Conflicting statements in the bible

[InevitableCheese]

I grew up and worked at a Southern Baptist, which are pretty conservative Christians. The way we were taught was that the Bible is inerrant in the original language, while all else is translation error. Some of their evidence for infallibility (this is pulled from two systematic theologies that I own) is a Bible verse (2 Tim. 3:16-17), which I think doesn't matter, since Paul was referring to the Old Testament, since the NT letters and Gospels hadn't been canonized.

As for any numbers or facts that were wrong, they were dismissed because they didn't effect the doctrine of Christianity at all. It wouldn't effect Christian beliefs if someone killed 300 or 800 men. The number is irrelevant to the faith, so ignore the error, and trust God. Any doubt is left to faith, not reason.

I always thought that if one thing wasn't right in the Bible, then all else in it was open to questioning. Either the Bible is infallible with absolutely no errors in it at all, or I don't believe it.

[Statler Waldorf]

I grew up and worked at a Southern Baptist, which are pretty conservative Christians. The way we were taught was that the Bible is inerrant in the original language, while all else is translation error. Some of their evidence for infallibility (this is pulled from two systematic theologies that I own) is a Bible verse (2 Tim. 3:16-17), which I think doesn't matter, since Paul was referring to the Old Testament, since the NT letters and Gospels hadn't been canonized.

You are right about the original texts being what Christians believe are infallible. However, you’re incorrect about the New Testament not being viewed as scripture by the Apostles; it was viewed as scripture long before canonization; canonization was just affirmation of what was already believed to be scripture.

As for any numbers or facts that were wrong, they were dismissed because they didn't effect the doctrine of Christianity at all. It wouldn't effect Christian beliefs if someone killed 300 or 800 men. The number is irrelevant to the faith, so ignore the error, and trust God. Any doubt is left to faith, not reason.

Conservative Christians do not hold this view.

I always thought that if one thing wasn't right in the Bible, then all else in it was open to questioning. Either the Bible is infallible with absolutely no errors in it at all, or I don't believe it.

Yup.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Omnipresent...can't exist within space and time?...hmm...not contradictory at all.

---

...oh and by the way bud, I could say anything is in the jar, and depending on what properties I feel like imposing on the object I say is in there, its equally indiscernible from reality or existance. Your God claims are merely an example of the types of claims I could make about the contents of the jar. Nothing you assign to your claims of God correlate with reality or experience. Simply insisting that its true because I can't disprove it, is an argument from ignorance, which is the basis of your claims. So if you're searching for an applicable fallacy, One need not look any further than the contents of your posts.

[InevitableCheese]

You are right about the original texts being what Christians believe are infallible. However, you’re incorrect about the New Testament not being viewed as scripture by the Apostles; it was viewed as scripture long before canonization; canonization was just affirmation of what was already believed to be scripture.

If we had other letters from Paul, Petter, John, etc: would they be held as Scripture?

Conservative Christians do not hold this view.

Looking back I feel I worded that wrong. What I was told was that the original texts were true, but that most of the errors pointed weren't critical anyway.

[John V]

I grew up and worked at a Southern Baptist, which are pretty conservative Christians. The way we were taught was that the Bible is inerrant in the original language, while all else is translation error.

Yes, most who accept inerrancy believe it applies only to the autographs, and that copying or translation errors are possible in today's versions. Comparisons of versions show that no changes affecting significant doctrines have been introduced.

Some of their evidence for infallibility (this is pulled from two systematic theologies that I own) is a Bible verse (2 Tim. 3:16-17), which I think doesn't matter, since Paul was referring to the Old Testament, since the NT letters and Gospels hadn't been canonized.

2 Peter 3:16 puts Paul's letters on par with the "other Scriptures," showing that Paul's epistles at least were understood to be Scriptural.

As for any numbers or facts that were wrong, they were dismissed because they didn't effect the doctrine of Christianity at all. It wouldn't effect Christian beliefs if someone killed 300 or 800 men. The number is irrelevant to the faith, so ignore the error, and trust God. Any doubt is left to faith, not reason.

How is it not reason to suppose that some copying errors were introduced?

[Statler Waldorf]

Omnipresent...can't exist within space and time?...hmm...not contradictory at all.

No, omnipresence cannot be limited to one point in space and time as you are attempting to do, pay attention please.

I could say anything is in the jar, and depending on what properties I feel like imposing on the object I say is in there, its equally indiscernible from reality or existance. Your God claims are merely an example of the types of claims I could make about the contents of the jar. Nothing you assign to your claims of God correlate with reality or experience.

Not true at all, the existence of my God makes experiencing reality and gaining knowledge possible, no other object you could postulate existing in the jar would do so.

Simply insisting that its true because I can't disprove it, is an argument from ignorance, which is the basis of your claims. So if you're searching for an applicable fallacy, One need not look any further than the contents of your posts.

I have made no such argument; my argument is that the very act of proving anything at all presumes God exists ahead of time. That is not an argument from ignorance at all; it’s a totally valid form of argumentation.

If we had other letters from Paul, Petter, John, etc: would they be held as Scripture?

We do not have any such letters so I do not know the answer to that question.

Looking back I feel I worded that wrong. What I was told was that the original texts were true, but that most of the errors pointed weren't critical anyway.

Sure, but Christians do not believe the originals had any errors; those are introduced later because of the copying process. Although the actual number of meaningful textual variants in later manuscripts is quite remarkably low.

[ThomM]

Omnipresent...can't exist within space and time?...hmm...not contradictory at all.

---

...oh and by the way bud, I could say anything is in the jar, and depending on what properties I feel like imposing on the object I say is in there, its equally indiscernible from reality or existance. Your God claims are merely an example of the types of claims I could make about the contents of the jar. Nothing you assign to your claims of God correlate with reality or experience. Simply insisting that its true because I can't disprove it, is an argument from ignorance, which is the basis of your claims. So if you're searching for an applicable fallacy, One need not look any further than the contents of your posts.

Indeed - one can point to the fact that there is NO scientific study using enough people to be statistically significant - that even suggests that prayer has ANY effect beyond that of chance. Worse - that is the case NO MATTER what you pray to as well.

Xtians like to counter that statement with "but it has to be "god's" will. BUT if YOU really look at that statement - it is actually admitting that prayer does NOTHING - god will do what he wants whether you pray or not.
So - of what use is a religion - if it has NO power to intercede between you and god - and has NO ability to even suggest what a god will do?

Science has already proven that Evolution DID happen - and it is well supported that all life on earth developed from a single source , And proven through DNA research that ALL life on earth shared DNA - AND it is proven that there was NEVER a time on earth when ALL life existed at the same time - and that our universe was the result of a single event (Called the big bang - we are left with little need for a "creator" to have existed.

And that is the problem for religion - because their claims have always started with creation. BUT they never have supported the need for a "god" of their definition - only a creator with that ONE power - the power to have initiated the evolution of the Universe.

Today - 1600 children too young to even be responsible for their own actions will be sexually molested by a family member on earth - and every day forward. IF a god is all knowing - and all seeing - and Almighty - it knows - sees - and supposedly has the power to prevent that.

If all it does is look it is a pervert
And that is the BEST scenario for a "god" in this instance.

[The Reality Salesman01]

[quote='Texas Sailor' pid='447484' dateline='1369077495']
Omnipresent...can't exist within space and time?...hmm...not contradictory at all.

No, omnipresence cannot be limited to one point in space and time as you are attempting to do, pay attention please.

[quote]

2 things. One...cannot be limited? You sure those are the words you want to use?

Secondly, the question was this: How can you show that anything at all exists in the jar. Omnipresence appearing to be one convenient characteristic that simply expands your opportunity to prove your claim. By assigning omnipresence to your God, you've doubled the amount of jars you now claim your God is in. So, now that you've established that it's not just in one jar, but both!...how is it that one can distinguish your God from...nothing? What discerable characteristics distinguish your God from a lie?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Either the Bible is infallible with absolutely no errors in it at all, or I don't believe it.

Fallacy of the excluded middle. There are many ways to approach the bible that do not require a literal mechanistic interpretation. The atheist that demands the bible be taken literal is just as wrong-headed as the fundamentalist Christian. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Statler Waldorf]

Today - 1600 children too young to even be responsible for their own actions will be sexually molested by a family member on earth - and every day forward. IF a god is all knowing - and all seeing - and Almighty - it knows - sees - and supposedly has the power to prevent that.

Sure god could prevent it, and those child molesters will receive justice. From an atheistic perspective you cannot even defend the claim that these child molesters did anything morally wrong, and those who are never caught will never receive justice for their actions. Give me the reality where they are all doing evil and will receive justice for their actions whether other people know about these actions or not.