Thinking for oneself

Originally posted by KneverKnight
So, who was the last of the original thinkers?

EDIT Adam?
Or Eve?

The serpent

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Professor! Long time, no lesson. This would make for a good topic.

I was thinking about how to make a thread dealing with the refining of the Bible and came to the conclusion that I don't think I agree with myself, when I said the Bible needs refining. I was trying to think specifically about how I would change, or refine, the Bible and while there are many things in it that seem out of date or down right silly...I don't think I would change it. The Bible, after all, is what it is.

You see, while I certainly do not think the Bible is the inerrant word of God (the canonization process was way too much of a deliberate and classically human process for reasonable people to conclude there is much inerrancy left), I do think the Bible says exactly what God wants it to. The fact that the document is imperfect merely implies to me that God wants us to KNOW it is not perfect and use it accordingly.

In the end, I guess the only thing I would change in the Bible is not ‘in’ the Bible at all. I would change the people reading it. Let people know that it is ok if the Bible is not the inerrant word of God because it certainly is what God wants it to be. People just need to chill out and know that God is in control and they should stop trying to define ‘perfect’ for God.

Fear not you faithful!! Your book is perfect after all. It is perfectly what God wants it to be…errors, omissions, contradictions and all.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If your quoted idea is not brand spankin' new, why did you find it so profoundly quotable?

You missed it Dr.

My point is that an idea should not be rejected because it is not new. I've seen so many posts disclaiming the intelligence of Fundies simply because the Bible and the teachings of Christianity are old. I would like to dispel that notion by showing that the claims of Undies, like 'there is no God' are not new. Way back in the time of King David people were saying 'there is no God'.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God Psalm 14:1

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Does this leave me free to refine the ideas and concepts I find in the Bible? 'Cause if anything could use some refining...

TheSkipper

You can try. It's been tried before. And if you are the one to bring the improvements then you would be God of all! Most of the time I think that those who have thought they had better ideas bring their followers to disaster. Naturally, if one veers off of the one true heading, he will end up lost.

Sometimes the mutiny stems from a sincere doubt in the Captain, sometimes it's an outright rebellion, but if the ship doesn't proceed according to the Good Captain's plan, the journey will fail.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
So, who was the last of the original thinkers?

EDIT Adam?
Or Eve?

James 1:17
Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

Ultimately, God is the one and only original thinker. He gave us the ability to think and the joy of discovery. You might say that Lucifer introduced a new idea when He suggested to Eve that God lied, but this is merely a perversion of an existing idea (the idea that God is all truth), which is really all that evil can do. The evil acts, vices, and sins that we fall for are always and only just a ruination of a good thing that God gave us.


What we call new, and admire so much, are the new adaptations of the ideas of others. Knowledge accumulates and new applications are found. People like me are always heard to say "why didn't I think of that!", because the new idea always seems so obvious after it's introduced! Maybe someday...

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Or, what about a kid who wants to "think for herself" and becomes a Goth and looks acts and dresses like all the other Goths?
Sometimes, it all depends on your point of view.
Just because one wishes to break free of something he finds stale doesn't demand a solitary existance to realize that wish.

EDIT: 5 marks off myself; the last sentence sucks.

I agree. As we move along, we always find things 'stale', and want to try somethng else. I've done it a thousand times. (If I keep losing chess games like I have been lately, it wont be long before I go find the red hot ping pong website!)

But when such a person changes her style, even if she manages to find a wholly new style, she needn't rebuke those who are happy with the tried and true. (to refer back to my original point)

Originally posted by TheSkipper
I was thinking about how to make a thread dealing with the refining of the Bible and came to the conclusion that I don't think I agree with myself, when I said the Bible needs refining. I was trying to think specifically about how I would change, or refine, the Bible and while there are many things in it that seem out of date or down right silly...I don ...[text shortened]... is perfectly what God wants it to be…errors, omissions, contradictions and all.

TheSkipper

Oh, but I wish this made sense! It started out so well.

So God gave us an imperfect book, that claims to be perfect, and then expects we imperfect people to know for sure (or to know imperfectly?) where the mistakes are and where the good parts are.

God 'wants' the Bible to be imperfect? I wouldn't think so.

I do agree that people need to chill out and know that God is in control. In control enough to keep the Bible inerrant despite the corrosive effect that we errant people may have had on it over time.

We must be responsible readers; studying and interpreting carefully and reasonably so that we can properly...
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Originally posted by chinking58
Oh, but I wish this made sense! It started out so well.

So God gave us an imperfect book, that claims to be perfect, and then expects we imperfect people to know for sure (or to know imperfectly?) where the mistakes are and where the good parts are.

God 'wants' the Bible to be imperfect? I wouldn't think so.

I do agree that people need to ch ...[text shortened]... bly so that we can properly...
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Darn! Really? My suggestion that the Bible is 100% what God wants it to be is not good enough for you? How about this, I make the argument that since God wanted inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible it is, in fact, perfect. Does that do it for you?

To most rational people, i.e. anyone willing to look at the Bible in a historical perspective in addition to the more typical spiritual perspective, the Bible exhibits exactly the sort of inconsistencies and contradictions that one would expect when many authors are involved. Not the least of which is the two different stories of creation! We all know the seven day creation story that culminates in the creation of man and then a period of rest. What about the second description of creation though? The second story is located in the second chapter of Genesis in verses 4-25 (I think). Let it be said that while the second creation story does appear after the first in Genesis it is actually the oldest version by about 300 years. In this version it takes God only one day to create everything and he STARTS by creating man first! This is only two of a whole host of differences between the two stories. Please explain how these two stories can exist together in a ‘perfect’ document.

Then there are the inconsistencies found in the Gospels. They are many and varied and well documented in a number of threads in this very forum…not to mention in numerous books and articles. Can you justify the differences between the synoptic gospels and John, for instance, to maintain your claim of an inerrant work?

Look, if God wanted the Bible to be factually and substantively perfect it would actually be factually and substantively perfect. It is not; therefore I conclude God wanted his book to be something other than perfect so that we may recognize the imperfection and then use the Bible accordingly. I think the use of imperfection in the Bible is the perfect defense against faithful that would rather be spoon-fed their faith than investigate it on their own. Fundamentalists seem to have countered this defense by insisting the Bible is perfect when it is, in fact, NOT.

It makes me sad.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Darn! Really? My suggestion that the Bible is 100% what God wants it to be is not good enough for you? How about this, I make the argument that since God wanted inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible it is, in fact, perfect. Does that do it for you?

To most rational people, i.e. anyone willing to look at the Bible in a historical perspective in ...[text shortened]... by insisting the Bible is perfect when it is, in fact, NOT.

It makes me sad.

TheSkipper

I make the argument that since God wanted inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible it is, in fact, perfect. Does that do it for you?

Fraid not. I can't get past this statement.

Originally posted by chinking58
[b]I make the argument that since God wanted inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible it is, in fact, perfect. Does that do it for you?

Fraid not. I can't get past this statement.[/b]

Could you please explain then why there are inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible if God does not want them there?

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Darn! Really? My suggestion that the Bible is 100% what God wants it to be is not good enough for you? How about this, I make the argument that since God wanted inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible it is, in fact, perfect. Does that do it for you?

To most rational people, i.e. anyone willing to look at the Bible in a historical perspective in ...[text shortened]... by insisting the Bible is perfect when it is, in fact, NOT.

It makes me sad.

TheSkipper

Don't be sad. Be glad!

The problems you cite as examples are addressed well enough by thinking Christian scholars. Like the 'two stories' problem in Genesis.

The second chapter is like a summary. A less formal description of the same events.

I think you would feel better (less sad) if you took a closer look at the complaints some people have and the answers that are given.

But even when I can't find the answer to some complaint I hesitate to throw the whole thing out in favor of this odd idea that God put the imperfections in on purpose.

By the way, if God put imperfections in, and then man messed around with it so long, maybe all of the imperfections would have been fixed by now.

No, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater (to coin a phrase(to coin another phrase(now that one IS new)))!

Originally posted by chinking58
Like the 'two stories' problem in Genesis.

The second chapter is like a summary. A less formal description of the same events.

I think you would feel better (less sad) if you took a closer look at the complaints some people ...[text shortened]... r (to coin a phrase(to coin another phrase(now that one IS new)))!

Uhm...how can the second story be a summary of the first when it was written 300 YEARS PRIOR TO THE FIRST!!! However, if it is some sort of weird prognostication summary that may explain why it is the worst summary I have ever seen. It completely contradicts material facts from the creation story that appears in the first chapter…the very story it is supposed to be summarizing!?

Believe me, I have spent some time studying the "Christian" responses to the errors in the Bible. I have spent the last 5 years of my life fretting about it. I can say that the vast majority of the supposed 'answers' to my concerns consist of intellectual dishonesty and/or complete non-responsiveness; as is the case with your 'summary' theory.

Still sad...maybe more so.

TheSkipper

EDIT: BTW, I do not support the idea that we should simply throw the Bible out. I support the very rational idea that we should read the Bible contextually and not have some sort of spiritual hissy fit when it appears a given story or passage is contradictory or incorrect.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Could you please explain then why there are inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible if God does not want them there?

TheSkipper

I don't think there are any real inaccuracies or contradictions in the Bible. I've seen supposed errors - but these are usually minor or unsubstantial or cases trying to make the text tell us things it was not intended for. For instance - supposed contradictions between the gospels are found only if one demands perfect historical harmony between the events presented regarding quotes or timelines of events. But the purpose of the gospels is not historical - so reading them so is to ignore the intent of the author.

One can not fully determine what propositional truths the Bible is communicating within a given section of text without understanding the purpose and intent of the authors.

So the error is not found in the Bible, it is found in the misunderstand of the reader regarding the purpose of the text in question.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Uhm...how can the second story be a summary of the first when it was written 300 YEARS PRIOR TO THE FIRST!!! However, if it is some sort of weird prognostication summary that may explain why it is the worst summary I have ever seen. It completely contradicts material facts from the creation story that appears in the first chapter…the very story it is sup ...[text shortened]... of spiritual hissy fit when it appears a given story or passage is contradictory or incorrect.

Has the concept of copy error ever occured to you? Maybe it was perfect but man messed it all up in the duplication process.

Originally posted by Coletti
I don't think there are any real inaccuracies or contradictions in the Bible.

Of the reams of annotations in the SAB, you haven't found even one that you think is valid?

How do you resolve the creation account issue that Prof. Skipper points out?