Biblical Inerrancy

Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
edited August 5 in Purgatory
Link to the thread on the old Ship

Feel free to continue use of this, or set up a new thread re a sub-topic on inerrancy.
«13456715

Comments

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    @MPaul

    That's your theodicy is it?

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Theidiocy, you mean. If the Bible is innerant then you worship a psychotic bastard. Pretty simple.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Superb wordplay. I hate you.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    @MPaul

    That's your theodicy is it?
    Hi Martin 54 and compliments of the season.

    Yes, I believe scripture is, in Chuck Missler’s phrase, ‘an integrated message system from outside our time domain.’ I think that the words of course are human words..that what is written in the 66 books is not woodenly dictated and the 44 authors not mere channels. ( I said mere) but that they are inspired and unique and that 2 Tim 3:16 is true.

    If that causes you to chuckle so be it. One thing though, you probably cannot understand text you have prejudged.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    I used to justify the murder of rape victims just like you. We will do anything, believe anything to support our team. It's not your fault. It's how natural selection has wired the bee in us monkeys. And thank you and a Happy New Year to you too MPaul.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I used to justify the murder of rape victims just like you. We will do anything, believe anything to support our team. It's not your fault. It's how natural selection has wired the bee in us monkeys. And thank you and a Happy New Year to you too MPaul.
    This is nonsense Martin 54. The scriptures need no support from the likes of us. Like all socialists you have predicated a conclusion on the basis of preconceived assumptions. You have assumed a non supernaturalist premise and judged superficially on the basis of the current zeitgeist, Darwinism and political correctness. My challenge to you is to reread with an open mind. Your Armstrongism background and your post-modern baggage are a double blindfold. The truth is always hidden from the sceptic.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    It is pure science. Your hard wired blind loyalty to your team. It's as old as multicellularity at least.
  • @MPaul - my problem with a literal reading of the Bible is that so much else is telling us that the literal interpretation is wrong. Genesis 1 is a fantastic story as to how the world arose, but scientifically things are created in the wrong order. It is also contradicted in some ways by the second creation story in Genesis. (It's also arguable that the use of the word dominion has led to a failure of stewardship.)

    I have told this story on the Ship before, but when I was leading Toddler Church and following the Old Testament in the autumn term, I found I became more and more reluctant to tell the usual Biblical stories told to young children as I went back and read them in context before leading the session. So my first year I blithely told the stories from the children's Bible box sets:
    • Noah's Ark - which sounds fine, until you think slightly further into the wiping out of everything not in the Ark, not helped by an illustration in my daughter's children's Bible of the Ark sailing in choppy seas, surrounded by drowning people;
    • Joshua and the battle of Jericho - followed by genocide of the local tribes;
    • David and Goliath - followed by genocide of the local tribes (and there's much recent discussion as to why David was the aggressor here - see recent threads on the Ship).
    • Gideon's fleece - followed by genocide of local tribes.

    I could continue listing the stories I stopped telling*, but what concerned me was how many were followed by stories of genocide, murdering the tribes around. Now I've heard the argument that God had to do this to keep his chosen tribes pure and following him and these pagans had to be wiped out to allow God to get his message across, but that reads as a justification of the tribes of Israel.

    * There are other Old Testament stories that I did continue to use in later years: the Creation story, Adam and Eve and the serpent, Jacob and Esau; Joseph and his brothers, Jacob's ladder, but those stories allowed me to use them to teach things I wanted to teach. Also when chatting to the parents afterwards, who were often not from a church background, I could talk about the stories in more depth.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    Yes, I believe scripture is, in Chuck Missler’s phrase, ‘an integrated message system from outside our time domain.’

    What's a "time domain"? It sounds mostly like "a sciencey phrase I'll use to sound impressive". If it means that the Protestant Bible predates the lifespans of anyone having this conversation that's true enough, but "time domain" seems an awkward and confusing way of expressing this. It also seems an unremarkable observation to make, since the Iliad and Shakespeare's sonnets also come from "outside our time domain" under that definition. If you mean something else, could you expand on what you do mean?

    For that matter, what's "an integrated message system"? I get that "an integrated message" most likely means a coherent and non-contradictory message, but in what way is the Protestant Bible a "system"?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I used to justify the murder of rape victims just like you. We will do anything, believe anything to support our team. It's not your fault. It's how natural selection has wired the bee in us monkeys. And thank you and a Happy New Year to you too MPaul.
    This is nonsense Martin 54. The scriptures need no support from the likes of us. Like all socialists you have predicated a conclusion on the basis of preconceived assumptions. You have assumed a non supernaturalist premise and judged superficially on the basis of the current zeitgeist, Darwinism and political correctness. My challenge to you is to reread with an open mind. Your Armstrongism background and your post-modern baggage are a double blindfold. The truth is always hidden from the sceptic.

    You are the greatest sceptic I know by that criterion.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Now I've heard the argument that God had to do this to keep his chosen tribes pure and following him and these pagans had to be wiped out to allow God to get his message across, but that reads as a justification of the tribes of Israel.
    And it is a bit weird that a god who can part seas on command and speak from burning bushes and, fuck, speak directly to people can fail to convince every freaking person on the planet. But has to have is cronies murder everyone else.
    Especially when, from a Christian perspective, all other gods are made up figments. All other gods' manifestations are random shite attributed by deluded people. And the real, Christian God can't just say "hello"?
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I used to justify the murder of rape victims just like you. We will do anything, believe anything to support our team. It's not your fault. It's how natural selection has wired the bee in us monkeys. And thank you and a Happy New Year to you too MPaul.
    This is nonsense Martin 54. The scriptures need no support from the likes of us. Like all socialists you have predicated a conclusion on the basis of preconceived assumptions. You have assumed a non supernaturalist premise and judged superficially on the basis of the current zeitgeist, Darwinism and political correctness. My challenge to you is to reread with an open mind. Your Armstrongism background and your post-modern baggage are a double blindfold. The truth is always hidden from the sceptic.

    You are the greatest sceptic I know by that criterion.
    Sick burn, bruv.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    @MPaul - my problem with a literal reading of the Bible is that so much else is telling us that the literal interpretation is wrong. Genesis 1 is a fantastic story as to how the world arose, but scientifically things are created in the wrong order. It is also contradicted in some ways by the second creation story in Genesis. (It's also arguable that the use of the word dominion has led to a failure of stewardship.)

    I have told this story on the Ship before, but when I was leading Toddler Church and following the Old Testament in the autumn term, I found I became more and more reluctant to tell the usual Biblical stories told to young children as I went back and read them in context before leading the session. So my first year I blithely told the stories from the children's Bible box sets:
    • Noah's Ark - which sounds fine, until you think slightly further into the wiping out of everything not in the Ark, not helped by an illustration in my daughter's children's Bible of the Ark sailing in choppy seas, surrounded by drowning people;
    • Joshua and the battle of Jericho - followed by genocide of the local tribes;
    • David and Goliath - followed by genocide of the local tribes (and there's much recent discussion as to why David was the aggressor here - see recent threads on the Ship).
    • Gideon's fleece - followed by genocide of local tribes.

    I could continue listing the stories I stopped telling*, but what concerned me was how many were followed by stories of genocide, murdering the tribes around. Now I've heard the argument that God had to do this to keep his chosen tribes pure and following him and these pagans had to be wiped out to allow God to get his message across, but that reads as a justification of the tribes of Israel.

    * There are other Old Testament stories that I did continue to use in later years: the Creation story, Adam and Eve and the serpent, Jacob and Esau; Joseph and his brothers, Jacob's ladder, but those stories allowed me to use them to teach things I wanted to teach. Also when chatting to the parents afterwards, who were often not from a church background, I could talk about the stories in more depth.
    *
    I appreciate the tone of your post and your attempt to explain the liberal view. I do understand it but I do not buy into it. The bias is betrayed by the words ‘genocide’ and ‘wrong.’ Your post illustrates my former point which is that you cannot understand scripture if you see it in the light of political baggage.

    It cannot be a source of truth if you place your sense of ‘right’ above it, if you assume for instance, Paul is a Misogynist or that Joshua committed genocide (as in the sense that Hitler did) or that Noah ruthlessly left screaming people to drown, you cannot ever see it as God’s word because God cannot then be good.

    Yet God, by biblical definition IS always good. That leaves us with the conclusion that WE in our assessment of his actions are mistaken,wrong,or flawed. If we refuse to take off the spectacles of our ‘right’ judgement, then we are left with an interpretive stance that picks out the bits we want like the Good Samaritan story. We have to cherry pick rather than see it as a whole so whole swathes of scripture are ‘justifiably’ ignored. That is a stance that is a dead end in my view.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    @MPaul - my problem with a literal reading of the Bible is that so much else is telling us that the literal interpretation is wrong. Genesis 1 is a fantastic story as to how the world arose, but scientifically things are created in the wrong order. It is also contradicted in some ways by the second creation story in Genesis. (It's also arguable that the use of the word dominion has led to a failure of stewardship.)

    I have told this story on the Ship before, but when I was leading Toddler Church and following the Old Testament in the autumn term, I found I became more and more reluctant to tell the usual Biblical stories told to young children as I went back and read them in context before leading the session. So my first year I blithely told the stories from the children's Bible box sets:
    • Noah's Ark - which sounds fine, until you think slightly further into the wiping out of everything not in the Ark, not helped by an illustration in my daughter's children's Bible of the Ark sailing in choppy seas, surrounded by drowning people;
    • Joshua and the battle of Jericho - followed by genocide of the local tribes;
    • David and Goliath - followed by genocide of the local tribes (and there's much recent discussion as to why David was the aggressor here - see recent threads on the Ship).
    • Gideon's fleece - followed by genocide of local tribes.

    I could continue listing the stories I stopped telling*, but what concerned me was how many were followed by stories of genocide, murdering the tribes around. Now I've heard the argument that God had to do this to keep his chosen tribes pure and following him and these pagans had to be wiped out to allow God to get his message across, but that reads as a justification of the tribes of Israel.

    * There are other Old Testament stories that I did continue to use in later years: the Creation story, Adam and Eve and the serpent, Jacob and Esau; Joseph and his brothers, Jacob's ladder, but those stories allowed me to use them to teach things I wanted to teach. Also when chatting to the parents afterwards, who were often not from a church background, I could talk about the stories in more depth.
    *
    I appreciate the tone of your post and your attempt to explain the liberal view. I do understand it but I do not buy into it. The bias is betrayed by the words ‘genocide’ and ‘wrong.’ Your post illustrates my former point which is that you cannot understand scripture if you see it in the light of political baggage.

    It cannot be a source of truth if you place your sense of ‘right’ above it, if you assume for instance, Paul is a Misogynist or that Joshua committed genocide (as in the sense that Hitler did) or that Noah ruthlessly left screaming people to drown, you cannot ever see it as God’s word because God cannot then be good.

    Yet God, by biblical definition IS always good. That leaves us with the conclusion that WE in our assessment of his actions are mistaken,wrong,or flawed. If we refuse to take off the spectacles of our ‘right’ judgement, then we are left with an interpretive stance that picks out the bits we want like the Good Samaritan story. We have to cherry pick rather than see it as a whole so whole swathes of scripture are ‘justifiably’ ignored. That is a stance that is a dead end in my view.
    Dude, that logic is more twisted than a pretzel made from a Curly Wurly.

  • But @MPaul, I don't see that as being God being wrong, but the interpretation of God being through the eyes of the people of those cultures where the only way to survive as a tribe was to wipe out the competition. Where taking prisoners, when the tribe was at subsistence level, was not possible without taking the tribe down too.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    @MPaul - my problem with a literal reading of the Bible is that so much else is telling us that the literal interpretation is wrong. Genesis 1 is a fantastic story as to how the world arose, but scientifically things are created in the wrong order. It is also contradicted in some ways by the second creation story in Genesis. (It's also arguable that the use of the word dominion has led to a failure of stewardship.)

    I have told this story on the Ship before, but when I was leading Toddler Church and following the Old Testament in the autumn term, I found I became more and more reluctant to tell the usual Biblical stories told to young children as I went back and read them in context before leading the session. So my first year I blithely told the stories from the children's Bible box sets:
    • Noah's Ark - which sounds fine, until you think slightly further into the wiping out of everything not in the Ark, not helped by an illustration in my daughter's children's Bible of the Ark sailing in choppy seas, surrounded by drowning people;
    • Joshua and the battle of Jericho - followed by genocide of the local tribes;
    • David and Goliath - followed by genocide of the local tribes (and there's much recent discussion as to why David was the aggressor here - see recent threads on the Ship).
    • Gideon's fleece - followed by genocide of local tribes.

    I could continue listing the stories I stopped telling*, but what concerned me was how many were followed by stories of genocide, murdering the tribes around. Now I've heard the argument that God had to do this to keep his chosen tribes pure and following him and these pagans had to be wiped out to allow God to get his message across, but that reads as a justification of the tribes of Israel.

    * There are other Old Testament stories that I did continue to use in later years: the Creation story, Adam and Eve and the serpent, Jacob and Esau; Joseph and his brothers, Jacob's ladder, but those stories allowed me to use them to teach things I wanted to teach. Also when chatting to the parents afterwards, who were often not from a church background, I could talk about the stories in more depth.
    *
    I appreciate the tone of your post and your attempt to explain the liberal view. I do understand it but I do not buy into it. The bias is betrayed by the words ‘genocide’ and ‘wrong.’ Your post illustrates my former point which is that you cannot understand scripture if you see it in the light of political baggage.

    It cannot be a source of truth if you place your sense of ‘right’ above it, if you assume for instance, Paul is a Misogynist or that Joshua committed genocide (as in the sense that Hitler did) or that Noah ruthlessly left screaming people to drown, you cannot ever see it as God’s word because God cannot then be good.

    Yet God, by biblical definition IS always good. That leaves us with the conclusion that WE in our assessment of his actions are mistaken,wrong,or flawed. If we refuse to take off the spectacles of our ‘right’ judgement, then we are left with an interpretive stance that picks out the bits we want like the Good Samaritan story. We have to cherry pick rather than see it as a whole so whole swathes of scripture are ‘justifiably’ ignored. That is a stance that is a dead end in my view.
    Dude, that logic is more twisted than a pretzel made from a Curly Wurly.
    Indeed. And it demonstrates that it is not only “liberals” who have
    MPaul wrote: »
    predicated a conclusion on the basis of preconceived assumptions.



  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    It cannot be a source of truth if you place your sense of ‘right’ above it, if you assume for instance, Paul is a Misogynist or that Joshua committed genocide (as in the sense that Hitler did) or that Noah ruthlessly left screaming people to drown, you cannot ever see it as God’s word because God cannot then be good.

    Yet God, by biblical definition IS always good.

    Joshua did commit genocide "in the sense that Hitler did", at least if the word "genocide" has any consistent meaning. Noah did leave people to drown, though scripture doesn't specify whether they were screaming or not. Paul was, arguably at least, a misogynist. These aren't things that are being "assume[d]", they're the what the actual text says. The main dispute is your contention that genocide, misogyny, and abandoning people to their deaths is a good thing, or at least can be in the right circumstances. In other words, that there is no consistent standard of good or right beyond the whims of God. If God tells someone to assassinate the President of the United States, for example, that act is "good" because God orders it, despite His previous inclusion of murder on his Big List of Dos and Don'ts.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    inerrancy
    noun
    Definition: Read the Bible exactly like it says; except don't.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    It cannot be a source of truth if you place your sense of ‘right’ above it, if you assume for instance, Paul is a Misogynist or that Joshua committed genocide (as in the sense that Hitler did) or that Noah ruthlessly left screaming people to drown, you cannot ever see it as God’s word because God cannot then be good.

    Yet God, by biblical definition IS always good.

    Joshua did commit genocide "in the sense that Hitler did", at least if the word "genocide" has any consistent meaning. Noah did leave people to drown, though scripture doesn't specify whether they were screaming or not. Paul was, arguably at least, a misogynist. These aren't things that are being "assume[d]", they're the what the actual text says. The main dispute is your contention that genocide, misogyny, and abandoning people to their deaths is a good thing, or at least can be in the right circumstances. In other words, that there is no consistent standard of good or right beyond the whims of God. If God tells someone to assassinate the President of the United States, for example, that act is "good" because God orders it, despite His previous inclusion of murder on his Big List of Dos and Don'ts.

    And murdering rape victims.
    That's just so good.

    It's a good life.

    This is like Islam, not Christ.
    Nothing God does [according to the text] is questionable.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Ohhhhh! Sorry! It's not murder if God says do it. He as reported faithfully and perfectly in a text.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    But @MPaul, I don't see that as being God being wrong, but the interpretation of God being through the eyes of the people of those cultures where the only way to survive as a tribe was to wipe out the competition. Where taking prisoners, when the tribe was at subsistence level, was not possible without taking the tribe down too.
    I know that. It is your way of synthesising the stories and reconciling the dissonance. Simpler perhaps just to say Deut 29:29. There are secret things we can never know. There are also revealed things and it is the Bible which is the agent of revelation.
  • But Curiosity's "way of synthesising the stories" scores over MPauls' in one major respect: It doesn't make God out to be a monster.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    God's being a monster is the clay dissing the potter. Inadmissible.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    Simpler perhaps just to say Deut 29:29. There are secret things we can never know.
    Bullshit hand-waving to reconcile two, irreconcilable conceits.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    It is interesting. A loving God who has to murder people.
    An omniscient God who cannot figure out how to make himself clear to everyone.
    An all-powerful God who doesn't have the ability to not be a fairly complete bastard for most of the written record about him.
    Or, now I realise this is crazy talk, huge parts of the bible are self-justification by the people who recorded it.
  • I have to say I am perplexed how it is that we can be certain that the 39 books of Hebrew scripture are inerrant but not the full Septuagint, despite the latter being what the authors of the New Testament used. Did God send a memo?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I used to justify the murder of rape victims just like you. We will do anything, believe anything to support our team. It's not your fault. It's how natural selection has wired the bee in us monkeys. And thank you and a Happy New Year to you too MPaul.
    This is nonsense Martin 54. The scriptures need no support from the likes of us. Like all socialists you have predicated a conclusion on the basis of preconceived assumptions. You have assumed a non supernaturalist premise and judged superficially on the basis of the current zeitgeist, Darwinism and political correctness. My challenge to you is to reread with an open mind. Your Armstrongism background and your post-modern baggage are a double blindfold. The truth is always hidden from the sceptic.

    You are the greatest sceptic I know by that criterion.
    Sick burn, bruv.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    It is interesting. A loving God who has to murder people.
    An omniscient God who cannot figure out how to make himself clear to everyone.
    An all-powerful God who doesn't have the ability to not be a fairly complete bastard for most of the written record about him.
    Or, now I realise this is crazy talk, huge parts of the bible are self-justification by the people who recorded it.

    You is on a roll. Oh faithless one. God's ways are mysterious.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I have to say I am perplexed how it is that we can be certain that the 39 books of Hebrew scripture are inerrant but not the full Septuagint, despite the latter being what the authors of the New Testament used. Did God send a memo?

    Sometime around the seventeenth century, apparently. Since MPaul specifies that there are exactly 66 books in what he describes as "scripture" there apparently was no Bible (or at least not one that counted as "an integrated message system") prior to 1646. Fortunately the Westminster Assembly happened along to complete Jesus' unfinished work.
  • The memo was probably a bit earlier, since the Protestant expungement of the deuterocanonical books dates back to Luther, and is reflected in the XXXIX Articles (1571). The Westminster Divines merely gave their imprimatur to the memo.

  • The church lost its way early, God being unable to protect it or stuffs. But everything was put back on the right footing at the Reformation. Yeah. That's the ticket.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    edited January 6
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    The memo was probably a bit earlier, since the Protestant expungement of the deuterocanonical books dates back to Luther, and is reflected in the XXXIX Articles (1571). The Westminster Divines merely gave their imprimatur to the memo.

    Can't be Luther, or at least it took Luther a while to decipher the memo, as he wanted to ditch Revelation, Hebrews, Jude and James too. Very important if you're going to go all Sola Scriptura that you first narrow down which Scriptura you're Sola-ing.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    The memo was probably a bit earlier, since the Protestant expungement of the deuterocanonical books dates back to Luther, and is reflected in the XXXIX Articles (1571). The Westminster Divines merely gave their imprimatur to the memo.
    To be fair, God is eternal¹ and omnipresent throughout the entire universe of living beings² so what's a mere millennia and a half and hundreds of millions of people mislead and burning in Hell?

    ¹Or at least six thousand years old.
    ²Well, since the earth is the centre of the universe and the world is flat and the stars are set in a rigid shell surrounding the orbs(discs?) circling the earth and the Bible doesn't mention other beings so it's probably just us and angels. How many angels are there? numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand (The later is 100 million but are the former included in that? And how many thousands upon how many other thousands?)

    various, OT
    Revelation* 7:1
    Revelation 5:11

    *OMG, dudes! Do you realise how batshit crazy Revelations is?
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    The memo was probably a bit earlier, since the Protestant expungement of the deuterocanonical books dates back to Luther, and is reflected in the XXXIX Articles (1571). The Westminster Divines merely gave their imprimatur to the memo.
    Can't be Luther, or at least it took Luther a while to decipher the memo, as he wanted to ditch Revelation, Hebrews, Jude and James too. Very important if you're going to go all Sola Scriptura that you first narrow down which Scriptura you're Sola-ing.
    Well, I didn’t say the deuterocanonicals was all Luther wanted to expunge. So I think others decided he’d misread the memo. But yes, ‘twas Luther that started it all by separating the deuteros from the rest of the OT in his translation, called them “Apocrypha” and described them as “books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 6
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    The memo was probably a bit earlier, since the Protestant expungement of the deuterocanonical books dates back to Luther, and is reflected in the XXXIX Articles (1571). The Westminster Divines merely gave their imprimatur to the memo.

    Can't be Luther, or at least it took Luther a while to decipher the memo, as he wanted to ditch Revelation, Hebrews, Jude and James too. Very important if you're going to go all Sola Scriptura that you first narrow down which Scriptura you're Sola-ing.

    In ever decreasing Solas. Except excepting murdering rape victims. That's definitely in.
  • Jerome refused to translate the deuts, and lobbied for leaving them out, but the magisterium told him to STFU and keep them in. He left the "Old Latin" translations in place, so the Vulgate is only mostly by Jerome (and Paula, who I suspect did a great bit of the work) -- the deuts of the Vulgate are actually an older translation.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    The main dispute is your contention that genocide, misogyny, and abandoning people to their deaths is a good thing, or at least can be in the right circumstances
    The agenda assumed in this is that liberalism has the right to define all the terms eg genocide.
    Let’s look at cutting the lawns. It does damage to the grass. This, though is not violence. Violence requires a malevolent motive. Another is disciplining of children. The politics of liberalism demand this is defined as violence. The Bible defines it as correction. I do not consider that truth requires the acceptance of liberal definitions. God is defined in the Bible in Jer 9:24 as “...exercising loving kindness, justice and righteousness on earth for I delight in these things declares the Lord.”
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited January 10
    MPaul wrote: »
    The main dispute is your contention that genocide, misogyny, and abandoning people to their deaths is a good thing, or at least can be in the right circumstances
    The agenda assumed in this is that liberalism has the right to define all the terms eg genocide.
    Let’s look at cutting the lawns. It does damage to the grass.
    Seriously, that is the best you could manage?
    This, though is not violence. Violence requires a malevolent motive.
    If a person went down the high street, shooting people whether they did it from hate or love, it would still be violence.
    Another is disciplining of children. The politics of liberalism demand this is defined as violence. The Bible defines it as correction.
    Deuteronomy 21:18-21is not violent?

    You need to write a biblical DIctionary so that we mere mortals using the OED, and shite like it, may know the truth.

    Here is a start:

    love
    noun
    brutally killing people unnecessarily, but with a smile!

    discipline

    verb
    correct someone to the death, preferably in a lovingly painful manner.
  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Jerome refused to translate the deuts, and lobbied for leaving them out, but the magisterium told him to STFU and keep them in. He left the "Old Latin" translations in place, so the Vulgate is only mostly by Jerome (and Paula, who I suspect did a great bit of the work) -- the deuts of the Vulgate are actually an older translation.

    There are enough inaccuracies in this short post that I feel compelled to set the record straight. First, as is often the case, Wikipedia provides some good accessible facts here. The short form:
    Jerome himself translated all books of the Jewish Bible from the Hebrew (having separately translated the book of Psalms from the Greek Hexapla Septuagint); and further translated the books of Tobias and Judith from Aramaic, the additions to the book of Esther from the Common Septuagint and the additions to the book of Daniel from the Greek of Theodotion.
    His view of the deuts was adopted by Luther pretty much verbatim:
    Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls (Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon) for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.
    The above is more descriptive than the usually-quoted "helmeted" preface to Samuel and Kings, and is to be found in the letter that became his preface to the books of Solomon.
    The Catholic Church apparently did not either commission or endorse Jerome's translation at first, which is a long way from saying that they condemned it. As it became widely admired, it became officially endorsed -- although it was never solely a work of Jerome.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    The main dispute is your contention that genocide, misogyny, and abandoning people to their deaths is a good thing, or at least can be in the right circumstances
    The agenda assumed in this is that liberalism has the right to define all the terms eg genocide.
    Let’s look at cutting the lawns. It does damage to the grass. This, though is not violence. Violence requires a malevolent motive. Another is disciplining of children. The politics of liberalism demand this is defined as violence. The Bible defines it as correction. I do not consider that truth requires the acceptance of liberal definitions. God is defined in the Bible in Jer 9:24 as “...exercising loving kindness, justice and righteousness on earth for I delight in these things declares the Lord.”

    So murdering rape victims is an exercise in loving kindness, justice and righteousness on earth for I delight in these things declares the Lord.
  • If you do not like the use of the word genocide to describe the killing of the Amorites and the other tribes destroyed by Joshua how else would you describe those actions?

    The other phrase you picked up on was that the order of creation of the universe in the Bible is now known to be in the wrong order scientifically. If science can describe the order of creation of the universe and that does not match the order as described in Genesis 1:1, what word is acceptable to use here?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I read MPaul's post twice before I really could believe he'd written it. Come on MPaul, you're not an idiot, so don't insult our intelligence with ridiculous twaddle like that.

    You're merely showing up the utter inadequacy of inerrancy and the moral repugnancy and inherent contradictions of its conclusions.

    And I find it hard to believe you're not well aware of that yourself.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    There's nothing he can do about it. It's the downside of the evolution of eusocialism. Genocide and justifying it both. This will die when he germinates, metaphorphoses.
  • Whilst I obviously do not agree with inerrancy, I have some respect for those whose posting reflects a conflict between that position and the words in the Bible.
    The uncaring arrogance of posts dismissing genocide as lawn maintenance or harming and killing one’s children as “discipline” make it difficult to react with anything but disdain.
    And the insult of “You’re just librulz” is patently ridiculous.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    edited January 10
    I think it is too easy to embrace a Christianity where genocidal parts of the Hebrew Bible are merely historical or allegorical - but also too easy to embrace a Christianity where God literally did command genocide but it's all ok because everything God does is good and we should not try to know the mind of God. I think to be a Christian requires doublethink - we have to both believe that genocide is always wrong and no God that is good would ever command it AND believe that every word of the Bible is true, not in a scientifically literal sense, but in an instructional sense that is supposed to make us uncomfortable, supposed to be impossible to fully comprehend, and supposed to make it hard for us to believe. (And I think the same thing about all the sexism, misogyny, homophobia, etc., that is elsewhere in Scripture.) I think that the tradition built upon scripture is as important as the text of Scripture itself, and whatever the original text of Scripture meant at the time of its composing, many people believed for many years that God commanded genocide (I am not sure what the ancient Hebrews or traditional Rabbinical Jewish people believed regarding this, but at least many Christians did). Being a Christian means being part of this tradition. Apologizing for the past sins of the Church and saying that we know better now is not going to make Christianity make moral sense. It will always be an infuriating and horrifying religion, one that, if we choose to follow it, we have to both believe and not believe. Making a nice happy Christianity in our own image is just fooling ourselves.
  • ISTM, the reasonable approach for a believer is that God's message is filtered through the experiences of his believers. The need for all of it to be true just isn't a tenable one. Not with the God that the majority of Christians believe in. If one is to lower expectations of his power, knowledge and/or love for humanity, then the Bible works. Otherwise, not so much.
    The loving, all-knowing, all powerful God is at direct odds with the rolling dumpster fire that is the Bible as a coherent, perfect tome.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Very good guys. Very, very good.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    What's interesting to me is that so much ink is spilled (pixels are pixilated?) arguing in favor of a concept of Christian scripture that is pretty soundly rejected by what is now regarded as Christian scripture. Take the example of the debate over circumcision within the early church. Scripture as it existed at the time was pretty clear on the fact that if you were male and wanted to enter into a covenant with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob you had to be circumcised like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Paul and the others from the anti-circumcision faction couldn't point at the Second Testament because it hadn't been written yet. Instead they argued that there was something underlying Christianity other than strict adherence to written law. Ultimately their anti-scriptural position was adopted (and, ironically, eventually written down to be adopted as scripture). This would seem to argue that strict adherence to the rules set down in scripture is not an over-riding, underlying tenet of Christian scripture.
  • I had thought that the mentalfundalist approach was a recent thing, in reaction to other explanations other than GogDidIt being more prominent.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    @Crœsos - U2 - wonderfully ironic isn't it.
Sign In or Register to comment.