Jesus Freaks...why do you believe?

[suggs]

the bible simply isnt an accurate document. good story though, if you miss out the Numbers bit in the middle.

[got tonkaed]

mr nate.....as i had suggested....this was done via a quick google search. The inforation admittedly is not my own. However, the questions come from a seminary student in the first one, and a response off a christian based website in another.

Though i do not doubt there are justifications and possibilities for bridging gaps in each of the things you cite, my point was rather simple. Widowmakers essentially claimed that nothing the bible had been proved historically inaccurate. I was merely showing that through a very quick and impromptu search, you could find christian sources, which suggest that premise is false.

[suggs]

whilst there is still doubt that jesus even existed, as a real historical figure, i think we should take the rest of the bible with a pinch of salt/ huge bifter.

[Snorri1234]

When looking at the available evidence both stances are equally beyond proof. You could ask me to prove the existence of a Giant Squid and I would be equally at a loss for any proof. Not much of a diver, really

Exactly. How is that in favour of a God?
The whole problem with God is that it's just as likely as leprachauns who put pots of gold everywhere. God should be as provable as anything, as it influences the world. (as neoteny put so aptly.)

Let's be real here though. If you are engaging in an argument about the existence of God then the burden of proof is shared as both sides are making claims.

Nice, but the burden of proof is always on the side that tries to prove a positive. You can't argue with that. It's simple logic.

Hence, it's inarguable. I believe in God, Yes. I know it's faith and not a proven fact, Yes. I've examined my own faith and spoken with people of many differeing viewpoints. Frankly, nobody has ever said anything that would make me change my mind. Many have tried.

Well I accept that you're basing your view purely on faith. I can relate to that, but that's not the problem. The people who act like it isn't solely based on faith are the problem.

Generally, you'll hear me defend my choice to be a Christian, and I'll speak (at great length sometimes) about the benefits of having faith. These are things that are arguable and empirical evidence can be brought in to back them up. To make a long story just a little bit longer There are many, many reasons to be Christian that have nothing to do with whether God can make a make a rock so big that he can't lift it himself .

No argument here. I will never understand why you believe what you believe, but I respect it as anything.

[Napoleon Ier]

whilst there is still doubt that jesus even existed, as a real historical figure, i think we should take the rest of the bible with a pinch of salt/ huge bifter.

Denying Jesus existed is as historically untenable as denying Julius Caesar.

[suggs]

I respect the cult of the Squidites.
They have an ancient document that proves The Squid turnes Ink into Wine back in 28 AD.
Hurrah we finally have proof cos evrything old that is written down is proof.

[MR. Nate]

mr nate.....as i had suggested....this was done via a quick google search. The inforation admittedly is not my own. However, the questions come from a seminary student in the first one, and a response off a christian based website in another.

Though i do not doubt there are justifications and possibilities for bridging gaps in each of the things you cite, my point was rather simple. Widowmakers essentially claimed that nothing the bible had been proved historically inaccurate. I was merely showing that through a very quick and impromptu search, you could find christian sources, which suggest that premise is false.

I would posit that if you WANT to find falsehoods, you'll find them. Not because they are there, but because you want them to be.

[got tonkaed]

ill admit, that could be very true. I guess i would differ from you in the necessity of some of those historical details. Judging by your rather quick, perhaps overly defensive stance, that you do put a lot of stock into these things. Personally id be tempted to argue that you are perhaps deifying the wrong things about the text in such a way, but ill admit i dont know you, and you do seem to do a very through study of the text (much more than i certainly ever did).

However, it strikes me as interesting that many christians tend to have no problem with their being biographical or historical errors about non foundation elements, but you seem to have taken a very different stance on the issue.

I believe if you make enough out of the elements you will always be able to believe that they are true, simply because you will invested too much of yourself into them for them to be anything but "true"

[MR. Nate]

Able to believe they are true and able to demonstrate they are not false are very different. If I fail at the second, I will not allow myself to do the first. And I have studied it, and I'm confident that there are not any problems. I am quite willing to stand by the Chicago statement of inerrancy.

[WidowMakers]

ill admit, that could be very true. I guess i would differ from you in the necessity of some of those historical details. Judging by your rather quick, perhaps overly defensive stance, that you do put a lot of stock into these things. Personally id be tempted to argue that you are perhaps deifying the wrong things about the text in such a way, but ill admit i dont know you, and you do seem to do a very through study of the text (much more than i certainly ever did).

However, it strikes me as interesting that many christians tend to have no problem with their being biographical or historical errors about non foundation elements, but you seem to have taken a very different stance on the issue.

I believe if you make enough out of the elements you will always be able to believe that they are true, simply because you will invested too much of yourself into them for them to be anything but "true"

The same could be said about people who do not believe.

-Do you all really know what you are talking about in regards to the Bible being wrong?
-Have you spent the time actually looking over the evidence Mr. Nate provided to explain the accusation of Biblical error?
-If so how can you say he is wrong?

By him simply defending his position, you are accusing him of being blind and believing the Bible regardless of anything else.

For instance I am in the middle of the creation/evolution debate. I feel I have explained issues regarding the errors in evolution an dhow it cannot be. I have spent time looking at the data and have come to thew conclusion that it is impossible. At the same time others have others have looked at the data and have come to completely opposite conclusions.

So who is right?

Before you accuse someone of: "

you will invested too much of yourself into them for them to be anything but "true"

make sure that you are not doing that yourself. If you are not willing to look at both sides and see both pictures, you are doing exactly the thing you accuse Christians of doing, being blind.

WM

[suggs]

inerrancy? any chance we could converse in English?
Jesus. (praise be)

[WidowMakers]

inerrancy? any chance we could converse in English?
Jesus. (praise be)

Noun Inerrancy -
1) (Christianity) exemption from error; "biblical inerrancy"
2) infallibility - the quality of never making an error

SO.........

Able to believe they are true and able to demonstrate they are not false are very different. If I fail at the second, I will not allow myself to do the first. And I have studied it, and I'm confident that there are not any problems. I am quite willing to stand by the Chicago statement of inerrancy (that the Bible has exemption from error or the quality of never making an error).

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition

[got tonkaed]

The same could be said about people who do not believe.
-Do you all really know what you are talking about in regards to the Bible being wrong?
-Have you spent the time actually looking over the evidence Mr. Nate provided to explain the accusation of Biblical error?
-If so how can you say he is wrong?

I do not discount the possiblity that the statement applies as much to me if not more so. I disagree with that assesment, but of course it is possible. The original intent of me posting the links was to at least posit that your casual (albeit not casual in belief, but casually expression of innerrancy) statement was erroneous.

I did look at much of Mr. Nates evidence. Admittedly it would be a losing and unnecessary battle to try and go point for point about such information, he is much more knowledgable, and more driven in the area than i am. However, the people who did argue those things, believe the same fundamental truths he did, and came up with different answers. Though i would be willing to believe that much of the academia that discovered the inconsistencies may or may not be christian, i trust they were using methods that were as good as the ones that Mr. Nate used in his study or from the individual he obtains information of.

Admittedly there were a few unknowns in mr nates reanalysis of the evidence. However, i believe that to continue that discussion much further, without at least on my end the requiste knowledge wouldnt be worth doing. However, i suggest if much of the study of the text does not lead to innerancy, it doesnt necessarily make it so, but it certainly leaves open a far greater possibilty.

By him simply defending his position, you are accusing him of being blind and believing the Bible regardless of anything else.

i think you are putting words in my mouth here. I never suggested he was blind or did not put a lot of energy and dedication into his studies. I also am not really out to argue the bible is full of errors (though i believe there are errors in it, just as there are errors undoubtedly in most texts ever written, certainly in ones of that size). Im not really interested in being confrontational, and id suggest i have repeatedly made statements to illustrate that point.

Before you accuse someone of: "

you will invested too much of yourself into them for them to be anything but "true"

make sure that you are not doing that yourself. If you are not willing to look at both sides and see both pictures, you are doing exactly the thing you accuse Christians of doing, being blind.

Now to why i disagree with your assertion earlier. Admittedly if we were to discuss all of those points and mr nate proved each one of them true, it wouldnt really be a very big thing as far as im concerned. I really am not interested in scouring the bible looking for flaws, it doesnt seem like a very reasonable way to treat people who believe in or to the text itself.

As a non believer, unless it was i suppose somehow possible to prove that everything in the bible was true, it wouldnt really affect me all that much. After all its a religion and a deity i do not believe in. I would argue the long term costs would be smaller.

However as mr. nate has suggested he believes in a doctrine of innerancy as i believe you do as well. Now, if through the course of studying, something ended up not fitting, it would be much more damaging in my estimation as someone who shapes a belief system (and a life in a small portion) around the veracity of the text. Frankly i dont know where the line would possibly be, nor am i that interested in pursuing it.

There are a variety of different reasons that i do not believe in christianity, that arent entirely specific to the bible alone. I do not really feel i need to weigh the evidence both ways as you suggest. Faith is not something you handle in the smae fashion as a court case, coming up with a verdict, or at least it does not appear that way to me.

[suggs]

ah you mean infallibe. inerrancy is clearly a "christian" word (ie made up)
infallible is a better word-as it gives the lie to the christian argument straight away.

[suggs]

anyway, glad we are all agreed that christianity is just a rather successful cult.
good night to you, and dont forget to chant (pray), make your catechism (brainwashing) and give money (give money) to the cult leader (bishop).
Peace be with you.
Bishop Suggs.

[MR. Nate]

Infallible means incapable of error on any level

Inerrant allows for it to be accurate by the standards of the day. For instance, the whole "son" thing in genealogies. Often in biblical genealogies, they'd just put in the highlights to get a nice number. So some guys got skipped. It was culturally acceptable, and the word "son" allowed for it. (see my earlier post) But today, many consider that an error. On a certain level, it is, by todays definitions. But at the time, it was considered accurate and acceptable.

That's why I say inerrant, not infallible.

[heavycola]

ill admit, that could be very true. I guess i would differ from you in the necessity of some of those historical details. Judging by your rather quick, perhaps overly defensive stance, that you do put a lot of stock into these things. Personally id be tempted to argue that you are perhaps deifying the wrong things about the text in such a way, but ill admit i dont know you, and you do seem to do a very through study of the text (much more than i certainly ever did).

However, it strikes me as interesting that many christians tend to have no problem with their being biographical or historical errors about non foundation elements, but you seem to have taken a very different stance on the issue.

I believe if you make enough out of the elements you will always be able to believe that they are true, simply because you will invested too much of yourself into them for them to be anything but "true"

The same could be said about people who do not believe.

-Do you all really know what you are talking about in regards to the Bible being wrong?
-Have you spent the time actually looking over the evidence Mr. Nate provided to explain the accusation of Biblical error?
-If so how can you say he is wrong?

By him simply defending his position, you are accusing him of being blind and believing the Bible regardless of anything else.

For instance I am in the middle of the creation/evolution debate. I feel I have explained issues regarding the errors in evolution an dhow it cannot be. I have spent time looking at the data and have come to thew conclusion that it is impossible. At the same time others have others have looked at the data and have come to completely opposite conclusions.

So who is right?

The other guys.

[Snorri1234]

Infallible means incapable of error on any level

Inerrant allows for it to be accurate by the standards of the day. For instance, the whole "son" thing in genealogies. Often in biblical genealogies, they'd just put in the highlights to get a nice number. So some guys got skipped. It was culturally acceptable, and the word "son" allowed for it. (see my earlier post) But today, many consider that an error. On a certain level, it is, by todays definitions. But at the time, it was considered accurate and acceptable.

That's why I say inerrant, not infallible.

No no, inerrancy means the is no error in the scripture whatsoever. The Bible is 100% true and should be taken totally literal.

Infallible means the Bible is inerrant on matters of faith and practice (i.e. that Jesus is God and all that) but not on matters of history and science.

[Backglass]

No no, inerrancy means the is no error in the scripture whatsoever. The Bible is 100% true and should be taken totally literal.

Exactly. 100% True, except for those parts that aren't...metaphors, etc.

We will decide which is which to fit the times.

• Giant ark & worldwide flood? Metaphor!
• Walking Dead? True!
• Humans turned into piles of salt? Metaphor!
• Humans walking on water? True!

See, it's easy! Just make it up as you go along and believe the parts you want to believe...everybody else does.

[MelonanadeMaster]

No no, inerrancy means the is no error in the scripture whatsoever. The Bible is 100% true and should be taken totally literal.

Exactly. 100% True, except for those parts that aren't...metaphors, etc.

We will decide which is which to fit the times.

• Giant ark & worldwide flood? Metaphor!
• Walking Dead? True!
• Humans turned into piles of salt? Metaphor!
• Humans walking on water? True!

See, it's easy! Just make it up as you go along and believe the parts you want to believe...everybody else does.

The Augustinian theology on this matter is that everything in the Bible should be taken literaly, unless it is proven that it couldn't have by either by science, (I'm not refering to miracles and I'm not interested in discussing them) or by the teaching of other parts of scripture. Humans are not infallible in knowing exactly how the Bible should be interpreted. Although I agree it is annoying if people flip flop around in scripture interpretation, just to get out of holes they've trapped themselves in.

[heavycola]

No no, inerrancy means the is no error in the scripture whatsoever. The Bible is 100% true and should be taken totally literal.

Exactly. 100% True, except for those parts that aren't...metaphors, etc.

We will decide which is which to fit the times.

• Giant ark & worldwide flood? Metaphor!
• Walking Dead? True!
• Humans turned into piles of salt? Metaphor!
• Humans walking on water? True!

See, it's easy! Just make it up as you go along and believe the parts you want to believe...everybody else does.

it's so easy! I could SO fall for this!

Also, i love augustine's get-out clause. I mean, i think science has proved that it's impossible to walk on water (without giant inflatable shoes, and the bible makes no mention of those) or to rise from the dead (without a defibrulator - again, no mention).
So how do they work?

[Backglass]

[i think science has proved that it's impossible to walk on water (without giant inflatable shoes)

It's a miracle!!!!!!



How come Chris Angel isn't considered the son of a god? He walked on water in front of more witnesses than Jesus.

Probably because we KNOW he is a magician and we as a people are no longer that superstitious and gullible. Right?



I have seen his act. I'll bet he could pull off a mean crucifixion & resurrection as well.

It just takes a good magician to pull it off.

[unriggable]

I have seen his act. I'll bet he could pull off a mean crucifixion & resurrection as well.

It just takes a good magician to pull it off.

[MelonanadeMaster]

No no, inerrancy means the is no error in the scripture whatsoever. The Bible is 100% true and should be taken totally literal.

Exactly. 100% True, except for those parts that aren't...metaphors, etc.

We will decide which is which to fit the times.

• Giant ark & worldwide flood? Metaphor!
• Walking Dead? True!
• Humans turned into piles of salt? Metaphor!
• Humans walking on water? True!

See, it's easy! Just make it up as you go along and believe the parts you want to believe...everybody else does.

it's so easy! I could SO fall for this!

Also, i love augustine's get-out clause. I mean, i think science has proved that it's impossible to walk on water (without giant inflatable shoes, and the bible makes no mention of those) or to rise from the dead (without a defibrulator - again, no mention).
So how do they work?

Their miracles! By definition their supposed to defy the rules of science!
Ayeyaeyae, this is why I didn't want to discuss miracles, because I knew that would come out from someone.

[Napoleon Ier]

Of course, interesstingly, we again have people posting sheer stupidities in that they clearly have no idea what they're talking about. I've already addressed these issues, but got no real answer... Someone having studied the most basic theroies of contemporary Biblical Scholarship can laugh heartily and the sheer stupidity of their posts (not the pople hemselves, they're understandably keen to post the fallacy they think they've spotted).