Lack of knowledge of the Bible?

[Zzyzx]

.
Lack of knowledge of the Bible?

It is not uncommon in these debates for Apologists attempting to defend the Bible to be (or claim to be) unaware of significant Bible passages, and to be enlightened by Non- or Ex-Christians. Example:

I don’t think Bible tells it is ok to beat slaves.

It does. And they can even beat their indentured servants too.

Luke 12:47-48 (OK to beat indentured servants)

Exodus 21:20-21 (Ok to beat slaves just as long as they don't die within a couple of days.

Is it rational for a person to attempt to defend the Bible when they demonstrate (or claim) to be unaware of significant, and often poignant, passages?

Does such ignorance or willful ignorance damage / destroy the credibility of the defense?

[Tcg]

.
Lack of knowledge of the Bible?

It is not uncommon in these debates for Apologists attempting to defend the Bible to be (or claim to be) unaware of significant Bible passages, and to be enlightened by Non- or Ex-Christians. Example:

I don’t think Bible tells it is ok to beat slaves.

It does. And they can even beat their indentured servants too.

Luke 12:47-48 (OK to beat indentured servants)

Exodus 21:20-21 (Ok to beat slaves just as long as they don't die within a couple of days.

Is it rational for a person to attempt to defend the Bible when they demonstrate (or claim) to be unaware of significant, and often poignant, passages?

Does such ignorance or willful ignorance damage / destroy the credibility of the defense?

I believe this does destroy credibility. In addition, all too often, when straightforward passages are presented, Bible defenders will deny that the clear meaning of the passage is what is intended. It's clear that they have concluded what the Bible teaches on limited knowledge and will reject what it clearly says if it contradicts what they wish the Bible would teach.

There may be difficult passages to interpret, such as those from Revelation. But, when it comes to the treatment of slaves, the position of women, the proper response to rape, and many other topics, the Bible and it's ugliness is very clear. Denial of these realities totally annihilate a credibility which was already on life support.


Tcg

[SallyF]

.
Lack of knowledge of the Bible?

It is not uncommon in these debates for Apologists attempting to defend the Bible to be (or claim to be) unaware of significant Bible passages, and to be enlightened by Non- or Ex-Christians. Example:

I don’t think Bible tells it is ok to beat slaves.

It does. And they can even beat their indentured servants too.

Luke 12:47-48 (OK to beat indentured servants)

Exodus 21:20-21 (Ok to beat slaves just as long as they don't die within a couple of days.

Is it rational for a person to attempt to defend the Bible when they demonstrate (or claim) to be unaware of significant, and often poignant, passages?

Does such ignorance or willful ignorance damage / destroy the credibility of the defense?

Christians don't usually admit willful ignorance ...

... but I often suspect they just try and pretend the bits they don't like aren't there ...

... and get emotional with people who point out the absurdities and impossibilities and the downright evil of their "scriptures".

Which leaves their "apologetics" in a puddle on the floor.

[OnceConvinced]

I have to admit, there were parts of the bible I glossed over as a Christian. If the bible was telling me something horrible that didn't make God look good, then it had to be a misuniderstanding on my part. I would move on and hope that I'd maybe get some good explanation for it later.

[JJ50]

A lot of the more extreme Christians appear to wear rose coloured spectacles when reading the Bible.

[benchwarmer]

A lot of the more extreme Christians appear to wear rose coloured spectacles when reading the Bible.

I would argue blinders on top of the rose colored glasses. They generally ignore the bits that make the religion look silly or outright ugly, but when push comes to shove they happily tap dance a reinterpretation of the passages they wish weren't there.

For the ex Christians in the house, I'm sure you will have noticed that the ugly/silly bits were never preached from the pulpit. I think many Christians believe they've heard the entire Bible as they sit in the pews or studied 'enough' in Bible studies. Most will have not bothered to actually sit down and read the entire thing and/or question the bits that obviously don't make sense as they are written.

Many Christians also believe they can just ignore most of the ~600 laws given in the OT, but clearly weren't paying too close attention to what Jesus is claimed to have said:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Matthew 5:17 New International Version (NIV)

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Matthew 5:18 New International Version (NIV)
18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

So, for the theists in the house, next time you are in church and see your paster/priest wearing a cotton poly blend, be sure to gather up a few more brethren and (in bold):

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18 For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,�[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.� 19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20 But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning. 21 I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.

Because:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

and check the tag because they may be breaking another one:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.

[JJ50]

I was a Christian as a child, we attended a Pentecostal church where the garbage preached from the pulpit, made me question the faith during my teenage years. By the time I reached the age of 19 in 1969 I realised that is was no longer credible and I lost it.

I have no problem with moderate Christians like my own three daughters who are not Biblical literalists, but I will challenge extreme Christians who threaten people with hell-fire if they don't get saved.

[marco]

[Replying to post 3 by SallyF]

The passage: �

Exodus 21:20-21 King James Version (KJV)

20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.


would be condemned in any civilised society. So too would be the command to murder witches. If it is argued that these old laws were acceptable in an ancient society how can it be asserted that the same pages give us instruction that our modern minds should heed? There may even be a case for declaring the biblical text
an incitement to violence, and to have unabridged bibles banned.


This applies to parts of the Koran as well - especially the notorious surah that tells a man to beat his disobedient wife. It is perhaps time we stayed firmly in the twenty first century and put aside ancient instructions.

[Willum]

It is remarkable how the athletes and other non theists know more about the Bible than its believers.
Perhaps this is why one group are Judea-Christians and the other are so enthusiastically not.
Some chime into say rape, pedophilia are part of God’s plan and a warning against future sins or punishment for the victim or the perpetrators... well I remain a gasp.


[Replying to post 8 by marco]

I think you are being enthusiastic in your assessment of modern society. I think The 1800s, 1940s and modern day Israel are excellent examples of what happens when “God� and his rules are allowed to rule a country. It’s a statement of weak humanity, not modern humanity, sadly.

[tam]

Peace to you,

.
Lack of knowledge of the Bible?

It is not uncommon in these debates for Apologists attempting to defend the Bible to be (or claim to be) unaware of significant Bible passages, and to be enlightened by Non- or Ex-Christians. Example:

I don’t think Bible tells it is ok to beat slaves.

It does. And they can even beat their indentured servants too.

Luke 12:47-48 (OK to beat indentured servants)

Exodus 21:20-21 (Ok to beat slaves just as long as they don't die within a couple of days.

Is it rational for a person to attempt to defend the Bible when they demonstrate (or claim) to be unaware of significant, and often poignant, passages?

Does such ignorance or willful ignorance damage / destroy the credibility of the defense?

If a person claims to be an expert in the bible, then sure, that ignorance (willful or otherwise) tends to damage the credibility of their claim. Mind you, this goes both ways - theist and non-theist alike.


As for the passage in question, many are also ignorant of the fact that some laws were given due to the hard hearts of the people. Such as the law on divorce - being able to send one's wife away with a certificate of divorce for any and every reason, even if you just got tired of her and don't want to support her anymore. “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Matt 19:8. It was not true from the beginning; it was an allowance made for people who would not do better.


God also makes clear what He desires here:


"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Isaiah 58:6


Of course everyone here is aware of those passage as well, right?


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy