Biblical Inerrancy

[American Deist]

Many Christian denominations will have in their statements of faith something to the effect of "We believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God." However, that statement raises some issues. I'd like to cover them one at a time.

1. Which translation of the Bible are they referring to? Some Bibles are not translated as well as others, especially when you move down to dynamic or paraphrased versions. Are they referring to the Hebrew and Greek, or are they referring to English? If they are referring to English translations, then they are missing the cultural and time period idioms.

2. The Autographs, which were the original works of both the OT and the NT, have long been lost or destroyed. The OT Autographs went up in flames when Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed the temples in Jerusalem in 587 BCE. The point is, how can anyone claim that the modern Bible is inerrant when you don't have the original writings to compare to? You can't!

3. Why are there so many different translations? The answer is: copyright laws. Publishing houses have copyrights on their translations, and it is often cheaper for another company to do their own translation instead of paying royalties. Since plagiarism has to be avoided, that means words and formatting have to be different.

4. There are some Christian sects that wrote their own version of the Bible. The problem with many of those sects is that the authors (I refuse to say translators) were NOT fluent with Hebrew or Greek, and couldn't read those languages if they tried. Instead, they use the "Holy Spirit-as-guide" excuse in order to avoid being questioned about their scholarship. That does not stop theologians from pointing out the obvious errors of those translations.

The point is that biblical inerrancy is not something that can be proven. It is a belief without merit, and gets hammered into the masses so hard that many accept it as truth. Unfortunately, those people have been brainwashed by repetition.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 64 by American Deist]

I believe we do need a Deity doing certain things for us. One major thing is providing meaningfulness, rescuing from the evil of evils: that the past fades, that we achieve a value, only to lose it. If we can pass noting of our lives into God, then life is ultimately meaningless. Another is bringing in relevant novelty. God and God alone is the sole source of all novelty, as novelty demands access to a transcendental imagination outside the box. Another is providing us with companionship and emotional support. We need a fellow sufferer, someone who understands and empathizes with us. We have a basic need and that is to be needed by a significant other. If God is truly indifferent, if we contribute nothing to God, then this basic need is not met.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 71 by hoghead1]

I believe we do need a Deity doing certain things for us.

I have no need of that hypothesis.


____________

Question:

• 
  
  Does your need create reality?
  
  

____________

[American Deist]

Another is providing us with companionship and emotional support. We need a fellow sufferer, someone who understands and empathizes with us. We have a basic need and that is to be needed by a significant other.

I call that marriage.

[Zzyzx]

.

I believe we do need a Deity doing certain things for us.

Each person is entitled to believe whatever they like. However, 'beliefs' are not evidence of truth in reasoned debate.

One major thing is providing meaningfulness,

Many of us have no need for a 'deity' to do anything for us. Perhaps that need distinguishes those inclined toward theism from those not so inclined.

rescuing from the evil of evils: that the past fades,

Again, many of us have no need to be 'rescued from the evil of evils'. Condolences to those who consider themselves to be in that position.

that we achieve a value, only to lose it.

Life need not be static. One can appreciate value in one achievement and then go on to others. A high school diploma is an achievement. Shall we savor it indefinitely or might we go on to another 'plateau' level with college, then another with graduate degrees -- then maybe a career -- then eventually retirement?

Each of the above has value in its appropriate time.

If we can pass noting of our lives into God, then life is ultimately meaningless.

I STRONGLY disagree. No gods are necessary to provide meaning to life.

Many Theists seem fixated upon deriving their life meaning from god beliefs -- as though that applied to everyone. Is that not a bit naive?

What, exactly, is 'ultimately meaningless' as you use that term?

Another is bringing in relevant novelty. God and God alone is the sole source of all novelty, as novelty demands access to a transcendental imagination outside the box.

Baloney. Novelty is defined as: the quality of being new, original, or unusual. Many of us are quite capable of finding / experiencing such things without supernatural assistance.

Perhaps those who worship gods feel unqualified to experience the 'new, original, or unusual' without assistance from their gods; however, others are not bound by that limitation.

Another is providing us with companionship and emotional support.

Perhaps Theists (or some Theists) NEED supernatural 'companionship and emotional support'. Unfortunately, they may tend to think that everyone has similar needs.

Many Non-Theists are capable of finding 'companionship and emotional support' (if needed) from non-supernatural sources.

We need a fellow sufferer, someone who understands and empathizes with us.

Condolences to those who suffer. May they find someone (real or imaginary) who understands and empathizes with them. Not all are or choose to be sufferers.

We have a basic need and that is to be needed by a significant other.

We do?

Is it wise to make such a sweeping blanket statement when there is ample real-world evidence that does not apply to everyone?

I, for one among many, have no need, want, wish, desire to 'be needed by a significant other'.

Perhaps those who have such need cannot imagine that others do not.

Perhaps also, those who have such need can find satisfaction or comfort with an imaginary 'significant other' if a real one is not available.

If God is truly indifferent, if we contribute nothing to God, then this basic need is not met.

Interesting hypothesis. Does it actually apply to the real world?

[Blastcat]

Another is providing us with companionship and emotional support. We need a fellow sufferer, someone who understands and empathizes with us. We have a basic need and that is to be needed by a significant other.

I call that marriage.

Need doesn't drive reality.
And if we have a need for a relationship, you are quite right.
We can fulfill that need with something REAL.

We can perhaps, marry.

What hoghead1 is talking about is his need for a relationship with something supernatural, and perhaps, a "God".

He uses the word "we" as if it could mean all people.. but of course it doesn't.

Not everyone needs a relationship with gods.

I suppose he means the people who have that need.
As an agnostic, an atheist and a skeptic, of course, I have no need of his hypothesis.

Making something us just because one has a need sounds to me like magical thinking.

It must be REAL because he has a need?... oh really?
He might have a different definition for the word "real", if that's the case.

[American Deist]

[Replying to post 75 by Blastcat]

I know what he was getting at. I was just throwing a little humor into the discussion.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 75 by Blastcat]

I know what he was getting at. I was just throwing a little humor into the discussion.

I know what you were getting at.. I was just throwing some critical thinking into the discussion.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 73 by American Deist]

Yes, but not everyone is married or has a supportive marriage.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 74 by Zzyzx]

I don't think you quite grasped my point about the meaningfulness of life. Mu argument is that the temporal process is a series of momentary values, each of which quickly disappears and becomes nothing. One instant, you have this value, the next you don't. And this goes on forever. "Becoming" is a constant change from this value to that value to another. And it certainly seems to me this process is utterly absurd if all it is dong is producing values only to cast them on the rubbish heap as soon as they happen. You can, of course, argue that human memory represents an accumulation of value. But the problem is that our memory is very fragile, preserves very little of the past. So this accumulation is not at all impressive, gfants no lasting significance. What is the point of doing anything if it is all going to go u in smoke soon enough anyway? All this "becoming" makes no sense unless there is some ultimate accumulation of value.

I don't think self-interest theory of motivation works at all. We are ultimately trying to contribute the value of the present moment to a future beyond ourselves. Even if you think of your retirement, you are trying to contribute to another person, the different person you will be when you retire. (I view egotism and altruism as one, not tow exclusive realities.) But there has to be some ultimate recipient of this contribution. And to me, that recipient is God, for only God can preserve and enjoy it all. Values are not lost, as they contribute to the value of God. Again, if values are created and then lost, I see no point in creation.

I see God as essential to explain genuine novelty, because all genuine novelty means the introduction of something coming in from outside the box, so to speak, something entering from a transcendental imagination. If all we have to go on is the world, and world alone,. then there would be no novelty. Everything would simply be the same old wine, only in new bottles, just a rearrangement of the past, nothing truly original. But each moment of experience is something original, and that means there is a transcendental imagination at work.

I think the reason why we have religions and always will is that people seek companionship and unity with the truly transcendent. An indifferent God can offer no such companionship. Viewing the universe as run by blind mechanical forces certainly won't do either. The only real solution is a truly sensitive, responsive, loving God.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 79 by hoghead1]



[center]

To the person who yearns for the afterlife, life has very little meaning[/center]

Mu argument is that the temporal process is a series of momentary values, each of which quickly disappears and becomes nothing.

There are some who have a strange economic and overly pessimistic view of the "temporal process".

When we die, and presumably all the "temporal processes are ended, EVERYTHING that was associated with that process quickly disappears and becomes nothing.

Not just the "monetary values".


Some people like to reduce our lives to "temporal processes" and "monetary values".

Others appreciate and value the life that they have.