Biblical Inerrancy

[American Deist]

Many Christian denominations will have in their statements of faith something to the effect of "We believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God." However, that statement raises some issues. I'd like to cover them one at a time.

1. Which translation of the Bible are they referring to? Some Bibles are not translated as well as others, especially when you move down to dynamic or paraphrased versions. Are they referring to the Hebrew and Greek, or are they referring to English? If they are referring to English translations, then they are missing the cultural and time period idioms.

2. The Autographs, which were the original works of both the OT and the NT, have long been lost or destroyed. The OT Autographs went up in flames when Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed the temples in Jerusalem in 587 BCE. The point is, how can anyone claim that the modern Bible is inerrant when you don't have the original writings to compare to? You can't!

3. Why are there so many different translations? The answer is: copyright laws. Publishing houses have copyrights on their translations, and it is often cheaper for another company to do their own translation instead of paying royalties. Since plagiarism has to be avoided, that means words and formatting have to be different.

4. There are some Christian sects that wrote their own version of the Bible. The problem with many of those sects is that the authors (I refuse to say translators) were NOT fluent with Hebrew or Greek, and couldn't read those languages if they tried. Instead, they use the "Holy Spirit-as-guide" excuse in order to avoid being questioned about their scholarship. That does not stop theologians from pointing out the obvious errors of those translations.

The point is that biblical inerrancy is not something that can be proven. It is a belief without merit, and gets hammered into the masses so hard that many accept it as truth. Unfortunately, those people have been brainwashed by repetition.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 15 by hoghead1]




[center]
A smorgasbord of god parts[/center]

Also, the question remains as to what should be canon and what not.

The clever theologian has a lot to choose from in order to create a quite original God belief.


____________

Question:

• 
  
  Isn't theology simply making things up?
  
  

____________

[American Deist]

The creative force that caused the big bang is known as quantum mechanics.

Meh, that has yet to be proven. The red shift in light from stars is what led to the Big Bang theory in the first place. The universe is observed as expanding, and when that course is reversed over billions of years you get a singular point. What science has yet to explain is WHY that singular point went bang.

Deism just says "God caused it" and leaves it at that. If science proves something later on to the contrary, so be it.

[American Deist]

I don't want to appear obtuse, but what IS that force?

But try as I might, I never get a DESCRIPTION of that "force". It seems purely speculative to me.

The thing about deists is that we don't claim to know anything about God, other than It exists, and the belief in that existence comes from our personal observations of nature and the cosmos. We see design, not randomness. That's it.

Unlike revealed religions, we don't make up stories about God being humanesque, sharing our emotions or being involved in our lives. So while I may say that I believe the creative force was God, I can't define what God is, as I don't know and would be lying if I started giving descriptions. For all we know, God could be incorporeal and just some type of intelligent energy.

The flip side is that science can't explain why the Big went Bang, either.

We can observe how gravity IS a force that permeates the universe, and so on.. these physical forces.. but I don't think that's what you mean, right?

No, I am not talking about the laws of nature. There are other things that we know exist but we can't see them, such as love, the wind, intelligence, etc. We believe in those things because we experience them without seeing them. God is the same way.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 22 by American Deist]



[center]
God caused it, next question[/center]

The creative force that caused the big bang is known as quantum mechanics.

Meh, that has yet to be proven.

He might have added "as far as I know", or something like that.
What force are you talking about?

Deism just says "God caused it" and leaves it at that.

How is that any kind of an explanation?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

The creative force that caused the big bang is known as quantum mechanics.

Meh, that has yet to be proven. The red shift in light from stars is what led to the Big Bang theory in the first place. The universe is observed as expanding, and when that course is reversed over billions of years you get a singular point. What science has yet to explain is WHY that singular point went bang.

Deism just says "God caused it" and leaves it at that. If science proves something later on to the contrary, so be it.

Quantum mechanics has yet to be proven in much the same way that evolution has yet to be proven. Which is to say, believers simply choose to deny that these things are true. But you see, evolution is the basis of modern biology. It's impossible to teach modern biology without a thorough understanding of evolution and natural selection.

And if quantum mechanics has yet to be proven, then all of modern technology has yet to be proven. This conversation, conducted as it is entirely by computer, is unproven. Because computers and ALL of modern technology have been conceived, constructed and operate just as designed based on our current proven understanding of quantum mechanics. If quantum mechanics is not true, we are in the embarrassing position of not understanding why any of our technology works at all.

As you indicate, the concept of a singularity is derived from the observation that the universe is expanding. Run in reverse, this observed expansion suggests that at one time everything was all in one place. A theoretical state physicists call the singularity. At the theoretical singularity everything has been merged into one thing, hence the term singularity. At the singularity there would be no space, and no time. There would be no up, no down, no side to side, no front or back. There would be absolutely no variation at all. It would be essentially a state of NOTHING.

There are several problems with this construct however. One, that such a state is entirely outside of all modern concepts of physical law. Another is that a condition at which time has stopped completely should be unchanging eternally. And, such a condition has never come close to being proven. Which quite reasonably gives rise to the possibly that such a state is impossible and does not in fact occur. And this would mean that the big bang occurred at a point of gravitational collapse prior to achieving the state of a singularity. Just as quantum mechanics suggests that it would.

These questions are not even close to being settled yet. So it makes no sense for ANYONE to continue declaring the questions to be settled. That is not how science works. Making declarations of final solutions to the questions of existence is how religion works.

[American Deist]

[Replying to post 25 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I believe in evolution so... The evidence is all around us.

But we are talking about what caused the Big Bang. Science can't answer that question at this time. Deists attribute it to God, and the BB being the start of creation, complete with evolution, natural laws, etc.

Deists do not follow any holy book, so we are not talking about Genesis styled creation.

[American Deist]

How is that any kind of an explanation?

The kind that stands until proven otherwise.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 25 by Tired of the Nonsense]




[center]Creationist facts and reasoning = BOTH FALSE[/center]

Quantum mechanics has yet to be proven in much the same way that evolution has yet to be proven. Which is to say, believers simply choose to deny that these things are true. But you see, evolution is the basis of modern biology. It's impossible to teach modern biology without a thorough understanding of evolution and natural selection.

This is an excellent point.

At least some creationists simply DENY that there are any observable facts.
Some will say that there are facts, but evolution is ONLY a theory.

But of course, in science we all know that a "theory" is anything BUT "only".
A good theory makes predictions.

We can TEST for that.
We DO test for it.

The ONLY reason that the theory of evolution stands after 150 years is that it has passed all the tests. People who call evolution "just a theory" literally do not know what they are talking about.

And I say that's due to the FACT that most creationists will rely on creationist propaganda instead of actual scientific facts.

To this outsider, creationists have been duped.

1. They are duped about the facts.
2. They are duped into using fallacious reasoning.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

The creative force that caused the big bang is known as quantum mechanics.

Meh, that has yet to be proven. The red shift in light from stars is what led to the Big Bang theory in the first place. The universe is observed as expanding, and when that course is reversed over billions of years you get a singular point. What science has yet to explain is WHY that singular point went bang.

Deism just says "God caused it" and leaves it at that. If science proves something later on to the contrary, so be it.

The big bang represents the birth and beginning of the universe just as your birth represents the birth and beginning of you. But your birth was simply a response to conditions which preceded you. The material that would become you existed with your parents before your conception, and every quantum bit that would become you when you were a newborn, as well as today, has existed AT LEAST for fourteen billion years or so. Every quantum bit that is you now will go on to become something else when you die. There is absolutely no reason to not to suppose that the big bang is simply a response to conditions which preceded it.

Science has proved evolution to the extent that "proof" is a valid concept. Believers on the other hand simply eternally declare that evolution is "unproven." In fact, believers have decided that evolution is not only a failed theory, but that even scientists have given up on it. Which is a genuine shock to that thousands of scientists which are currently doing research on the nature of evolution. Believers of course LIVE in a world of make believe and denial of reality.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 25 by Tired of the Nonsense]




[center]Creationist facts and reasoning = BOTH FALSE[/center]

Quantum mechanics has yet to be proven in much the same way that evolution has yet to be proven. Which is to say, believers simply choose to deny that these things are true. But you see, evolution is the basis of modern biology. It's impossible to teach modern biology without a thorough understanding of evolution and natural selection.

This is an excellent point.

At least some creationists simply DENY that there are any observable facts.
Some will say that there are facts, but evolution is ONLY a theory.

But of course, in science we all know that a "theory" is anything BUT "only".
A good theory makes predictions.

We can TEST for that.
We DO test for it.

The ONLY reason that the theory of evolution stands after 150 years is that it has passed all the tests. People who call evolution "just a theory" literally do not know what they are talking about.

And I say that's due to the FACT that most creationists will rely on creationist propaganda instead of actual scientific facts.

To this outsider, creationists have been duped.

1. They are duped about the facts.
2. They are duped into using fallacious reasoning.

Being unable to disprove evolution, largely because the overwhelming majority of believers are simply too poorly educated in the principles of evolution to make a cogent scientific objection, they have simply turned to the expedient of denying that it's true.