I don’t see anything that says someone needs to do that before God could use that mistake for the good.

I try not to think my belief is the only right one, but I don’t always manage. Just a few weeks ago, I was in a conversation about math on this board. And I was so arrogantly assured of the correctness of my conclusion, that I discounted the possibility that the people I was debating with were coming from a valid assumption. I was completely convinced that mathematicians didn’t work under their conclusions. When I realized my mistake, it shook my world view. I spent a couple hours agonizing over the possibility that I had been completely wrong all along. Then I realized I needed to see what I could prove from this new starting point, and I spent several more hours doing that. Eventually I proved to myself that their starting point wasn’t wrong, it just didn’t prove what they thought it did. Their starting point was meaningless and reduced to mine. But, I had to apologize, and then try to show them what their starting assumption actually proved. Strangely enough, this ended the conversation.

But, not everyone is as adult as you or I. Not everyone is going to admit their mistake, or even notice it in the first place. But, I don’t think it’s a mistake to believe your own conclusions are correct.

I agree. But this is the same analogy as kanicbird’s “what color is the sky.” And they are in the position I was in. Obviously, just because they don’t agree, and just because they aren’t adult enough to admit the other might be right, doesn’t mean they don’t separately have some part of the truth, or that it isn’t the same truth they’re talking about.

Personally, I think it’s possible we’re trying to say much the same thing. (And in this one instance, something similar to what kanicbird is saying.) I just can’t quite see for sure what you’re trying to say. What is the point you’re trying to make to kanicbird?