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.

[bluegreenearth]

So ? So what !? Even IF that were true , how do you know that having a "reasonable justification for not properly understanding what the god expects of them and for doubting the divine origin of the text in the first place" was not the ultimate goal? Thus producing a perfect result?

My hyperbole is I think justified because you just keep going around in circles evidently unable or unwilling to grasp the basic principle, you (one) cannot declare anything a "failure" or an oversight without knowing what the goal is. Why is this so hard for you to admit?

I have no problem acknowledging your point but it doesn't address the issue of whether it is reasonable for anyone to expect that an omnipotent and infallible good would choose to communicate critical information through a fallible written language. Sure, it is possible for the god to have an ultimate goal of providing human beings with a reasonable justification to doubt the divine origin of a text, but is that a reasonable expectation for anyone to have about an omnipotent and infallible god?

[bluegreenearth]

Possibly depending on what you mean by "communicating infallibly". Perhaps you can provide a definition with an example so I can give you some feedback.

For me communication is "the imparting or exchanging of information". infallibility for a god would then be "the imparting or exchanging of [infallible] information. Since it is not possible for a fallible human to send back infallible information in an "exchange".... we are left with : the imparting or the transmission/conveying/ giving out/beaming out / whatever ..... of infallible information.

How that information is receive, by whom, their reaction, whether it is understood, believed or even recorded or re-transmitted does not negate that the infallibile information has been has left the initiator and been sent out. The message was infallibile, omnipotence guarantees a desired result (whatever that result might be). Everything else is gravy.

To communicate infallibly means the precise thoughts, ideas, perspectives, emotions, etc. of the communicator are transmitted to all recipients of the communication as though they were their own thoughts, ideas, perspective, emotions, etc. such that the intended message could never be misunderstood, misinterpreted, or miscommunicated. Infallible information is not the same thing as communicating infallibly.

[bluegreenearth]

What has that got to do with me or anything I have written? If you would like to debate with someone that holds "standard apologetic" may I suggest you find them. The only possible relevance your question might have to this discussion is to illustrate there are countless guesses as to what an infinite god might want , which is the very simple point I've been making from the beginning.

Exactly... you have countless guesses as to what an infinite god might want. I'll happily concede that point.

[2ndpillar2]

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.

Yeshua's parable about the "kingdom of heaven" (Mt 13:11) is based around the "enemy"/"devil" coming in the night and planting the "tare seed" (message of lawlessness) among the "good"(righteous) "wheat" seed (message). Yeshua tells the "slaves" of the "landowner" to not disturb the "tares" lest they disturb the good wheat plants. At the "end of the age", the "slaves"/angels will come and "gather" the tares into bundles and throw them into the furnace of fire (Mt 13:30 & 39-42). On the other hand, per Rev 22:18, if anyone "adds" to or "takes away" from the "words of this book" the "plagues" of this book will be added to them. Rest assured that there are additions and deletions in the NT.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Yeshua's parable about the "kingdom of heaven" (Mt 13:11) is based around the "enemy"/"devil" coming in the night and planting the "tare seed" (message of lawlessness) among the "good"(righteous) "wheat" seed (message). Yeshua tells the "slaves" of the "landowner" to not disturb the "tares" lest they disturb the good wheat plants. At the "end of the age", the "slaves"/angels will come and "gather" the tares into bundles and throw them into the furnace of fire (Mt 13:30 & 39-42). On the other hand, per Rev 22:18, if anyone "adds" to or "takes away" from the "words of this book" the "plagues" of this book will be added to them. Rest assured that there are additions and deletions in the NT.

There's 2 problem there - why does God allow the devil to pervert his book? He's beat Satan and his minions already, why give him power to mislead the people God wants to save? it's the old 'problem of evil here again. Human error - ok, Satan having a free hand, no. And if Stan has made a fine mess with the book, why would we treat it as God's word at all?

cue - personal values and preferences tell us - or the Believer - what is God's word and what isn't. Problem.



The other is - if there was no God or Satan and the book had been written by humans - this is just how it would look. Human errors about Origins, violence towards other tribes and peoples, primitive views on society, medicine, Rights and everything else. And a story about a Jewish Person doing stuff we may argue about adapted by a Romanized Pharisee to become an instrument of salvation, and the added - on Gospels reflecting his views, but paganized. Or that's what I suggest happened.

The debate is not about excuses to explain away the problems, but which explanation best fits the data - God's work or humans'. Dragging the Devil into it just makes the case of Bible - authority worse, not better.

[JehovahsWitness]

To communicate infallibly means the precise thoughts, ideas, perspectives, emotions, etc. of the communicator are transmitted to all recipients of the communication as though they were their own thoughts, ideas, perspective, emotions, etc. such that the intended message could never be misunderstood, misinterpreted, or miscommunicated. Infallible information is not the same thing as communicating infallibly.

Well that's quite a definition ... so how will you go about establishing whether your ad hoc is the desired goal of an omnipotent god ?

.... it is possible for the god to have an ultimate goal of providing human beings with a reasonable justification to doubt the divine origin of a text, but is that a reasonable expectation for anyone to have about an omnipotent and infallible god?

Reasonability cannot be based uniquely on power. In the absence of any additional information it would be impossible for any human to say if any given action is "reasonable " for an infinite god with infinite knowledge. All we can do is project our own limited and imperfect worldview and expectations on what we see around us.... which often leads to the kind of false dichotomy and dogma you have thus far presented.

[JehovahsWitness]

[There are] countless guesses as to what an infinite god might want. I'll happily concede that point.

Excellent. Well then my .... work here is done!

I presume we'll have no more of your false dichotomies that amount to "... god must desire everyone perfectly understand his message without room for any doubt or deviation and since doubt and deviation exists He cannot"


No need to thank me.



JW

[TRANSPONDER]

[There are] have countless guesses as to what an infinite god might want. I'll happily concede that point.

Excellent. Well then my .... work here is done!

I presume we'll have no more of your false dichotomies that amount to "... god must desire everyone perfectly understand his message without room for any doubt or deviation and since doubt and deviation exists He cannot"


No need to thank me.



JW

not quite, O crafty one. Tangling somebody up in a strawman and appealing to improbable undiprovables as valid argument may win you one bout, but not all of them.

In fact I recall I argued earlier that it was a reasonable expectation that someone trying to communicate with someone else would try to get their message over clear and correct, yes? It makes no sense that a god communicating the most important message ever sent, would let it get garbled or so it seems to be. How does it seem to you?

Assuming you don't want an incompetent or malicious God, what's you better theory that 'it is the work of men'? Just trying to price the debate out of the market by making God incomprehensible will, I think not help your case when I point this out.



It's been said before that a god that gave us a moral code might be expected to act by that moral code or the one given us becomes meaningless.

The same with the way we communicate. Your 'job' is far from done here.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]
Bible god most of the time sent his messages using appointed prophets.

If he wanted to correct bible errors it logically follows that he would deign to appoint a modern prophet (like Joseph Smith) and command him to restaurate the church and correct the biblical errors (Joseph Smith bible).

After all, no sane person should deny that since (allegedly Moses began to write) genesis countless changes were made throughout the times.

A great example for that is the gospel of John, of which historicists even say it originally might have been written by Cerinthus.

[bluegreenearth]

[There are] countless guesses as to what an infinite god might want. I'll happily concede that point.

Excellent. Well then my .... work here is done!

Apparently, you overlooked the implication of your own reasoning. I conceded to your point for the purpose of seeing if you will apply it consistently. Do you claim to know what the Christian god might want or what his ultimate goal was for using a fallible form of communication?