Why is the Bible so imperfect?

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Moses and Joshua did not just claim to their soldiers that they had a divine mandate: according to the text, they proved it. God performed miracles in front of all the Israelites to prove the credibility of their leaders.

All religious leaders that claim communication with a deity prove they are in communication with their god. They all perform miracles or have miracles preformed for them to demonstrate this ability.

That is how one becomes such a figure in the first place

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Equally, it is often easy to refute the feeble arguments employed by most atheists as to why God does not exist

Pompey Magnus

Húrin wrote: »

I agree, and I also think that most atheists would too.

Well, to be fair atheists don't believe the book to be inspired by the creator of the Universe. That said I know for a fact that I myself have a far better knowledge of (and interest in) the Bible now than I did when I was a believer, I'm in no way an expert today but I knew next to nothing about it back then.

You would have a hard time converting even a Biblically ignorant Christian to atheism merely by quizzing. Equally, it is often easy to refute the feeble arguments employed by most atheists as to why God does not exist, but it is an entirely different question to get them to realise that God does exist, and probably beyond my power.

The point of quizzing Christians would not be to convert them to atheism. It would be to get them to realise the truth about what their Holy book really is. I imagine many almost assume that the Bible descended from Heaven on a cloud and is completely accuate and completely honest. When they realise that the 27 books of the NT aren't inerrant, they aren't the only writings about Jesus from early Christians, and that they have been changed over the years, it may not convert them to atheism, but it would hopefully dent their over confidence in what is a very imperfect book.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

All religious leaders that claim communication with a deity prove they are in communication with their god. They all perform miracles or have miracles preformed for them to demonstrate this ability.

That is how one becomes such a figure in the first place

Really? That must make the papal elections very interesting indeed. And there I was thinking they were probably quite boring affairs.

So, what kind of miracles do you think the various candidates perform before the white smoke appears from the Vatican chimney?

I now feel a bit of a fraud since I didn't work any mighty miracles in order to be appointed as a pastor or as a bishop. I do hope that this dos not mean I can be booted out as improperly qualified.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I imagine many almost assume that the Bible descended from Heaven on a cloud and is completely accuate and completely honest. When they realise that the 27 books of the NT aren't inerrant, they aren't the only writings about Jesus from early Christians, and that they have been changed over the years, it may not convert them to atheism, but it would hopefully dent their over confidence in what is a very imperfect book.

One of the differences between us on this point is that you make judgements on Christians according to your imagination, whereas I make mine on evidence (interaction with tens of thousands of Christians over the last 27 years).

I've never met any Christian who believed the Bible descended on a cloud, but I guess such an imagination makes it easier for you to portray Christians as being ignorant or gullible.

Close study of the NT books has not lead me, or indeed many others, to deny their inerrancy, so that is your own subjective opinion. It is hardly reasonable to criticise Christians as ignorant simply because they fail to accept Depeche Mode's subjective and very fallible opinion.

I have had the pleasure, in both churches and classrooms, of introducing many Christians to the gnostic texts and other non-canonical books written about Jesus. In the vast majority of cases the result is a renewed appreciation for the Canonical Scriptures. I often hear comments like, "Wow! The guys who sorted out the Canon really knew their stuff. Thank God they didn't include some of that junk!"

Finally, a close examination of any 'changes' over the years, carefully comparing manuscript with manuscript, is the work of textual criticism. Again, such a task usually produces a sense of wonder at how accurately the texts were transmitted and an awareness of God's guiding hand in ensuring that any scribal errors were so minor and affected no major point of doctrine.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

One of the differences between us on this point is that you make judgements on Christians according to your imagination, whereas I make mine on evidence

A witty, but unhelpful conflation of two uses of the word 'imagination'.

DM's point is much the same as one I've been making. Namely that either believing de novo, or concluding from evidence, that the bible is largely or exclusively inerrant is a naive philosophical position, and I think it's quite fair to say that a lingering suspicion that the bible is not inerrant does not inform the theological musings of the vast majority christians. And none at all here, since I don't recall any christian poster over the last couple of years who has said that some biblical quote might be "wrong" in some context. Hence, DM's comment that the most christians seem to think that the bible descended from heaven, arrayed in a state of native purity, seems pretty much on target.

For myself, during the time when I was fed christianity, I do not recall a single comment to the effect that so much as a single word was doubtful. That doubt came later when I studied the NT in ancient greek and found it deeply unconvincing -- Plato's level of inspiration far exceeds the authors of the NT, as I suspect even you would agree. Had I not done greek, I might still think the NT a good book, so hats off to my old greek teacher, now a man of elevated position within the church

Pompey Magnus

I have had the pleasure, in both churches and classrooms, of introducing many Christians to the gnostic texts and other non-canonical books written about Jesus. In the vast majority of cases the result is a renewed appreciation for the Canonical Scriptures. I often hear comments like, "Wow! The guys who sorted out the Canon really knew their stuff. Thank God they didn't include some of that junk!"

Well, that they recognise what isn't in their canon to be be "junk" is only to be expected. Of course they have no means of actually knowing that what they read in their canon is in any way more plausible or believable than which the gnostics read.

Also, had the first Christian canon (that of Marcion) developed to be the orthodox canon of Christians today there would have been only 11 books in the Christian Bible. There would be no Old Testament, only 10 letters of St Paul and the Gospel of Luke. Your same Christian students today would be reading the Gospel of John in your "Non-Marcionite" classes and laughing at the junk that this early Christian group believed. You would be teaching that in the early years of Christianity some Christians actually believed that the inferior God of the Jews was actually the same God that Jesus taught of. You would tell your class that these non-Marcionites actually managed to selectively read the Hebrew Bible in such a way that they could fool themselves into believing that the God of Love that Jesus told us of was actually the same murderous God who killed men, women and children as and when he wanted. And your class would have said " "Wow! Marcion, who sorted out the Canon, really knew his stuff. Thank God he didn't include some of that junk!"

That Christians today accept the orthodox message and reject the gnostic message as junk tells us nothing about the intrinsic truth of the orthodox point of view.

Finally, a close examination of any 'changes' over the years, carefully comparing manuscript with manuscript, is the work of textual criticism. Again, such a task usually produces a sense of wonder at how accurately the texts were transmitted and an awareness of God's guiding hand in ensuring that any scribal errors were so minor and affected no major point of doctrine.

Well if God's guiding hand was at work why wouldn't he make sure their were no scribal errors whatsoever? I also wouldn't say that there is no major point of doctrine affected by the inaccurate copying of texts. I would suggest that the questions regarding the ending of the Gospel of Mark are extremely important. Our oldest and best copies of the Gospel have it ending with no-one ever seeing the risen Jesus. Also our first two scribes who reference the Gospel of Mark (Matthew and Luke) quote him frequently except when it comes to the passages in doubt, the post resurrection accounts of Matthew and Luke share no similar details with the last 12 verses of Mark that we have today. It is fair to assume that also had a copy of Mark which did not include the ending we have. I would think the question of whether anyone actually saw the risen Jesus is a very important question and this hinges on accepting verse which seem to have been added later and weren't actually part of the first written Gospel.

Also a major point of doctrine is that of the trinity. It is only explicitly mentioned once in the four Gospels, John 5:7-8.

"There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one"

This passage is not found in ANY of the Greek manuscripts written prior to the 16th Century. I would consider that also be to a fairly major matter of doctrine which is affected by scribal tampering.

philologos

Depeche Mode wrote:

Also a major point of doctrine is that of the trinity. It is only explicitly mentioned once in the four Gospels, John 5:7-8.

"There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one"

Matthew 28?

Matthew 28:19-20 (NRSV) wrote:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

Matthew 28?

Matthew 28 is an implicit reference to the Trinity, if you had no knowledge of Christianity and the Trinity and were just shown Matthew 28 you would not be able to extract from it the concept of a deity which was made up of three seperate, equal entities. John 5:7 is explicit, it leaves little doubt about the trinity, however it is not authentic and was added for the very reason that there was no explicit statement of this concept in the New Testament.

The Trinity is central to the orthodox Christian doctrine, it was a problem that this had to be inferred from various passages. How was the problem solved? A passage was created by scribes and inserted into the Gospel of John. No more problem.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

We have gone into this in more depth in other threads. The Bible makes claims about itself regarding inerrancy and inspiration. That, of course, will be totally unconvincing, and circular, to those who think the Bible is a heap of junk anyway. But for those of us who have found the Bible to be a suitable guide for life then such claims will be more convincing because they come from a source that has proved itself good and helpful.

Think of it this way. Imagine that a man claims to be totally honest and to always tell the truth. If he is a stranger to you, then you may well say, "Why should I believe in his honesty purely on his own say so?" But what if you live alongside the man for years and you never hear him saying or doing anything dishonest? What if all your friends have the same impression of him? It would become increasingly hard for you to believe that such an honest person would make a false claim concerning himself.

So, not so much a circle as a spiral.

But what if the man really was dishonest but the fact that everyone else was saying he is honest convinced you that even when the man was being dishonest, he was really being honest, and that it is just his mysterious ways?

There have been experiments done where a group of people are asked to look at three lines on a card. Two are the same length but one is clearly smaller. Of the group of people, only one is the control, the rest are in on the experiment. All of the group who are in on it individually state that the lines are clearly all the same size. When the control (who is last) chooses, almost every time he/she went with the group in stating the lines are the same size, and would even joke nervously about their mind playing tricks on them. This is referred to as groupthink and is common in many walks of life where people hold homogenous beliefs, which leads them to making decisions as a herd, even when their minds may tell them to act differently, humans would rather go with the crowd. Now, add to the mix the power of religious belief, and you have a rather potent cocktail.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Really? That must make the papal elections very interesting indeed. And there I was thinking they were probably quite boring affairs

Indeed ... pretty sure St. Peter performed miracles, but more importantly the Pope's claim authority was given to them from Jesus, and he certain did perform miracles (didn't he).

Also I'm not sure the Popes claim to communicate directly with God.

iUseVi

depeche_mode wrote: »

well, That They Recognise What Isn't In Their Canon To Be Be "junk" Is Only To Be Expected. Of Course They Have No Means Of Actually Knowing That What They Read In Their Canon Is In Any Way More Plausible Or Believable Than Which The Gnostics Read.

exactly

Schuhart

Like anyone who had one idea in his life, I’m going to flog mine to death again.

I think this thread is illustrating again that there’s a gap in how the dialogue is approached by atheists and theists, because atheists seem to implicitly assume that the foundation of religion is the credibility of the god concept. Hence, we assume that once we illustrate that the Biblical God is an unlikely entity, and/or that the Bible itself is unlikely to be inerrant, that surely the theist must recognise the error of his ways and join us in the light, thus saving his soul or something.

However I think its reasonably clear that belief in God and belief in the Bible is a consequence of the decision to practice a faith, rather than the basis of that faith. Hence, while its not a completely pointless activity, assembling rational arguments based on such facts as seem to be available is of more limited interest than many atheists seem to generally think. (Yes, I am making a massive assumption about how many atheists generally think. Certainly, some atheists think like this.)

PDN has, here and before, given what I think is a very coherent explanation of that position. I’m sure he’ll correct me if how I read what he says differs from what he actually means. But as I see it, him and others essentially say ‘Our proof of the validity of our religion is that, in our daily lives, we function better because of it. The more we trust to it, the more we find we can depend on it. Because we hold that people function better when practicing a faith, atheism would require us to believe that truth requires people to be more miserable than they have to be. While that may be the case, we choose to hold what seems to us a more optimistic vision of reality, which is people are not meant to be more miserable than they have to be’.

The key question, if there to be any meaningful closure in the gap between the two positions, is to focus on that. I rather agree with Ken Miller (in particular about two minutes in to this youtube video) that, for the sake of argument, the motivation for Creationism is fear that a society without religion will be a cruel and violent place. That’s the space, I feel, that the dialogue needs to go. The question is not, much as it looks to the faithless, whether the evidence for the Bible being divinely inspired is circular. It’s whether atheism can actually provide the human benefits people get from religion. If the answer to that is not a clear yes, then obviously people will accept the authenticity of whatever gives them those human benefits. I would further suggest (on no particular basis - this is simply an assertion) that, for many folk, the answer to that is not a clear yes.

iUseVi

Schuhart wrote: »

Like anyone who had one idea in his life, I’m going to flog mine to death again.

I think this thread is illustrating again that there’s a gap in how the dialogue is approached by atheists and theists, because atheists seem to implicitly assume that the foundation of religion is the credibility of the god concept. Hence, we assume that once we illustrate that the Biblical God is an unlikely entity, and/or that the Bible itself is unlikely to be inerrant, that surely the theist must recognise the error of his ways and join us in the light, thus saving his soul or something.

However I think its reasonably clear that belief in God and belief in the Bible is a consequence of the decision to practice a faith, rather than the basis of that faith. Hence, while its not a completely pointless activity, assembling rational arguments based on such facts as seem to be available is of more limited interest than many atheists seem to generally think. (Yes, I am making a massive assumption about how many atheists generally think. Certainly, some atheists think like this.)

PDN has, here and before, given what I think is a very coherent explanation of that position. I’m sure he’ll correct me if how I read what he says differs from what he actually means. But as I see it, him and others essentially say ‘Our proof of the validity of our religion is that, in our daily lives, we function better because of it. The more we trust to it, the more we find we can depend on it. Because we hold that people function better when practicing a faith, atheism would require us to believe that truth requires people to be more miserable than they have to be. While that may be the case, we choose to hold what seems to us a more optimistic vision of reality, which is people are not meant to be more miserable than they have to be’.

The key question, if there to be any meaningful closure in the gap between the two positions, is to focus on that. I rather agree with Ken Miller (in particular about two minutes in to this youtube video) that, for the sake of argument, the motivation for Creationism is fear that a society without religion will be a cruel and violent place. That’s the space, I feel, that the dialogue needs to go. The question is not, much as it looks to the faithless, whether the evidence for the Bible being divinely inspired is circular. It’s whether atheism can actually provide the human benefits people get from religion. If the answer to that is not a clear yes, then obviously people will accept the authenticity of whatever gives them those human benefits. I would further suggest (on no particular basis - this is simply an assertion) that, for many folk, the answer to that is not a clear yes.

Good post. You may be right about for example arguing about the infallibility of the bible. I still think it's a good approach though, if it makes people think.

It's like Galileo said:

You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him to find it for himself.

But perhaps this discussion is more appropriate to the A&A forum. Care to start a thread using your thoughts from above?

Schuhart

iUseVi wrote: »

But perhaps this discussion is more appropriate to the A&A forum. Care to start a thread using your thoughts from above?

Tis done

Pompey Magnus

Schuhart wrote: »

‘Our proof of the validity of our religion is that, in our daily lives, we function better because of it. The more we trust to it, the more we find we can depend on it. Because we hold that people function better when practicing a faith, atheism would require us to believe that truth requires people to be more miserable than they have to be. While that may be the case, we choose to hold what seems to us a more optimistic vision of reality, which is people are not meant to be more miserable than they have to be’.

This reminds me of the saying "It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied with the world than a satisfied pig". So what if religious people are happier in their world cushioned from reality with the belief that they will be rewarded by their own particular deity and their enemies will be eternally tortured. Their happiness doesn't mean for a second that they are actually right in their belief.

And just because some people behave better because of faith does not make it true. The Nation of Islam help members get off drugs, Hamas provide community support to disadvantaged families, Scientologists run successful child literacy programs. These are all nasty, faith based organisations who do some good in their communities. This is not proof that they are right.

Their recruits are presumably happier than they were before they joined, great for them but not great for the rest of us who don't share the racist views of the Nation of Islam, or the anti-Semitic views of Hamas, or the ridiculous views of Scientology, or indeed the homophobic views of Christianity.

Schuhart

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

This reminds me of the saying "It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied with the world than a satisfied pig".

Alternatively, as the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers might argue, dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope. That whole reality business may be greatly overrated.

Plus, what's reality anyway? However, we'd probably better explore those thoughts over on the atheism forum.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Their happiness doesn't mean for a second that they are actually right in their belief.

I think its fair to point out that this is my read of what theists say, rather than what they may feel they are saying.

However, on that point of happiness not being a proof, I'd just mention that element that I see present in their positionwe choose to hold what seems to us a more optimistic vision of reality, which is people are not meant to be more miserable than they have to be. It strikes me as perfectly logical, but hardly in human self-interest, to argue that people are 'meant' to be unhappy. Hence, I actually think the appeal to human contentment is more powerful than we would like it to be.