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.

[Data]

Apparently, you overlooked the implication of your own reasoning. Do you claim to know what the Christian god might want or what his ultimate goal was for using a fallible form of communication?

That's easy. For example, and operation of error. 2 Peter 2:6, 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12.

[Data]

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?

It's a mistake to think the Bible is directed at us rather than who it may have been directed at in some other time. Circumstances change. And the theological idea of an "omnipotent" isn't practical nor supported by scripture. It would depend on the definition. Omnivore, for example, isn't taken to the sort of extreme and impractical as the theology of omnipotent.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Data in post #61]

Thanks for contributing to the discussion, but I'm not understanding the relevance of your post. Please elaborate.

[bluegreenearth]

It's a mistake to think the Bible is directed at us rather than who it may have been directed at in some other time. Circumstances change. And the theological idea of an "omnipotent" is practical nor supported by scripture. It would depend on the definition. Omnivore, for example, isn't taken to the sort of extreme and impractical as the theology of omnipotent.

I was attempting to conduct an internal critique. My analysis wouldn't apply to your understanding of the Bible or your interpretation of what "omnipotent" means. Personally, I'm not sure if infinitely powerful is even a coherent concept.

[Data]

I was attempting to conduct an internal critique.

It doesn't work though. There's this video series I keep coming across. It seems fake to me but the effect works. Gold digger exposé. A young guy in cheap clothes pays a compliment to a "hot chick" and she tears him to pieces because he's poor. Then he gets in a ridiculously expensive car and suddenly she does a complete turnaround. She's already displayed her contempt. The obvious lesson being she's not interested in him. That's why an "omnipotent," or even a sensible God wouldn't communicate in a way which is transparent to everyone. So, break that down and even in its simplicity it's pretty impressive. When I hear the skeptic criticizing faith as being blind stupid, I just shake my head. The self-righteous puts faith in his religion (tradition/theology), his knowledge (science), his behavior, the material world, thereby rejecting God. He basically trades one for the other without knowing it. That leaves only the few who are interested in God and therefore God's purpose for mankind. The latter may be flawed but humility, if nothing else, gives him the advantage because what he really is striving for isn't any of that other nonsense.

My analysis wouldn't apply to your understanding of the Bible or your interpretation of what "omnipotent" means. Personally, I'm not sure if infinitely powerful is even a coherent concept.

It seems to me, though, that your analysis is that the omnipotent God would make sure everyone understood the Bible. Most people don't want to. The operation of error is God's way of sifting through the wheat and chaff someone mentioned earlier. (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12) The Bible wasn't written for the express purpose of providing answers to the puzzle of life, nor establishing infallible knowledge to mankind, who cannot possess it. Yet. It was written for specific purposes, to specific people, in a specific time and place far away. For us, as Peter points out, it is useful as an example. In his time Sodom and the other historical references Peter mentioned wasn't a direct and immediate threat, it was an example.

[Replying to Data in post #61]

Thanks for contributing to the discussion, but I'm not understanding the relevance of your post. Please elaborate.

A simple question; how do you understand Mark 4:10-12? Mark 4:10, Mark 4:11 and Mark 4:12

[boatsnguitars]

Apparently, you overlooked the implication of your own reasoning. Do you claim to know what the Christian god might want or what his ultimate goal was for using a fallible form of communication?

That's easy. For example, and operation of error. 2 Peter 2:6, 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12.

Ironically, both of those books are considered pseudonymous - actually written by liars who also, within those very books, "warn(s) its readers to avoid books falsely written in the name of Jesus' apostles!"
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... nians.html
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

If someone wrote this in a movie, everyone would think it's so contrived!

[Data]

Apparently, you overlooked the implication of your own reasoning. Do you claim to know what the Christian god might want or what his ultimate goal was for using a fallible form of communication?

That's easy. For example, and operation of error. 2 Peter 2:6, 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12.

Ironically, both of those books are considered pseudonymous - actually written by liars who also, within those very books, "warn(s) its readers to avoid books falsely written in the name of Jesus' apostles!"
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... nians.html
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

If someone wrote this in a movie, everyone would think it's so contrived!

Which of the 66 books in the Christian canon do you think are not pseudonymous?

[bluegreenearth]

It doesn't work though. There's this video series I keep coming across. It seems fake to me but the effect works. Gold digger exposé. A young guy in cheap clothes pays a compliment to a "hot chick" and she tears him to pieces because he's poor. Then he gets in a ridiculously expensive car and suddenly she does a complete turnaround. She's already displayed her contempt. The obvious lesson being she's not interested in him. That's why an "omnipotent," or even a sensible God wouldn't communicate in a way which is transparent to everyone. So, break that down and even in its simplicity it's pretty impressive. When I hear the skeptic criticizing faith as being blind stupid, I just shake my head. The self-righteous puts faith in his religion (tradition/theology), his knowledge (science), his behavior, the material world, thereby rejecting God. He basically trades one for the other without knowing it. That leaves only the few who are interested in God and therefore God's purpose for mankind. The latter may be flawed but humility, if nothing else, gives him the advantage because what he really is striving for isn't any of that other nonsense.

It seems to me, though, that your analysis is that the omnipotent God would make sure everyone understood the Bible. Most people don't want to. The operation of error is God's way of sifting through the wheat and chaff someone mentioned earlier. (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12) The Bible wasn't written for the express purpose of providing answers to the puzzle of life, nor establishing infallible knowledge to mankind, who cannot possess it. Yet. It was written for specific purposes, to specific people, in a specific time and place far away. For us, as Peter points out, it is useful as an example. In his time Sodom and the other historical references Peter mentioned wasn't a direct and immediate threat, it was an example.

Well, according to one of your fellow apologists, you can only guess at what an infinite god might want. So, I suppose your guess is as good any anyone else's.

[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!

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?

My only claim is to be a person of FAITH that believes in the bible. I'm confident you have little interest in discussing either but should you wish to, feel free to post a thread in the more appropriate subforum and I'll be happy to present my scriptural reasoning to you.

Theology, doctrine & Dogma
LINK : viewforum.php?f=38

... or if you would like me to tell you about the specifics of my faith based beliefs as one of Jehovahs Witnesses it might be better to ask one of the DISCUSSION forums for example

QUESTIONS FOR A GROUP
LINK : viewforum.php?f=45

As I said earlier, if you would like to discuss what is deducible from the position of a particular "mainstream" Christian theology based on observable and provable realities, you might like to appeal for someone that holds that particular view or start you own thread to see if someone of that persuasion turns up.

Hope that helps. Thank you for a most invigorating discussion.




Regards


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[Data]

Well, according to one of your fellow apologists, you can only guess at what an infinite god might want. So, I suppose your guess is as good any anyone else's.

Correct. Sort of. Your guess, my guess anyone else's guess. A guess is a guess. There are guesses and there are guesses. Ahem. Uh, BUT it isn't a pop quiz, and the Bible, being all we are afforded, is enough.