Thinking for oneself

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

Again these copy errors have amounted to very little. No substantial changes have occurred - all of the propositional truths of scripture have been maintained. And since the Bible has been copied - rather then passed on by word-of-mouth, there "copy errors" are very few.

To say an "copy error" amounts to a substantial error - one need to show more than a change in the text - one needs to show that the change would lead to mistakes in doctrine.

Christianity is systematic - the propositions of scripture can be systematized as a comprehensive and coherent worldview. A "copy error" would not amount to a real and substantial error if it does cause a change in Christian systematic theology.

Originally posted by Coletti
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 ...[text shortened]... stand of the reader regarding the purpose of the text in question.

Coletti, I had a feeling you might find this topic interesting, welcome. 😉

I’m inclined to agree with you in the respect that there exist within Christianity (and without) a great lack of understanding regarding what a given scriptures purpose is. However, you seem to be suggesting with regard to the gospels that the errors in question are simply differences in perspective or style. This is clearly not the case. The differences in the accounts of Jesus’ death and subsequent resurrection range from who was there to when it happened to the number of angels present. These are not merely stylistic differences.

Further, as I’m sure you will agree the Gospels are a very special part of the Bible. The real nuts and bolts of Christianity, if you will. This is where we find some of the axial Christian doctrines such as sin, grace and atonement. It is also one of the relatively rare sections of the Bible that can be tested, to some degree. Because four different accounts of the same basic story were written we can see how they match up, thus verifying their accuracy. While the four do a remarkably good job of staying fairly consistent they do not match up perfectly…or even nearly so. What we are left with is a bit of a problem if we want to maintain this claim of inerrancy. Essentially what we must believe is that the Bible is perfect in every way…except when it is not. This, to me, is a rather unenviable position to be in.

If God set out to use people to create his perfect tool for communicating to us don’t you think it would, in fact, be perfect? Why would God want us to be confused about how many angels were at Jesus’ tomb, for instance? God does not strike me as the type of deity willing to “not sweat the small stuff”. It is, therefore, my opinion that God is far clever than we give him credit for and allowed the Bible to be truly and simply ‘inspired’ by him. This relieves him of the trouble of using imperfect tools (humans) to create a perfect document AND allows us our free will by giving us a book that can be understood in more than just one way.

This makes me very, very glad!

TheSkipper

EDIT: I should correct myself. When i said there were four different accounts of the same basic story, referring to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. In reality there are over fifty, including the Gospel of Andrew, Thomas and Peter...some of these documents still exist today. We can only hope God did not intend for them to be included in the Bible as well.

Originally posted by Coletti
Again these copy errors have amounted to very little. No substantial changes have occurred - all of the propositional truths of scripture have been maintained. And since the Bible has been copied - rather then passed on by word-of-mouth, there "copy errors" are very few.

To say an "copy error" amounts to a substantial error - one need to show more t ...[text shortened]... t to a real and substantial error if it does cause a change in Christian systematic theology.

Can I suggest you look at the history of the bible. There are 96 'standard' versions in English alone and yes, I understand they differ. Ay the early church councils one of the major discussions was over which scriptures were included. The catholic and orthodox have different bibles and the number of versions under protestantism is large.

Ok. So, with only minor deviation from the point, it seems we all agree that using the old 'You're just mindlessly following the church or your family traditions." argument is not acceptable, in decrying theism.
(At least in the automatic sense. I'm sure there are some people who do fall into that mode of thinking, and do need to be awakened.)


Thank you

Originally posted by frogstomp
The serpent

I'll give this one a yes in a way, is it really free thinking when one
attempts to deal in truth? While on the other hand, thinking of lies
or untruths are simply a wide broad path full of wonder and
imagination. If you have poison in front of you, you read the label
and you see that is poison I’ll die if I drink it, the wonder stops; however,
if you start imagining all manner of wonderful great things like living
forever should happen after you drink it instead you are free thinking,
the trouble only occurs if you drink the poison and die.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'll give this one a yes in a way, is it really free thinking when one
attempts to deal in truth? While on the other hand, thinking of lies
or untruths are simply a wide broad path full of wonder and
imagination. If you have poison in front of you, you read the label
and say that is poison I’ll die if I drink it, the wonder stops; however,
if you star ...[text shortened]... nstead you are free thinking,
the trouble only occurs if you drink the poison and die.
Kelly

Are you equating Knowledge to poison? I do not know a child in the whole world (for that's what Adam and Eve effectively were, children) who would not try the bottle if you told them not to, but did not tell them what was in it or why they could not drink it. God also created curiousity did he not?

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.

300 years prior to the first, where did you get this piece of information?
Kelly

Originally posted by Starrman
Are you equating Knowledge to poison? I do not know a child in the whole world (for that's what Adam and Eve effectively were, children) who would not try the bottle if you told them not to, but did not tell them what was in it or why they could not drink it. God also created curiousity did he not?

Nope, I am not equating knowledge to poison, I'm saying when you
leave truth you can go about your merry way free thinking all you
want, the only trouble you are going to have is when the truth being
the truth acts just like it is supposed to, not the way you think it
should.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Nope, I am not equating knowledge to poison, I'm saying when you
leave truth you can go about your merry way free thinking all you
want, the only trouble you are going to have is when the truth being
the truth acts just like it is supposed to, not the way you think it
should.
Kelly

The same can be said for christians and free thinkers alike.

Originally posted by Starrman
The same can be said for christians and free thinkers alike.

I wasn't not making a comparison of Christians to anyone, my
statement was for all men. Leaving the path of truth is harmful,
and doing so while calling one's self a "Christian" or a "freethinker"
will not mean anything, labels are just labels nothing more.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
300 years prior to the first, where did you get this piece of information?
Kelly

I think the first place I read it was in a book called "Remedial Christianity, What Every Believer Should Know about the Fatih...but Probably Doesn't" by Paul A. Laughlin. He addresses the two creation stories briefly in the first chapter.

Aside from that particular book it is relatively common knowledge among biblical historians and a quick search on the internet will reveal a wealth of information on the subject. Further, if you would like an in depth look at the history of Christianity from a more historical perspective rather than a dogmatic one I recommend "The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity" by John McManners et. al. It is exhaustive and fascinating.

Other related readings include:

"A Journey through the Hebrew Scriptures" Frank S. Frick

"Who Wrote the Bible?" Richard Elliott Friedman

TheSkipper

Originally posted by KellyJay
I wasn't not making a comparison of Christians to anyone, my
statement was for all men. Leaving the path of truth is harmful,
and doing so while calling one's self a "Christian" or a "freethinker"
will not mean anything, labels are just labels nothing more.
Kelly

I agree, eventually truth will out, but until it does our ideas of truth will remain opposed. Which is really true? We may yet find we are both on the wrong path.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
I think the first place I read it was in a book called "Remedial Christianity, What Every Believer Should Know about the Fatih...but Probably Doesn't" by Paul A. Laughlin. He addresses the two creation stories briefly in the first chapter.

Aside from that particular book it is relatively common knowledge among biblical historians and a quick search ...[text shortened]... w Scriptures" Frank S. Frick

"Who Wrote the Bible?" Richard Elliott Friedman

TheSkipper

Okay, so there are a couple of books that says so.
It must be true than, uh? What if I have seen some other books that
don't agree with your books?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, so there are a couple of books that says so.
It must be true than, uh? What if I have seen some other books that
don't agree with your books?
Kelly

Well, I was pretty darn sure this was a fairly undisputed fact but I will do more research and see what I can find out. In the mean time do you think you can get me the titles and authors of one or two of the books you mention?

I hope you are not concerned that I'm simply reading all the books written by skeptics I can find and then calling it good. All of the books I mentioned are written by serious people that are interested in truth, ot at the very least, an accurate historical account of the Bible. I have read many many books by extremists on both sides of these issues and now stick mostly to the more academic and level headed authors. As well as constant reading and studying of the Bible for myself. I'm really interested in truth, Kelly and I would not be unhappy at all if your account of the two creation stories proves the more likely. I just want historical honesty...whether it is inconvenient to my faith or not.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Well, I was pretty darn sure this was a fairly undisputed fact but I will do more research and see what I can find out. In the mean time do you think you can get me the titles and authors of one or two of the books you mention?

I hope you are not concerned that I'm simply reading all the books written by skeptics I can find and then calling it good. ...[text shortened]... . I just want historical honesty...whether it is inconvenient to my faith or not.

TheSkipper

hope you are not concerned that I'm simply reading all the books written by skeptics I can find and then calling it good.

I have a higher opinion of you than that, I'll have to spend some
time gathering book titles too. My life is a little busy now, so it
may be a day or two before I can get to it.
Kelly