CariDotMy

 Forgot password?
 Register

ADVERTISEMENT

Author: greekgod

Debmey, me, truth8., nightlord, divine: A Bible Contradiction

[Copy link]
Post time 18-5-2005 03:17 AM | Show all posts
Originally posted by aenemy7 at 15-5-2005 02:52 PM:
So the conclusion is.........errrrrr :lol :lol :lol


Allah Knows Best,Peace Yall.....



Good to see you again here,i'm also wondering why the Christians can't come up with the conclusion.I guess they must already accepted the facts that you post earlier.
Reply

Use magic Report


ADVERTISEMENT


Post time 30-5-2005 02:38 AM | Show all posts
And why is Jesus divine?
Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 31-5-2005 12:13 AM | Show all posts
Originally posted by wira_melayu at 18-5-2005 03:17 AM:

i'm also wondering why the Christians can't come up with the conclusion.I guess they must already accepted the f ...



JUST THE CONTRARY... my dear friend...

Christians are not bothered to reply, not because we accepted the "facts" you posted.. but because we have already refuted your postings. Whatever you argue doesn't matter to us... we still hold true to our belief no matter what you say...

Conclusion? Non-believers would never believe in the authenticity of the Bible
Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 31-5-2005 12:16 AM | Show all posts
Originally posted by wira_melayu at 30-5-2005 02:38 AM:
And why is Jesus divine?



Di*vine" (?), a. [Compar. Diviner (); superl. Divinest.] [F. divin, L. divinus divine, divinely inspired, fr. divus, dius, belonging to a deity;

1. Of or belonging to God; as, divine perfections; the divine will.

2. Proceeding from God; as, divine judgments. Divine protection.

3. Appropriated to God, or celebrating his praise; religious; pious; holy; as, divine service; divine songs; divine worship.

4. Pertaining to, or proceeding from, a deity; partaking of the nature of a god or the gods.

5. Godlike; heavenly; excellent in the highest degree; supremely admirable; apparently above what is human.

Syn. -- Supernatural; superhuman; godlike; heavenly; celestial; pious; holy; sacred; pre雖inent.

-- Webster dictionary

uh huh... Jesus is divine.. cos all the above qualities can be attributed to Him..

Praise the Lord!
Reply

Use magic Report

KENNKID This user has been deleted
Post time 31-5-2005 10:24 AM | Show all posts
Originally posted by sparrow at 2005-5-31 12:16 AM:



Di*vine" (?), a. [Compar. Diviner (); superl. Divinest.] [F. divin, L. divinus divine, divinely inspired, fr. divus, dius, belonging to a deity;

1. Of or belonging to God; as, divine  ...


EATING, DRINKING, SLEEPING, GOING TO THE TOILET - DIVINE??? ;)
Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 1-6-2005 08:37 AM | Show all posts
Originally posted by KENNKID at 31-5-2005 10:24 AM:

EATING, DRINKING, SLEEPING, GOING TO THE TOILET - DIVINE???  


Taking from your quote above...

That is because, you are looking at divinity from a human perspective. Our perspective of God is that, He does not eat.. or drink.. or rather... He NEEDS NOT eat or drink... based on what we believe that.. God is a Spirit
But who are we to say God CANNOT eat or drink?

If God wanted to come as a man.. if He wanted to walk and live on earth just as a man is... if He wants to have the nature of a man.. (ie, bodily characteristics, feelings, of a man).. who are we to say that He CANNOT?

If we define "divinity" in your way.. that would mean we are LIMITING God to His Spiritual nature,... who are we to limit God this way? God is not limited just to His Spiritual nature alone.. If He wants to have a nature of a man, it is POSSIBLE for Him to do so.

Since God does not have limitations... that means all things are possible with Him... and ALL things means... it DOES NOT exclude Him from NOT BEING ABLE to have the characteristics of a man.. if He wants to do so.

ALL things are possible with God.. including the fact that.. if He wants to have a be human nature...
Reply

Use magic Report

Follow Us
Post time 13-6-2005 01:41 AM | Show all posts
     A BIBLE CONTRADICTION

For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." (Jeremiah 3:12)
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever." (Jeremiah 17:4)

"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." (John 5:31)
"Jesus answered: Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid." (John 8:14)

"And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth." (Matthew 28:18)
"the whole world is under control of the evil one." (1 John 5:19)

And Jesus said, "For judgement I am come into this world." (John 9:39)
"I came not to judge the world" (John 12:47)

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:16)
"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 6:1)
"Jacob said, 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'" (Genesis 32:30)
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
We should fear God (Matthew 10:28)
We should love God (Matthew 22:37)
There is no fear in love (1 John 4:18)


Foolery

"But anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Jesus) Mat 5:22

"You fools!" (Jesus) Luke 11:40
"You blind fools!" (Jesus) Mat 23:17
"How foolish you are" (Jesus) Luke 24:25

"But God said to him, 'You fool!' " (Jesus) Luke 12:20

"You foolish Galatians!" (St. Paul) Galatians 3:1
"You foolish man" James 2:20
Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 14-6-2005 01:49 AM | Show all posts
Any Christians to reply the abovementioned post?Are you guys giving up already or agree with the contradictions?

T8,13Friday,FH3,NightLord,Debmey???
lollollollollollollollollollollol
Reply

Use magic Report


ADVERTISEMENT


Post time 14-6-2005 02:31 AM | Show all posts
:stp:?????? still quiet? :hmm:
Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 18-6-2005 02:42 AM | Show all posts
T8,NightLord,13Friday,Debmey,FH3 can you guys pls explain to me more about the bible contradiction?:lol

Come'on guys?:cak:
Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 18-6-2005 08:47 PM | Show all posts
Excuse me,

To tell the truth, Greekgod and me even have discussed the sources of the present Bible.

Even to that they have they contradictions.
Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 19-6-2005 03:13 AM | Show all posts
Originally posted by KaiserPheonix at 18-6-2005 08:47 PM:
Excuse me,

To tell the truth, Greekgod and me even have discussed the sources of the present Bible.

Even to that they have they contradictions.


perhaps i personally call on Truth8 to take on this?

So what's your say Truth8?

i can't wait to you!
Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 26-6-2005 01:11 AM | Show all posts
What your say Truth8 & Debmey?So what's your conclusion about the contradictions? :cak:
Reply

Use magic Report

hsukhav This user has been deleted
Post time 26-6-2005 07:20 PM | Show all posts

Context is the most important way to analyse all these.

hi every1, im new here so i just read this forum. let me try to explain.

the Bible was written in both Hebrew and Greek. It is irrational to assume that just because of a few seeming "contradictions" that it is false.

Note that the time span between the beginning of the writing of the Bible to the end is about 1600 years(ard 1500 BC-AD 100). There are 66 different books in the Bible, 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament.They were written by more than 40 authors of diverse backgrounds, status and educational levels. In spite of such diversities, the Bible harmonises as a whole with great consistency. Where there are seeming "contradictions", there could be minor mistakes in translation or simply different meanings of the word in different situations.

If u wish to apply "rational reasoning", let me pose a question to u: do u not think it is logical that some words in Hebrew and Greek have different meanings, but in English they are the same word?? for example there are 4 variations of the word "love" in Greek with different meanings, but in english "love" is "love". It is difficult to have done a translation of the Bible where words with different meanings sharing the same word in English are differentiated from one another. To do that u have to invent new English words! Likewise for other languages.

Further, there has been fulfillment of prophecies in the Bible from Old Testament times until the modern age. The "contradictions" u see are not the result of intended change but of misinterpretations and failure to recognise their contexts. The meaning has not been distorted; u need to read the entire passage and understand the context.

It will be time consuming to go through all the passages of the "contradictions" listed above. For one,
         "We should fear God
We should love God (Matthew 22:37)
There is no fear in love... (1 John 4:18) "

In the context of the passage saying that we must "fear" God, the Greek word for that "fear" refers to reverend, meaning to be in awe of God. It is not what most of us in the modern world think of "fear": the "fear" we associate with is that of being frightened and scared.

However later in 1 John, when the writer wrote that "There is no fear in love", he used the Greek word for being afraid; the same meaning that we associate "fear" with nowadays. John was writing about what the perfect love of God is like. By the way, note that the full verse of 1 John 4:18 has not been quoted. The full verse reads:

"There is no fear in love. But  perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love".

John was trying to say that God's love for Man is perfect. Man, being imperfect, had to accept God's perfect love for us before we can avoid the penalty of eternal death. This is the type of "punishment" that the verse referred to. Even though the English word "fear" is the same, if u read the passages closely enough u can tell that the contexts are different and therefore also the meanings.

Also, sometimes in exceptional cases u nid to consult someone who knows the meanings and contexts of such passages, such as pastors or people who have researched into biblical history.

I am not a pastor/minister and certainly also not a historian, but this verses i juz explained were among the earliest questions i had about the meanings of certain words used in the Bible and hence i clarified it.

I hope this has been helpful to many and has answered more than it questions. If there are any other reasons to explain the seeming "contradictions" please feel free to raise them.

God Bless and Best Regards to All
Reply

Use magic Report

me This user has been deleted
Post time 11-8-2005 04:15 PM | Show all posts
Originally posted by wira_melayu at 13-6-2005 01:41 AM:
     A BIBLE CONTRADICTION




"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." (John 5:31)

[quote]john 5
30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. 31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. 32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. 33 Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. 34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. 35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. 36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. 37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. 38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. 39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. 41 I receive not honour from men. 42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. 43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. 44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?



"Jesus answered: Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid." (John 8:14)

john 8
12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. 13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. 14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. 15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. 16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. 17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. 18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. 19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also. 20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.


And Jesus said, "For judgement I am come into this world." (John 9:39)


"I came not to judge the world" (John 12:47)




"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:16)

matthew 5
14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, [2] but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.


"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 6:1)



We should fear God (Matthew 10:28)

matthew 10
26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. 27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. 28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing [5] and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. 30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. 32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.



We should love God (Matthew 22:37)

matthew 22
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.


There is no fear in love (1 John 4:18)

1 John 4
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
Reply

Use magic Report

deepjunior This user has been deleted
Post time 11-8-2005 10:34 PM | Show all posts
Lets stick to the topic

I see there are six pages in this thread, but none of the Christians here defended your verses posted by Greekgod except trash talking.

People, please respond to the contradictions.
Reply

Use magic Report


ADVERTISEMENT


Post time 11-8-2005 10:46 PM | Show all posts
Originally posted by deepjunior at 11-8-2005 10:34 PM:
Lets stick to the topic

I see there are six pages in this thread, but none of the Christians here defended your verses posted by Greekgod except trash talking.

People, please respond to the c ...



trash talking is wat they do terribly,but they think they do it best...up to them la..

asking them about the contradictions will make them ask u something stupid in return...which obviously would be very far away from the topic at hand...lol:lol
Reply

Use magic Report

deepjunior This user has been deleted
Post time 12-8-2005 12:30 AM | Show all posts
Let me bring the topic back..by Greekgod

Matt. 27 vs. Acts 1

By Dr. Niclas Berggren
There are Christians who believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. This note shows that they are wrong in this belief, since there is a contradiction between a passage in 27th chapter of Matthew and the 1st chapter of Acts. If the Bible were without error, there could be no contradiction at all.


Let me begin by stating the two passages which contradict each other. (If anyone is interested in taking a look at how other translations render these passages, go to The WWW Bible Gateway - http://www.gospelcom.net/bible.)


Matthew 27:3-10 (KJV): "3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. 5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. 6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. 7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. 8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. 9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; 10 And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me."


Acts 1:16-19 (KJV): "16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. 17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood."


How do these verses contradict each other?


In Matthew, Judas threw away the money to the priests before dying, then he went to hang himself. After that, the priests bought a field. In Acts, Judas used the money himself to buy a field.


In Matthew, Judas threw away the money before dying, and then a field was bought. In Acts, the field was bought before Judas died.


In Matthew, he died by hanging himself, whilst in Acts he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out.


How could an inerrantist Christian respond to these three points? Let me speculate on some possible counter-arguments.


As for point 1, one could infer that when Acts says that Judas bought the field, what is meant is that the priests bought the field on his behalf. This, however, is not permissible, since if one is allowed to change the meaning of the language, no significant discussion about the actual meaning of anything can be conducted. In ordinary language, we do not say that "this man purchased a field for $100" if someone else purchased it for their own usage with money thrown away by its original owner. Clearly, from Matthew, Judas did not give any order for the priests to buy a field for his money, and even if he did, why would they obey him, who they despised?


As for point 2, it seems hard to come up with a counter-argument, since the past tense is used in Matthew ("went and hanged himself"), implying that the execution of the deed had taken place before the purchase of the field. Meanwhile, Acts clearly presents the case where the field is bought prior to his dying (indeed, since he is said to have bought it himself!).


As for point 3, it is logically possible that the story in Acts is consistent with Matthew in terms of the method of dying, but it seems highly unlikely, from how his death is described. If one is to find consistency, one must include many things not in the text. Amongst other things, one wonders how the bowels could gush out simply from his having died by hanging, and one also wonders how he could fall headlong in a field, and where the tree came from (normally, there are no trees in the middle of a field).


Note that it suffices for only one of the three stated contradictions to hold for there to be a contradiction.


To conclude, the case for there being a clear contradiction between Matt. 27:3-10 and Acts 1:18 is strong, and hence the view that the Bible is without error is incorrect. For the serious implication of this conclusion, see my essay "The Errancy of Fundamentalism Disproves the God of the Bible".


Let me add an additional item of interest. In Matt. 27:9-10, it is asserted that the prophet Jeremy (Jeremiah) uttered a prophecy regarding Judas, but no such statement is found in the book of Jeremiah. Instead, a similar statement is found in the book of Zech. 11:12,13. Again, we note that the Bible seems quite untrustworthy.
Reply

Use magic Report

deepjunior This user has been deleted
Post time 12-8-2005 12:30 AM | Show all posts
The Errancy of Fundamentalism Disproves the God of the Bible

By Dr. Niclas Berggren
Personal Information: Niclas Berggren, born in 1968, holds a Ph.D. in economics and resides in Stockholm, Sweden. At the age of 16, independent of his non-believing parents, he decided to become a born-again Christian and joined the Pentecostal Church (doctrinally close to the Assemblies of God in the U.S.). He remained an earnest, active member - which included bible studies, evangelisation, prayer, speaking in tongues, etc. - until 1994, when he began to question the rationale for believing in the god of the Bible. In 1996, he left his Church after having become an atheist through careful Bible study and rational reasoning. Some of the basis for this radical, albeit calm and gradual, change is presented in this essay.

1. Introduction
This essay will investigate the often-made claim from Christians, that the Bible is the inspired word of god, a corollary of which is that it is perfectly without error. This view is exemplified by the following statement of Jimmy Swaggart, a Pentecostal pastor: "One of the most basic tenants of the Christian faith is that the Scriptures are inerrant. Because the Bible is God's Word, it is entirely error-free." (Swaggart, 1987, p. 8) [1] It will be argued that this view - which will be referred to as Fundamentalism - is the only possible logical view of the Bible for a Christian, but that it is incorrect and, therefore, that the Christian god[2] does not exist. More formally, the argument of this essay can be expressed in the following manner:

1. If the Christian god (as defined in footnote [2]) exists, there is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
2. If there is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, his revelation is error-free, unambiguously clear, and objectively verifiable as true.
3. The Bible is neither error-free, unambiguously clear, nor objectively verifiable.
C. The Christian god does not exist.
We shall begin by examining the nature of this god and what implications it has for our analysis of the Bible.

2. The Logic of Fundamentalism
Let us, for the sake of argument, proceed under the premise that the Christian god does, indeed, exist (although there are convincing reasons, independent of the arguments of this essay, to reject a belief in his existence; see, e.g., Smith, 1979, and Martin, 1990, 1991). The Christian view of god is that he is omnipotent[3], omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent and eternally existing. Furthermore, he is perfect in all of his being, as well as the utmost cause and sustainer of everything.[4] It is the belief of Christians that their god inspired some humans to write the 66 books of the Bible, a belief which is in line with the following statement of Paul regarding the books of the Old Testament: "All Scripture is God-breathed..." (2 Tim. 3:16, NIV). Apparently, god wanted to make some information known to humanity, which is why he decided to make people convey it in written form. Let us now turn to an analysis of what the Bible would be like if it is the document of the Christian god; four theoretical arguments expanding on this will be presented.

2.1 The original text
Since god is perfect in every way and, furthermore, all-powerful and all-knowing, it is only logical to hold that his only written revelation is inerrant in every respect. After all, a perfect god could not possibly want to produce an imperfect revelation, and since he can do anything he wants, he could not possibly bring about an imperfect revelation. Thus, Fundamentalism is the logical view of the Bible, given a belief in the Christian god. If the Bible turned out to be less than perfect, that forcefully and unambiguously implies that the Christian god cannot possibly exist.

But, the more liberally inclined Christian may object, if we find one error in any other book, say a school book, we do not thereby throw out the entirety of what has been written in that book: while realising the mistake, we do not automatically assume everything else to be incorrect. So why do we not find this approach appealing when dealing with the Bible? There is a vital difference, and that is that the Bible is said to be the written revelation of an almighty and perfect god. Such a deity cannot, by definition, make a mistake. So if there is just one mistake in the Bible, that mistake makes it clear to us that the Christian god cannot exist.

2.2 Translations
First, the Fundamentalist is correct in believing that a perfect, omnipotent god would produce nothing but an inerrant revelation. But let us continue to use this logic to its full extent and ask ourselves, Does this doctrine of inerrancy also apply to translations and later original-language manuscripts of the Bible? The above-mentioned Jimmy Swaggart has the following to say on this matter: "So while the Bible's original text is without error, mistakes may have crept into the translated versions." (Swaggart, 1987, p. 8)

Let us think about this for a moment. The logic of the claim that the original text is inerrant is that an omnipotent and perfect god wanted to reveal some things to humanity, therefore his revelation could not possibly contain any errors. Note that god used humans to write his revelation. Now if god is interested in conveying his divine information to others than those who speak Hebrew and ancient Greek, he must see to it that his revelation becomes available in other languages. Is there any reason for god to not use his omnipotence in producing correct translations? Note that god could just as easily use humans to translate his word as he used humans to write it in the first place - he is, after all, all-powerful. And since he is perfect, it is not in his interest to provide an imperfect revelation in any place or at any time.
Reply

Use magic Report

deepjunior This user has been deleted
Post time 12-8-2005 12:31 AM | Show all posts
Hence, as a matter of logical consistency, it must necessarily hold that god has provided error-free translations. If one claims that god wanted to produce a perfect revelation but that the versions which we can understand today are imperfect, one must explain why god did not want or could see to it that the translations are also error-free. Clearly, any such attempt to an explanation is doomed to fail while retaining the Christian concept of god. Thus, if it can be shown that any translation of the Bible contains just one error, the Christian god cannot exist.

But does this mean that there is just one correct translation in every language? First, it is interesting to note that the Bible has not been and still is not available in all languages in the world. What this implies about a god who supposedly does not show favouritism (Acts 10:34) is left for the reader to ponder upon. In any case, the logic of Fundamentalism does not necessarily imply that there is just one error-free Bible translation in any language; but it does necessarily imply that all Bible translations are inerrant.

Now Jimmy Swaggart and his fellow Fundamentalists must explain why a perfect and omnipotent god was able to produce an error-free original manuscript of the Bible while at the same time not wanting to produce error-free translations of this original manuscript. Does their god only want those fluent in Hebrew and ancient Greek to get his perfect revelation? After all, he could do anything, including provide error-free translations.

A related conundrum for the Fundamentalist who claims that the original document is inerrant but that later manuscripts and translations may contain errors is: How is it possible to know what the original document said, exactly? After all, we are only in possession of possibly errant documents today, and yet the Fundamentalist clings to these documents as if they are inerrant - which, by his own admission, they are not. (Of course, given the true logic of Fundamentalism, as explained above, later manuscripts and translations must also be inerrant.)

2.3 Clarity
Let us continue our logical journey of Bible scrutiny and ask ourselves, Would it be in God's interest and capacity to provide an unambiguous revelation? That is to say, assuming for the moment that the Bible is error-free, could it plausibly be the revelation of god if its message is in any way unclear? We know that the Christian god is omnipotent and omniscient: the former characteristic indicates that he could very well have produced a revelation without any ambiguity, and the latter characteristic indicates that god knew before producing his revelation that a less-than-unambiguous rendering would lead not only to internal struggles amongst his followers, but also to strong attacks from anti-theists. Both of these phenomena must be considered undesirable from the point of view of god, and if any of them can be shown to have existed or exist on the basis of Bible ambiguities, then the Christian god is not real.

2.4 Competing revelations
Let us ask, Would god provide objective means to verify that his written revelation is the only divine revelation there is? As he is almighty, he could do so if he wished. And since competing religious scriptures lure some people away from the verity of the Bible, it is undoubtedly in line with the Christian god's interest to wish just that. This means that if there is no objective way to decide upon the authenticity of the Bible, the Christian god cannot possibly exist.

2.5 Some possible objections
Before inspecting the evidence concerning the inerrancy and truth of the Bible and the Christian god, it is proper to analyse four possible objections to the theoretical exercise of logic presented above. First, if human beings have a free will, is it not logically impossible for the Christian god to use his omnipotence to induce, or "force", people to write his revelation without errors? That is, is Fundamentalism not illogical at its core? The answer is "No", for the following three reasons. (1) The doctrine of the general existence of a free will is at odds with the Bible's teachings. Suffice it to mention that the Bible instructs us that no one can avoid sinning, i.e., break some moral rule pronounced by the Christian god (see, e.g., Rom. 3:23, Rom. 5:12 and 1 John 1:8-10). Hence, if any human being necessarily commits sin, there is no general existence of a free will.[5] (2) If a free will generally exists, there is nothing that prevents a person to want to be an instrument of the Christian god and hence willingly submit to serving him in writing down his revelation perfectly. In fact, we would expect any Christian to be willing to contribute to the provision of a perfect divine revelation. And since, with free will, it is perfectly legitimate for someone to delegate influence over one's actions to someone else, such as the Christian god, the argument above falls. (3) If, indeed, human beings have a free will (which we argue is not the case, if we adhere to the Bible's teaching), and if this precludes the writing of an inerrant revelation from the Christian god (which we argue is not the case, if Christians can be shown to want to assist in producing a divine revelation), then we must conclude, on the basis of this god's characteristics, that he would have used some other means of producing this revelation, so that it could be perfect (e.g., he could have let a perfectly written manuscript sail down from heaven on a cloud). This he did not do. Thus, the conclusion is that the doctrine of free will is incorrect: it is at odds with biblical teaching and, to the extent that it implies that the Christian god could not produce an inerrant written revelation, it violates the logic of how an omnipotent, perfect god would act. If he could not produce a perfect revelation by letting men write it, he would have used another method.

Second, a related point, which unlike the previous one deals not with the issue of human will, but with the character of human beings, states that since god worked by using fallible and frail human beings, is it not to be expected that the writers of the Bible may have made some mistakes? It needs first to be stressed that if one accepts the idea that the original manuscript of the Bible does not contain any errors, it is not logically possible to claim that translations of the Bible may contain mistakes. But it is logically consistent to believe that both the original manuscript and subsequent translations are inerrant or errant. However, this latter view of general errancy violates the nature of the Christian god. Remember: this god is perfect and omnipotent. Why would he bring forth a written revelation with errors in it? The answer is: he would not do that. Even though the writers of the Bible were humans, as was and is the case with translators, god is able to guide them and prevent them from making any mistakes. Remember: he is almighty and can do anything.

Third, are not the demands that are put on god too heavy? Certainly not, if we take god to be omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, etc. These words are not just empty terms but they entail a precise meaning. For instance, being omnipotent means being able to do anything which is logically possible, without any conceivable exception. Thus, because of these infinite qualities of god, it is in no way possible to put too heavy demands on him, in the sense that he is not in any way limited (except by logic).

Fourth, are we not limited in our wisdom and capacity to comprehend divine matters? Even if the reasoning above appears correct, we may not be able to trust it. This is a rather frequent argument from Christians when they encounter things which they are unable to understand; these things are then termed "mysteries." However, if we surrender our ability to reason and make things intelligible, what can we possibly resort to in its place? Blind faith in "mysteries" unsolved? That hardly seems a more reliable approach. Let us instead continue to make use of logic and rational discourse to analyse the claims of mystics and others, and let us continue to do it in a critical manner. In that spirit, we turn to some revealing evidence.
Reply

Use magic Report

You have to log in before you can reply Login | Register

Points Rules

 

ADVERTISEMENT



 

ADVERTISEMENT


 


ADVERTISEMENT
Follow Us

ADVERTISEMENT


Mobile|Archiver|Mobile*default|About Us|CariDotMy

19-2-2025 01:32 PM GMT+8 , Processed in 0.345252 second(s), 32 queries , Gzip On, Redis On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

Copyright © 2001-2021, Tencent Cloud.

Quick Reply To Top Return to the list