brunumb wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 9:15 am
When errancy leads to dispute and people bickering over the word of God, isn't that damaging and counterproductive? If God truly wants everyone to join the club and the bible is the only draw-card, then you would expect it to be the best advocate possible. As it is now, the Bible gives too much cause to doubt its legitimacy. Surely that's not a good thing.
Given human limitations of writing any book, it's probably the best that could be hoped for. But what is the source of the bickering? I would submit the majority is not the Bible per se, but all the baggage that surrounds it. I lead a children's Bible memorization program that has around 40 kids in it. And even they can grasp the basic message of the Bible. It does not require any advanced education to understand the fundamental points of it. Yes, as you explore it more, it gets quite complex. But, it's not necessary to grasp it or understand it all to have a relationship with God.
Yes, God desires for none to perish, but it's a two way street. People have to also seek him with a humble heart and honor and study the word.
Isa 66:2 But to this man I will look, even to him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at my word.
I would say the Bible is not the only draw card. According to Jesus, the main draw card to Christianity should be the love expressed by Christians. Unfortunately, I acknowledge Christians as a whole has fallen short in this area.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:47 pm
But Your post is a fine example of strawmanning. You persist in the false argument that I'm trying to make a case out of little errors that don't in themselves mean that God didn't care whether the Book He relied on to tell us about Him and His Plan for us was convincingly coherent or not, but are just slips of memory or copying that don't matter.
The examples you've presented has lead me to believe that all information needs to be factually correct. But I'll retract my statement.
The nativities (as I've said before) being the touchstone case.
I consider this is such a trivial example that even if we throw out those accounts, I fail to see how it impacts any significant (or even insignificant) doctrine. Would this not be an example of your requirement that all accounts be factually correct?
You may recall the posting about Two Jerichoes. That is actually a middling bad one. One or two angels at the tomb is fairly easily dismissed. Sinking Simon not related by any others (at least not in connection with walking on water), takes more adroit expkanation. The tomb - guard, the walking dead, the lack of an anointing in Luke , are all more or less serious discrepancies or contradictions. The thing about the 'touchstone' cases are that they prove (to any reasonable person) conflicting stories that are mutually destructive.
I would disagree that they are serious in that they do not affect any core doctrine.
Diagoras wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:54 pm
We still haven't heard a reasonable argument for why God communicating directly with multiple people (not 'everyone') today is
not a better method than trusting to an old collection of writings.
A written record is accessible by everyone, whereas direct communication is limited to a few. So, it's a better method since it can reach more people.
When a claim about the world or an event is made in the Bible that can be easily falsified, how trustworthy does that make the Bible?
At a minimum, it takes the first step in making claims that are falsifiable, unlike other religious texts that makes unfalsifiable claims. The authors of the Bible are sticking their neck out with claims that could be verified. If I were to write anything to try to fool others, I would not take such a risk.
As for testing these claims whether they are true or not would require more investigation. For me, a global flood is an example where it needed testing in its validity. This is one whopper of a claim and something that is objectively testable.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 2:53 amAnd I hardly need labour that Genesis as a record of factual events ought to have been relegated to the Myth
Depends on what you mean by myth. Do you mean a story that is 0% true, 100% true, or somewhere in between? I believe most myths are rooted in some historical event, person, thing. Yes, embellishments are added to it over time and could then take on an outlandish tale. A trivial example is Santa Claus. Is there some fat person in a red suit flying around in a sleigh on Christmas eve and jumping down chimneys? But, there was a
St Nicholas which is at the root of the Santa myth. People joke about a imaginary unicorn, but there could have even been an actual unicorn like animal that existed before.
Pilate did not look much like the Pilate of History - a very tough and ruthless guy.
History is not very objective, no matter what the source. One sides hero is another sides enemy. Neither will paint an objective picture.
I might mention that the two supposed sepulchres in Jerusalem are likely old Hasmonean tombs and were vacated in Jesus' time,
I highly doubt many of the tourist sites are authentic.