Fundamentalists...defending the indefensible

[Elijah John]

How bout this one:

"Exodus 21:20-21
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property "

Is this verse from God or Moses?

Could it be only Moses imperfect understanding of the will of God, what HE thought God wanted?

And thus isn't this an obvious flaw in the Bible?

If not, and you STILL maintain that the Bible is infallible, how do you defend:

a) the Bible's condoning of slavery, considering other human beings to be "property"
b) the Bible permitting (if not condoning) the beating of slaves, as long as they don't "die right away"

[Willum]

How about this one, when the Egyptian beat the Jewish slave and Moses killed him...

Let's face it, I can't even SAY anything more about this without violating forum rules, yet it is a fundament, a disgusting fundament of the Old Testament.

Anyone?

[Divine Insight]

And to DI and others who hold the position that we must either consider the Bible infallible in order to consider it to be the Word of God, do you see a difference between God DICTATING the Bible and God INSPIRING the Bible?

If the former, then yes, it MUST be free of any error. If the later, it does not have to be, as the error can be attributed tp the human factor in the Divine-human partnership.

You added the above comments, after I had already replied to your post. I would like to address these additional concerns as well.

I disagree that the Bible could be viewed as merely having been "inspired" by a God.

The reason for this is that the Bible states in no uncertain terms what God is DICTATING to be his laws. The Ten Commandments are pretty strict, specially the demands about worshiping only this God, and how that should be done, etc.

These do not come across as mere suggestions. The Bible also proclaims that this God will unleash his wrath upon those who disobey his commandments and directives.

Any God who makes such demands has a responsibility (IMHO) to make it perfectly clear precisely what these demands are, and that they are coming directly from him. Not merely inspirational ideals that mere mortals get wrong more often than not.

After all, if we can't have a crystal clear notion of precisely what this God is demanding, then how in the world could we be held responsible for not obeying every letter of the law?

The mere excuse, "Oh I didn't think you wanted us to keep and beat slaves", could hardly be a valid excuse for not doing so.

There's a huge problem with a "Judgmental God" who threatens to condemn people for disobedience when you suggest that his commandments are nothing more than wishy-washy inspiration that many of the Biblical Prophets may have even gotten completely WRONG.

So, no. This religion can't afford to have muddled commandments, or directives.

You can't be holding people responsible for adhering to commandments precisely whilst at the same time proclaiming that the commandments themselves may be muddled, and incorrect.

This is a God who threatens to condemn you if you fail to obey his commandments.

It simply isn't going to work to have wishy-washy directives from a God who threatens to condemn those who disobey.

So I totally reject your proposal as being inapplicable to this type of religion with it's wrathful vengeful God.

How could you ever know whether this God is ticked off at you or not?

You simply can't have wishy-washy directives with a God who promises to condemn those who disobey.

[Divine Insight]

You've heard of Sye Ten Bruggengate?.

I saw him in a debate with Matt Dillahunty and Matt put him to shame. Bruggengate offered nothing even remotely logical or reasonable. All he did was continually claim that some imagined God exists and the supposedly everyone knows it. But other than this empty claim I didn't see anything of substance in anything he said during an hour long debate. He just kept repeating them same empty claim with nothing rational to even remotely back it up.

The bible is inerrant because Christendom itself depends on it. Therefore, it is. And, it is true because it must be, in order for God to be coherent, which God is, and must be cuz Christendom itself depends on it.

Yep, I agree. Christianity can't stand with an errant Bible, even though that very hypothesis is being put forth in this thread. As far as I can see any attempt to keep Christianity alive with an errant Bible truly is justly described by the metaphor of beating a dead horse.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 9 by Hamsaka]

I agree. The Bible must be inerrant or it totally falls apart like a house of cards.

Why?

that looks like a pretty classic false dichotomy to me. After all, is there ANY book that, if there is an error or two in it, becomes...because of that error...without worth?

Because I don't know one.

As for me, I am not a biblical inerrantist, and so am not worried about defending the bible as such, but I do have to challenge your claim, here.

WHY must the bible be inerrant...or 'fall apart like a house of cards?"

[Hamsaka]

You've heard of Sye Ten Bruggengate?.

I saw him in a debate with Matt Dillahunty and Matt put him to shame. Bruggengate offered nothing even remotely logical or reasonable. All he did was continually claim that some imagined God exists and the supposedly everyone knows it. But other than this empty claim I didn't see anything of substance in anything he said during an hour long debate. He just kept repeating them same empty claim with nothing rational to even remotely back it up.

Yep, saw the same . . . . "debate". Which it wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination. I think Dillahunty WAS ashamed of participating in such a thing.

It doesn't matter if there is any 'substance' to the presuppositionalist position. That's just it. You just accept it. You don't work with it, you don't try it out or play with applications of it. Everything comes from God, period, including debate. The Bible must be inerrant because we humans do not have the permission or capacity to determine which scriptures or tales are 'the real ones' or actual history, and which ones are metaphor, allegory, or products of the ancient tribes who wrote them. To solve that little dilemma, the only possible solution is to believe God exists and exactly as the Bible describes him, and that everything in the Bible was 'breathed' (exhaled into scribes) by God; therefore, it must necessarily be perfect.

Imperfections like Elijah John pointed out are easily explained -- he doesn't understand the scripture(s) properly. According to Bible.org, we may never understand some Biblical things, they may always look 'wrong' or in error, but that is our human limitation preventing us from understanding. Contradictions do not exist, just our confusion, and our lack of faith.

The bible is inerrant because Christendom itself depends on it. Therefore, it is. And, it is true because it must be, in order for God to be coherent, which God is, and must be cuz Christendom itself depends on it.

Yep, I agree. Christianity can't stand with an errant Bible, even though that very hypothesis is being put forth in this thread. As far as I can see any attempt to keep Christianity alive with an errant Bible truly is justly described by the metaphor of beating a dead horse.

Some sects of Christianity believe they can't. It's the same absolutist thinking that says 'one touch of the tar brush, no matter if it was your great great great grandpappy's pappy, means you aren't white."

The truth is, they ALL stand and live with an 'errant' Bible, always have and always will. What matters is what is believed.

I actually think the presuppositionalist 'inerrantists' have a point, similar to yours, but only as it applies to the 'inerrantists'. If the Bible is perfect, because God can only communicate perfect things, then why all the explaining and apologizing? That is the word of your God, every single word in there, and if your God was fine with slavery then so should his followers be, at least in theory. Men who lay with men should be stoned to death with adulterers, women should take their role models from Ruth and Naomi and Mary, otherwise God would have said differently. If everything you need is in that Bible, then for gosh sakes, just stand by it and freaking admit it instead of all this disingenuous apologetics B.S. . Whatever Mosaic laws Jesus did not explicitly 'do away with' that aren't being followed obediently are the rocks these folks will fall upon.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 9 by Hamsaka]

I agree. The Bible must be inerrant or it totally falls apart like a house of cards.

Why?

that looks like a pretty classic false dichotomy to me. After all, is there ANY book that, if there is an error or two in it, becomes...because of that error...without worth?

Because I don't know one.

As for me, I am not a biblical inerrantist, and so am not worried about defending the bible as such, but I do have to challenge your claim, here.

WHY must the bible be inerrant...or 'fall apart like a house of cards?"

The Bible only falls apart like a house of cards when the claim is made that it is the "Word of God." It is the claim that it is the Word of God that is disproved when its errors are exposed. That is, as you point out, different from the claim it has no value.

There is much human wisdom and value in the Bible, along with a great deal of nonsense . As Elijah John points out in the OP the Bible is full of fallible, human, cultural error. The defense of slavery is a prime example. The Bible clearly supports the notion that humans are property, mere chattel. The Bible is a human work, full of human wisdom and human error.

Compounding that error is the insistence of religious fundamentalists that the Bible be treated as an idol as if it were the work of a God when the obvious truth is it is an example of man's effort to find meaning and purpose in the universe; of man's effort to understand God.

[KCKID]

Besides, even Jesus condoned slavery and taught that slaves should obey their masters. So apparently Jesus himself was a Fundamentalists. Especially if you consider the jot and tittle thing.

Actually, it was Paul (Ephesians 6:5) who made that quote. I don't think Jesus mentions slavery.

Especially if you consider the jot and tittle thing.

We need to remember, perhaps, that whatever Jesus allegedly said was said before His crucifixion. Could 'the jot and the tittle thing' have perhaps only been applicable up until His crucifixion after which all of the jots and tittles were then removed?

[Divine Insight]

Besides, even Jesus condoned slavery and taught that slaves should obey their masters. So apparently Jesus himself was a Fundamentalists. Especially if you consider the jot and tittle thing.

Actually, it was Paul (Ephesians 6:5) who made that quote. I don't think Jesus mentions slavery.

I won't argue with that. You're probably right. People often have a tendency to post scriptures from Paul proclaiming that Jesus said those things. So I could be thinking of that.

Especially if you consider the jot and tittle thing.

We need to remember, perhaps, that whatever Jesus allegedly said was said before His crucifixion. Could 'the jot and the tittle thing' have perhaps only been applicable up until His crucifixion after which all of the jots and tittles were then removed?

I would take issue with this. For a couple of reasons. One is that if Jesus knew that your suggestion was going to be the case, then why even bother to bring it up? It seems to me that that would only serve to confuse his own message.

The second problem I have is with the way it is actually stated:

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Why proclaim that this will hold until heaven and earth pass if it's only going to remain in effect for a very brief time?

So I don't buy the arguments that Jesus meant for this to be just a temporary thing.

In fact, I personally don't even buy that Jesus ever even said this. The only place we see this is in Matthew. Scholars says that Matthew was writing or preaching to the fundamental Jews who were strict literalists at that time. So he probably claimed that Jesus stood by every jot and tittle of the law in an attempt to convince the Jews that Jesus wasn't changing anything.

I'm not convinced that Jesus himself even necessarily held that view at all. I see no reason to trust Matthew, to be perfectly honest about it. After all, Matthew was the only one also who claimed that saints rose from their graves and went into the Holy City to show themselves to the people there.

Why would these saints being doing this in any case? Surely these risen saints wouldn't have done this unless this God or Jesus had instructed them to do so. But why would a God have done that?

Especially considering that none of the other authors of the Gospels ever mentioned it, nor is there any independent historical record of anyone seeing these risen saints. The Jews would have been in the Holy City and we don't see any Jews proclaiming to have seen these saints.

So I highly question the claims of Matthew.

~~~~~~

Also, whenever this comes up I really feel that it's important to point out the following things.

1. This God supposedly felt that it was necessary to speak from a cloud to the disciples of Jesus to assure them that Jesus was indeed his son. So even this God apparently didn't expect even these disciples to be impressed by Jesus alone.

2. Add to this the claim of Matthew about these risen saints going into the Holy City to show themselves to the people there.

Why?

This religion claims that we are to believe in this God on pure hearsay nonsense lest we'll be condemned as "unbelievers". And this is supposed to hold 2000 years later. If we fail to believe these outrageous stories this God supposedly has valid justification to condemn us.

Yet back in those days this God was speaking from the clouds, sending Jesus to perform miracles, and even raising saints from their graves and sending them into the Holy City to show themselves to the people there.

Why did those people get so many signs, whilst we get nothing but cold-hearted condemnation for not believing in absolute absurdities.

This makes no sense at all.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 24 by dianaiad]

Because you have no way to verify that the parts you like are any more God inspire than the parts you don't.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 9 by Hamsaka]

I agree. The Bible must be inerrant or it totally falls apart like a house of cards. So in this sense I agree with fundamentalists.

Where I disagree with them is on the idea that the Bible could be said to be inerrant.

So I accept their demand that the Bible must be inerrant if it is to be held up as the word of God. But I do not accept their demand that the Bible actually is inerrant.

Inerrancy is a philosophical position, not a position one could eventually arrive at with enough evidence in hand. You've heard of Sye Ten Bruggengate?. He's the poster child for presupppositionalist apologetics. If you haven't seen his debates on YouTube, you've added 10 years to your life span, thank your lucky stars

The bible is inerrant because Christendom itself depends on it. Therefore, it is. And, it is true because it must be, in order for God to be coherent, which God is, and must be cuz Christendom itself depends on it.

Yes...I have heard of him and have had the distinct displeasure of hearing him speak, during his debates with Matt Dillahunty and AronRa. I join you in exhorting fellow forum-mites to not bother listening to those debates, except maybe the first few minutes just so one is familiar with presuppositonal apologetics.