Record few Americans believe in Biblical inerrancy.

[Nihilist Virus]

YAAAAAAAAAY! Biblical inerrancy is the bottom of the barrel as far as anti-intellectual religiosity goes. I'm so glad it's on the decline!

I was an inerrantist... until I decided to read the Bible for myself at age 18. And then I became an atheist.

---

Here's the thing my "good people" The bible never claims to be inerrant.. that is a doctrine that was created several hundred years ago to superceed the power of the pope.

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

OK, I'm ready for your gymnastics. Let's see what you got.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

YAAAAAAAAAY! Biblical inerrancy is the bottom of the barrel as far as anti-intellectual religiosity goes. I'm so glad it's on the decline!

I was an inerrantist... until I decided to read the Bible for myself at age 18.  And then I became an atheist.

---

Here's the thing my "good people" The bible never claims to be inerrant.. that is a doctrine that was created several hundred years ago to superceed the power of the pope.

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

OK, I'm ready for your gymnastics.  Let's see what you got.

It seems that a self-professed believer just called the Bible a bunch of lies.

2 Timothy 3:16 (CEV) =  "Everything in the Scriptures is God’s Word. All of it is useful for teaching and helping people and for correcting them and showing them how to live."

[John V]

Logic and reason can lead you to conclude otherwise as well.

Since logic can lead to opposite conclusions, why do you value it so highly?

1. It does not follow that just because people are disabled that they are a drain on society.

2. It does not follow that people who are a drain on society should be eliminated.

I said one can get to those positions through logic, and that's correct. I agree that one can get to other conclusions on the same issue through logic. That seems like a weakness in relying on logic. By itself it doesn't do much.

Some kind of emotion or prejudice (or logic which you didn't include) is required to get to the conclusion that X should be eliminated.

Yes, and some kind of emotion or prejudice is required to get to differing conclusions. Logic by itself really doesn't go far in assessing reality.

Logic is what prompts us to value science and observation in the first place. (I can elaborate this point if need be.)

The fact that you know you need to elaborate on the point shows that logic isn't why people tend to value science and observation in the first place.

There is no instinctive mechanism of the brain which makes us respect the findings of science, we do so because it is logical to do so-- ie. there are good reasons to.

Not sure if this is equivocation, or if you use logic in a very general sense.

Neither is religion. Compare:

"There is an invisible man in the sky, and I'm going to quit heroin."

Considering the amount of material in the Bible, no, "There is an invisible man in the sky" is not a logical comparison.

If you were really logical, you'd consider that, even if there is no god, religions that stick around may have psychological value. It never ceases to amaze me that most skeptics attack Christianity as if it really were handed down by god.

They are citing credible sources,

You don't know that unless you read the source.

and you kind of being dickish by refuting them out of hand.

No, it's not dickish to ask someone on a discussion forum to support an assertion.

It's a bit too much to ask them to research all of it themselves when it takes hours and hours, not to mention a wealth of resources to do so with significant findings.

They don't need to do any research at all. But if they don't, they shouldn't think they know what they're talking about because they read a wiki page.

This is called "publication bias" and it is the direct result of the way academic journals work. There is a movement in philosophy to put a stop to this mode of research, and I support it. Flash in the pan scholarship is being hoisted above genuine boring-as-shit academics, and it's wrong. That being said, it rarely leads to false information. But it does emphasize the wrong things.

How do you know how often it leads to false information? Regarding Biblical scholarship, consider the Q source.It was invented by Biblical scholars with nothing else to do. It's never been found. Yet, many scholars assume it existed.

---

Also, see nihilist and wyrd's posts above. The Timothy passage seems to strike them as a Biblical claim of inerrancy.

[Jehanne]

How do you know how often it leads to false information? Regarding Biblical scholarship, consider the Q source.It was invented by Biblical scholars with nothing else to do. It's never been found. Yet, many scholars assume it existed.

---

Also, see nihilist and wyrd's posts above. The Timothy passage seems to strike them as a Biblical claim of inerrancy.

Scholars can infer the existence of Q, just as the police can infer that someone was shot by a handgun even though the gun used to kill them cannot be found.  In the latter case, they can infer the type of weapon used based upon the bullet that was found in the victim's body.

Matthew and Luke wrote independently of each other, that is, they did not have each other's gospel in front of them, but yet, they did each have a copy of Mark (which neither of them mentions), because they both quote verbatim from Mark.  They also have material that is unique to both of them (called 'M' and 'L', respectively), but they both also quote verbatim from another document, which, like the Gospel of Thomas, was a "sayings" gospel.  Scholars refer to this lost document as being 'Q' (which, in German, simply means "source").

[Wyrd of Gawd]

How do you know how often it leads to false information? Regarding Biblical scholarship, consider the Q source.It was invented by Biblical scholars with nothing else to do. It's never been found. Yet, many scholars assume it existed.

---

Also, see nihilist and wyrd's posts above. The Timothy passage seems to strike them as a Biblical claim of inerrancy.

Scholars can infer the existence of Q, just as the police can infer that someone was shot by a handgun even though the gun used to kill them cannot be found.  In the latter case, they can infer the type of weapon used based upon the bullet that was found in the victim's body.

Matthew and Luke wrote independently of each other, that is, they did not have each other's gospel in front of them, but yet, they did each have a copy of Mark (which neither of them mentions), because they both quote verbatim from Mark.  They also have material that is unique to both of them (called 'M' and 'L', respectively), but they both also quote verbatim from another document, which, like the Gospel of Thomas, was a "sayings" gospel.  Scholars refer to this lost document as being 'Q' (which, in German, simply means "source").

The Bible was written by a committee around the year 690 A.D. So of course all of the writers followed a script and reinforced each other's story line.

[John V]

The Bible was written by a committee around the year 690 A.D. So of course all of the writers followed a script and reinforced each other's story line.

You guys should form a committee and decide whether to go with this line, or contradictions. The two are, well, contradictory.

[Jehanne]

The Bible was written by a committee around the year 690 A.D. So of course all of the writers followed a script and reinforced each other's story line.

You guys should form a committee and decide whether to go with this line, or contradictions. The two are, well, contradictory.

It was Saint Jerome, who, in 405 AD, completed the Latin Vulgate:

Jerome was a scholar at a time when that statement implied a fluency in Greek. He knew some Hebrew when he started his translation project, but moved to Jerusalem to strengthen his grip on Jewish scripture commentary. A wealthy Roman aristocrat, Paula, funded his stay in a monastery in Bethlehem and he completed his translation there. He began in 382 by correcting the existing Latin language version of the New Testament, commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina. By 390 he turned to translating the Hebrew Bible from the original Hebrew, having previously translated portions from the Septuagint which came from Alexandria. He believed that the mainstream Rabbinical Judaism had rejected the Septuagint as invalid Jewish scriptural texts because of what were ascertained as mistranslations along with its Hellenistic heretical elements.[24] He completed this work by 405. Prior to Jerome's Vulgate, all Latin translations of the Old Testament were based on the Septuagint, not the Hebrew. Jerome's decision to use a Hebrew text instead of the previous translated Septuagint went against the advice of most other Christians, including Augustine, who thought the Septuagint inspired. Modern scholarship, however, has sometimes cast doubts on the actual quality of Jerome's Hebrew knowledge. Many modern scholars believe that the Greek Hexapla is the main source for Jerome's "iuxta Hebraeos" translation of the Old Testament.[25] However, detailed studies have shown that to a considerable degree Jerome was a competent Hebraist.[26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome#Tra...mmentaries

But, even after Jerome, there was still major controversies over the "inspired" text:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

[John V]

It was Saint Jerome, who, in 405 AD, completed the Latin Vulgate:

I understand how canon was developed. You're missing the point. If it went so far as wyrd charges, then we wouldn't have the inconsistencies that you guys charge as contradictions.

[Jehanne]

It was Saint Jerome, who, in 405 AD, completed the Latin Vulgate:

I understand how canon was developed. You're missing the point. If it went so far as wyrd charges, then we wouldn't have the inconsistencies that you guys charge as contradictions.

It was Saint Jerome, who, in 405 AD, completed the Latin Vulgate:

There are some inconsistencies, though, as I posted in my second link above; a very major interpolation in fact.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

You guys should form a committee and decide whether to go with this line, or contradictions. The two are, well, contradictory.

It was Saint Jerome, who, in 405 AD, completed the Latin Vulgate:

Jerome was a scholar at a time when that statement implied a fluency in Greek. He knew some Hebrew when he started his translation project, but moved to Jerusalem to strengthen his grip on Jewish scripture commentary. A wealthy Roman aristocrat, Paula, funded his stay in a monastery in Bethlehem and he completed his translation there. He began in 382 by correcting the existing Latin language version of the New Testament, commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina. By 390 he turned to translating the Hebrew Bible from the original Hebrew, having previously translated portions from the Septuagint which came from Alexandria. He believed that the mainstream Rabbinical Judaism had rejected the Septuagint as invalid Jewish scriptural texts because of what were ascertained as mistranslations along with its Hellenistic heretical elements.[24] He completed this work by 405. Prior to Jerome's Vulgate, all Latin translations of the Old Testament were based on the Septuagint, not the Hebrew. Jerome's decision to use a Hebrew text instead of the previous translated Septuagint went against the advice of most other Christians, including Augustine, who thought the Septuagint inspired. Modern scholarship, however, has sometimes cast doubts on the actual quality of Jerome's Hebrew knowledge. Many modern scholars believe that the Greek Hexapla is the main source for Jerome's "iuxta Hebraeos" translation of the Old Testament.[25] However, detailed studies have shown that to a considerable degree Jerome was a competent Hebraist.[26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome#Tra...mmentaries

But, even after Jerome, there was still major controversies over the "inspired" text:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

That sounds impressive and it might even be true on a planet in the Sombrero Galaxy but it's pure BS on this planet in the solar system in this galaxy.

The Catholics came up with the lie that some character they named "Saint Jerome" wrote the Bible in the late 390s from the original Hebrew.  They needed to make it an ancient book in order to sell their business model.  The pesky fact is that such a book doesn't exist and never existed until many centuries later.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

The way the actual events really went down is that the early Christians relied upon oral stories and a few people may have written parts of them down through the ages.  But they were never a comprehensive set of scrolls.  Then as time passed Uthman formed a committee to write his fairy tale about Mohammed and Allah into a book.  The Christians were caught sleeping because they didn't have such a complete book for their fairy tale.  So they got busy and came up with a plan.  They assembled a team of story tellers, writers, and artists and bred a large herd of cattle for vellum to write on.  By the 690s they had produced three beautiful copies of their work, each weighing about 75 pounds.  That was the original Bible, the Codex Amiatinus.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus


You couldn't produce a legitimate copy of an earlier Bible if doing so made you the emperor of the world.  

The clever thing is that the writers included all kinds of passages showing that it was just a BS story.  That's the purposes of the contradictions.  And since no one had any evidence  to refute the official version it has endured for the past 1,325 years.  Every once in a while a committee will delete a sentence or two that it doesn't like.  There's been a lot of those.  And once in a while someone will get a bug up his butt and toss a whole set of books out of the Bible.  

Bonus question:  Do you know when the Apocrypha books were purged?  If you don't know that then you don't know Jack ____ about the Bible.

As it says in 2 Maccabees 15:38-39 (CEB)= " 38 If the story was told effectively, this is what I wanted. But if it was told in a poor and mediocre fashion, this was the best I could do. 39 Just as it is harmful to drink wine or water alone while wine mixed with water is delightful and produces joy, so also may the writing of this story delight the ears of those who encounter this work.

The end."