What Could God do About Bible Errors?

[Purple Knight]

Hypothetically. I'm not saying the Bible has errors. I'm saying, what if people want to put lies in?

If I'm an unscrupulous monk, wanting to foist my own ideas on what I'm copying, and I just decide to lie like a dog and put down what I want to put down, what can God do about it? Can he act against me without violating my free will, which he has known compunctions against doing?

If I decide to burn originals and say I lost them, am I going to immediately suffer a heart attack or get struck by lightning before I destroy the precious scripture and corrupt it? Is my plan going to miraculously fail in some other way? Arguably the wind can blow everything away every time I try. Is that violating my free will? I mean, it's a bit like stopping the bullet every time somebody tries to shoot somebody else and it easily crosses into not allowing people the freedom to be bad, which may invalidate the choice to be good, to some degree.

Ultimately if I lie to gullible people, the only way to stop them being taken in, is by the use of force against me, right? And that's rather tactless and ham-handed; not something God would do.

But what if there's another way to stop people being taken in?

I could argue that just giving people Reason and permission to use it, is enough to defend against all possible lies. Now this is a really, really good argument, because all you people who have Reason are supposed to use it, and then you might see something wrong with people telling you to take things on faith. And you don't have to conclude that this means God doesn't exist. You are fully empowered to say it means God does exist: It means God does exist and he doesn't strike people dead who decide to lie to you, rather, he implores you to use this gift of Reason to see through it. So then, there's this one piece that doesn't fit and it's the necessity of faith.

So if you follow, then maybe anyone who has said not to use your Reason and just trust, is exactly such an unpunished liar and blasphemer God has allowed to do evil because he prefers not to interfere directly. And it's okay, because God gave you what you needed to see which puzzle piece doesn't fit.

God, yes. Faith, no.

[JehovahsWitness]

I'm asking because I would like to know what you had in mind when you referred to "more reliable and efficient options"

Must I specify or even know of more reliable and efficient options to ask critical thinking questions about the logical contradiction that inhabits the relationship between an infallible god and the fallibility of written communications?

No, but you did not ask about "the fallibility of written communications", your question challenged the notion of such a god failing to choose options you claim exist. Your response is a red herring : you did not ask or speculate as to the possibility that there might be {quote} "more reliable and efficient options" , your question implied that "more reliable and efficient options" exist and the only speculation being why they [ "more reliable and efficient options"] were not employed. This is what you wrote ....

... would it be more reasonable to ask if it logically follows that an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and infallible being would directly or indirectly employ such a fallible and unnecessary form of communication given the availability of more reliable and efficient options?

So again, your question is based on the supposed existence of "more reliable and efficient options" . Now, by injecting the word [ IF ] , the entire question would have become a supposition ie .....

" would it be more reasonable to ask if it logically follows that an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and infallible being would directly or indirectly employ such a fallible and unnecessary form of communication *IF* more reliable and efficient options existed ?

You chose not to do this and I am asking you therefore to present evidence to support your decision. May I respectfully remind you this is a debate forum and anything you write is open to the possibility of being challenged.




JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #31]

It logically follows that IF an infallible god exists, then an infallible form of communication exists for that god to utilize. Therefore, IF an infallible god exists, it logically follows that such a being would have another more reliable and efficient form of communication available for use than written communications.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #31]

It logically follows that IF an infallible god exists, then an infallible form of communication exists for that god to utilize. Therefore, IF an infallible god exists, it logically follows that such a being would have another more reliable and efficient form of communication available for use than written communications.

Thank you for rephasing and removing the implied affirmation. Of course that leaves a rather philophically vague statement void of any specifics to debate. Essentially I now have no major issue with your corrected statement, except perhaps the implied given that infalliblilty and efficiency would necessarily be the primary consideration. But that I suppose would be for another thread.

My only comment then would be that by definition an omnipotent God could logically take an imperfect and inefficient method of communication and use it (should that so be his desire) to produce perfectly reliable, infallibility efficient results. Rather like using a crooked ruler to draw a perfectly straight line. This making the methods irrelevant; that is unless omnipotent has some other meaning I am not aware of.

Been a pleasure talking to you,


JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL INERRANCY , , AUTHORSHIP/TRANSMISSION and ... RISK OF CORRUPTION

[bluegreenearth]

My only comment then would be that by definition an omnipotent God could logically take an imperfect and inefficient method of communication and use it (should that so be his desire) to produce perfectly reliable, infallibility efficient results. Rather like using a crooked ruler to draw a perfectly straight line. This making the methods irrelevant; that is unless omnipotent has some other meaning I am not aware of.

By definition, an omnipotent god has the power to create an infallible form of communication without requiring the unnecessary step of reconfiguring a fallible form of communication to make it infallible.

Nevertheless, even IF an omnipotent god exists with the intention to communicate infallibly through the use of the written word, there isn't a single demonstrable example of this process having occurred. None of the known written texts that are claimed to contain inerrant communications from an omnipotent and infallible god have succeeded in achieving the necessary outcome expected from an infallible form of communication. Therefore, it logically follows that IF an omnipotent and infallible god exists but no infallible form of written communication exists, then such a god has neither directly nor indirectly communicated anything to us in writing.

[JehovahsWitness]

My only comment then would be that by definition an omnipotent God could logically take an imperfect and inefficient method of communication and use it (should that so be his desire) to produce perfectly reliable, infallibility efficient results. Rather like using a crooked ruler to draw a perfectly straight line. This making the methods irrelevant; that is unless omnipotent has some other meaning I am not aware of.

By definition, an omnipotent god has the power to create an infallible form of communication without requiring the unnecessary step of reconfiguring a fallible form of communication to make it infallible.

Emphasis MINE

Then that merely adds the question to the equation: could it be that that an omnipotent and omniscient being might deem getting an perfect result from an imperfect method a "necessary"? The necessary of something is judged by what the ultimate goal is. IF the goal for example is to demonstrate achieving a perfect end by imperfect means, then the use of imperfection become a "necessary".

Your see how it works when we refrain from making unproven or unprovable assumtions?

... it logically follows that IF an omnipotent and infallible god exists but no infallible form of written communication exists, then such a god has neither directly nor indirectly communicated anything to us in writing.

That assumes that just because someone can do something they must want to; which is pretty ridiculous. If the goal was to use a less than perfect means to communicate with less than perfect people, then the search for perfection becomes irrelevant. Your comment remind me of the proverbial male that concludes the woman that turns him down must be a lesbian. Any assumtion that God must be limited in his dealing with humans because of his nature negates the numerous options available including that his focus is on an end by whatever means is his good pleasure perfect or imperfect.



JW

[TRANSPONDER]

Might I suggest that the problem is not the errors that crept in afterwards. Scribal omissions or repeats and the like. Also we could scrap later amendments which some Bible skip over in a really reprehensibly deceptive way. Such as the Freer logion and the addition of the disciples running to the tomb and finding the grave clothes there as in John, and this was added later to 'correct' the omission. There are many of these and Bible editors (never mind apologists) do not fall over themselves to draw attention to them. Indeed I was surprised myself to be advised that the final chapters of John are not original.

But those are also not down to God keeping his book in order. Remember he did not want to create Robots,without free will, but ones with Free Will, only to smash them up after obsolescence for not working perfectly. No, what God could have done was to make the Book halfway credible from the start. Not just shewing Moses how creation went down instead of telling the poor man that the daylight (morning and evening) were made before the sun, or that sea critters appeared before grass or that Noah was a fairy tale (he didn't tell Jesus, why should he tell Moses?) and so the poor dude scribbled all this tosh down including even events that happened after he died, and being told wrong.

Not just that, but four gospels that contradicted. Despite vehement denials by the Advocates of Orange Hats in White House, contradict they do and seriously. Some Believers at least sniffing at the Christian cafeteria say it was written by fallible men but 'inspired by God' (equivalent, as the sharper and more canny here will see, as the same as 'Natural processes - but God did it that way ). But then, if it is accepted that fallible men wrote a fallible book, what reason other than Faith is there to credit a word of it? The burden of proof falls on the Bible advocate, which is why I say: 'the burden of proof falls on the Bible critic to disprove it.

That burden of proof, I'd say, has been discharged, and now rests squarely on the shoulders of the Bible apologists. So far, all they seem to do is denial and evasion.

[bluegreenearth]

Then that merely adds the question to the equation: could it be that that an omnipotent and omniscient being might deem getting an perfect result from an imperfect method a "necessary"? The necessary of something is judged by what the ultimate goal is. IF the goal for example is to demonstrate achieving a perfect end by imperfect means, then the use of imperfection become a "necessary".

Your see how it works when we refrain from making unproven or unprovable assumtions?

That assumes that just because someone can do something they must want to; which is pretty ridiculous. If the goal was to use a less than perfect means to communicate with less than perfect people, then the search for perfection becomes irrelevant. Your comment remind me of the proverbial male that concludes the woman that turns him down must be a lesbian. Any assumption that God must be limited in his dealing with humans because of his nature negates the numerous options available including that his focus is on an end by whatever means is his good pleasure perfect or imperfect.

The claim I'm evaluating is that an omnipotent and infallible god has the ultimate goal of communicating infallibly with every human being. It is an unproven and unprovable assumption that an omnipotent and infallible god would have an additional ultimate goal of rendering an inherently fallible form of communication (e.g., written language) into an infallible form of communication. In fact, the notion describes a logical contradiction. It is not possible for written communications to be both inherently fallible and infallible simultaneously. IF the ultimate goal of an omnipotent and infallible god is to communicate infallibly, then there is no reasonable justification for that god to manifest a logical contradiction in the process of achieving the desired outcome.

IF an omnipotent and infallible god is choosing to utilize an inherently fallible form of communication that cannot be rendered infallible without manifesting a logical contradiction, then this god's ultimate goal is to necessarily communicate fallibly. IF an omnipotent and infallible god has the ultimate goal of communicating fallibly through the use of ancient texts written by humans, then this god necessarily knows that none of the intended recipients will have a reasonable justification to confidently believe or claim they've properly understood the intended message or that the written words (inerrant or not) are from an omnipotent and infallible god.

[JehovahsWitness]

Then that merely adds the question to the equation: could it be that that an omnipotent and omniscient being might deem getting an perfect result from an imperfect method a "necessary"? The necessary of something is judged by what the ultimate goal is. IF the goal for example is to demonstrate achieving a perfect end by imperfect means, then the use of imperfection become a "necessary".

Your see how it works when we refrain from making unproven or unprovable assumtions?

That assumes that just because someone can do something they must want to; which is pretty ridiculous. If the goal was to use a less than perfect means to communicate with less than perfect people, then the search for perfection becomes irrelevant. Your comment remind me of the proverbial male that concludes the woman that turns him down must be a lesbian. Any assumption that God must be limited in his dealing with humans because of his nature negates the numerous options available including that his focus is on an end by whatever means is his good pleasure perfect or imperfect.

The claim I'm evaluating is that an omnipotent and infallible god has the ultimate goal of communicating infallibly with every human being.

That's cute; everyone is entitled to their opinion. Its probably good that you are merely "evaluating" this particular unsourced claim and not making it yourself as it might be rather embarrassing to take ownership of such a dichotomous conclusion. The fact of the matter is an omnipotent and infallible being can have any goal he so wishes which means it could one of an infinite number of possible "ultimate goals" that neither you, nor I can know of.

It is an unproven and unprovable assumption that an omnipotent and infallible god would have an additional ultimate goal {snip} ....

Emphasis MINE

I'll stop you right there , why are you saying "additional" as if the one you are "evaluating" is somehow proven? My point is simple...

An omnipotent and infallible god can have any goal he so chooses and the claim that it is to "communicating infallibly with every human being" is an unproven and unprovable assumption.

We can both speculate all day as to what "ultimate goal" such an individual might have, but to say there is only one possibility is infantile and to suggest an infallibile nature means one cannot choose to communicate by faillible means is like saying a musical genius can ONLY play a Stradivarius.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

IF an omnipotent and infallible god is choosing to utilize an inherently fallible form of communication that cannot be rendered infallible without manifesting a logical contradiction, then this god's ultimate goal is to necessarily communicate fallibly.

That's one possibility...that wasnt so hard was it?

IF an omnipotent and infallible god has the ultimate goal of communicating fallibly through the use of ancient texts written by humans, then this god necessarily knows that none of the intended recipients will have a reasonable justification to confidently believe or claim they've properly understood the intended message or that the written words (inerrant or not) are from an omnipotent and infallible god.

That is debatable but perhaps better suited to a discussion on faith or divine revelation or any any number of areas to do with belief which I'm sure you have little interset in pursuing. The point you seem finally to see however is the need to opened your analysis to the possibilities (and problems) of a more wholistic, realistic and I personally feel more interesting approach.


Congratualtions,

JW

[bluegreenearth]

I'll stop you right there , why are you saying "additional" as if the one you are "evaluating" is somehow proven? My point is simple...

The secondary goal you've postulated was in addition to the primary goal of communicating infallibly in a hypothetical scenario where that is the ultimate goal. This was not meant to imply that the primary goal was proven.

We can both speculate all day as to what "ultimate goal" such an individual might have, but to say there is only one possibility is infantile and to suggest an infallibile nature means one cannot choose to communicate by faillible means is like saying a musical genius can ONLY play a Stradivarius.

I wasn't suggesting there could only be one ultimate goal but that the secondary goal you've postulated describes a logical contradiction. Written communications cannot be both inherently fallible and infallible simultaneously. Therefore, it could not be the goal of an omnipotent and infallible god to manifest a logical contradiction. As you seem to have agreed in a separate post, to avoid the logical contradiction, an infallible god could concede to communicating fallibly. However, for an infallible god to communicate fallibly by choice is for that god to infallibly communicate fallibly. Does that also describe a logical contradiction? What does it mean to infallibly communicate fallibly? Is that like saying something could be consistently inconsistent?