Saturday, April 27, 2013
Why Biblical Inerrancy Makes No Sense
This is basically how biblical inerrancy sounds to me: the bible is what we have, and since it's impossible god would have wanted us to have a inaccurate book about him, the bible must be perfect and free of any errors!
This line of "reasoning" is what millions of Christians throughout history have used to justify their belief that the bible is a perfect and inerrant piece of work. It's about as dubious as the "ass backwards" logic of the fine tuning argument. Some Christians seem to think that if they can show one part of the bible to be more probably true than not, then it means that the whole entire bible can be taken as truth. Usually this is done with the resurrection. But calculating the resurrection as more probably true than not (which is problematic on its own) does not logically follow that the entire bible is therefore completely true.
There may be a few bits of truth here and there in the bible, but none of them on their own should lead to a conclusion that the entire bible is true. Every truth claim in the bible needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis, and the probability of any one part being true should not necessarily bare any weight on any other part. That being said, biblical inerrancy is intellectually bankrupt, especially in light of the fact that many stories in the bible are full on contradictions, and are scientifically and historically inaccurate.
See a list here of the numerous biblical contradictions from evilbible,com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
yes, and it's almost funny how most theists don't even know how the bible was put together or how Christianity spread in the 1st and second centuries.
ReplyDeleteThe canonization, the catholic (political) church history and what methods were used to decide what was "in" and what was "out" they seem to be ignorant of. They (theists) simply accept that it came to be and it is exactly how god wanted it....
I struggled with this when I read the verse about god throwing babies up against rocks.
Theists/apologists take portions of scripture that are disgusting and try to fabricate what god's intended "lesson" to us was through that despicable story (genocide of the Canaanites for example) instead of seeing it as it is : a despicable story of cruelty...
Believers, start out with "the bible is true" and make everything else in their
worldview fit that conclusion. Christians are taught to revere the bible as the
"word of God" even against their own intellect! Sadly most follow like sheep being led to a slaughter.
Yes. It's as if most Christians believe that the completed bible was descended from heaven carried by an angel and that every word in it is god's literal will.
DeleteI once asked a Christian, that if Jesus really was the son of god, why couldn't he just have written his own New Testament down first hand so that we'd know his exact words and not have to rely on contradictory translations from hundreds of years later? And why couldn't Jesus just have used his miraculous powers to make thousands of copies of his book in all languages so that there'd be no confusion as to his will? These books themselves would be the physical "miracle"?
He said that the miracle of Jesus is that he did NOT write anything and was still followed. Oh boy. (facepalm)
Now in stores: "The newest testament" by Jesus Christ. lol
ReplyDeleteWith a Foreword by Ray Comfort.
DeleteWHY QUOTE THE BIBLE?
ReplyDeleteIs it not ironic that those who claim that the Bible is filled with errors, contradictions, and is, in general an unreliable book, are the first ones to quote the Bible to support their doctrinal positions concerning God and His commandments?
Is it credible to quote from the Bible to support a doctrinal position, if your primary source of authority is a creed book, a catechism, a so-called book of new revelation, or a statement of faith? If the Bible is not your authority for faith and practice; how rational would it be to quote from it to support your position?
If the Bible and the Bible alone is not your authority and your authority alone, for faith and practice, then, to make a practice of quoting Scripture to prove a doctrinal point would not only be unreasonable and irrational, it would in fact, be dishonest.
Either the Bible is your authority or it is not. You cannot have it both ways.
SATAN QUOTED THE BIBLE
The devil quoted Scripture when he temped Jesus in the wilderness. The problem was God's word was not his authority.(Matthew 4:1-11)
Even though Satan knew God's word he was not obedient to it and lied about God's word, starting in the Garden of Eden. (Genesis 3:1-13)
To quote from the Bible to support or refute a position of faith or practice and not believe that the Bible is trustworthy and is the sole authority from God, is not only disingenuous, but irrational, and does not offer credibility to any position of faith expressed.
WHY QUOTE THE BIBLE IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS GOD'S INERRANT WORD AND IT IS THE SUPREME AUTHORITY AND THE SUPREME AUTHORITY ALONE?
YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY BLOG. http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com
Thanks but no thanks.I didn't quote the bible in this post, but when I do it is only as a reference point to show how factually incorrect and contradictory it is.
Delete