Board index Bible

What is the Bible? Why do we say it's God's Word? How did we get it? What makes it so special?
Forum rules
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.

Inconsistencies

Postby Insidious » Sun May 06, 2018 5:55 pm

If you accept that the Bible is full of inconsistencies and isn't to be taken literally, does this not bother you? Why are you a Christian?

I understand fundamentalists more than I do other types of Christians. If I were a Christian, believing that the Bible is mostly non-literal and full of errors would bother me to no end. Where would I possibly get my reason for being a Christian if not from the holy book? Some vague 'call' from within?
Insidious
 

Re: Inconsistencies

Postby jimwalton » Sun May 06, 2018 5:57 pm

Well, I'm not a fundamentalist, but I don't accept that the Bible is full of inconsistencies. I'd be glad to talk about it. As far as literal, it's the wrong word for the subject at hand. The Bible is a rich literary collection containing music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, simile, and many other literary forms, as well as genres such as prayer, prophecy, blessing, covenant language, legal language, etc. "Literally" quickly becomes a word with very little meaning or helpfulness. If a poet says the trees of the field will clap their hands and the mountains will jump for joy, is that literal? Of course not, it's poetry. If a man prays, "God, kill all those people", we may all understand that his prayer is inappropriate, and is not blessed by God, but is it literal? Well, how does that word even apply? And how does it apply to archetype, allegory, parable, and all the others? It's a word that should be dropped from the discussion because it doesn't take us anywhere except to the Land of Misunderstanding.

It's better to think that the Bible should be taken the way the author intended it to be taken. If he was using hyperbole, we're to take it that way. So also allegorically, historically, parabolic, poetic, etc. Our quest is to understand the intent of the author. In that case we'll take the Bible *seriously*, but "literally" doesn't take us anywhere.

Errors? We'd have to talk. What errors?

And, by the way, if you want to talk about inconsistencies and errors, don't just link me to some trash site on the Internet. I've looked at many of these and they are laughable. If you want to have a conversation, let's have a real conversation.
jimwalton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9102
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm

Re: Inconsistencies

Postby Insidious » Mon May 07, 2018 1:09 pm

I don't know what to link to other than that. There are blatant errors like saying a certain king is in power in 2 BC when that is simply inaccurate and contradicted elsewhere. You'd be hard pressed to find any historian who would say the Bible doesn't have a lot of inconsistencies/errors.

Now, that's perfectly understandable given the time period and all that, for the writers to make some mistakes. But when you're essentially basing your entire life around what you've read in such a book, it is a pretty big deal in my opinion. How am I to believe anything in the Bible, let alone base my life around what it tells me about Christ, if I can't trust it? If I acknowledge that it is deeply flawed and that its authors didn't even know Jesus and in fact wrote it decades after he died? Imagine if I were to ask people who had no access to the internet or anything of the sort to recite Gerald Ford's first state of the union speech... that kinda seems like what happened with Jesus' sermon on the mount, it would be a miracle in itself if what is written is accurate.
Insidious
 

Re: Inconsistencies

Postby jimwalton » Mon Jun 25, 2018 6:24 pm

> I don't know what to link to other than that.

Don't link me to anything. Talk to me yourself. As I mentioned, I've been on those sites, and they are horrendously inaccurate, ludicrously loose with the facts, and show research of about 1/2" deep. As I said, they actually make me laugh out loud, they're so bad. Also, linking to a site that has 8000 alleged inaccuracies gives no room for conversation. I can't begin to address them all. It's just not productive for dialogue.

So let's talk about something that is of issue to YOU, something that you find to be problematic, and let's talk about it.

> Now, that's perfectly understandable given the time period and all that

You're right that biblical writers didn't approach historiography the way we do in our modern culture. They lived under a different worldview where the disciple of historiography was viewed differently.

> But when you're essentially basing your entire life around what you've read in such a book, it is a pretty big deal in my opinion.

We believe that God often accommodated the culture and their worldview in the words, sentences, etc., that they chose. The authority is in his message (the illocution) not in the words (the locutions: their scientific worldview, their view of historiography, etc.). I can easily base my life around this book that is the authoritative revelation of God.

> it is deeply flawed

This is what we need to discuss. What flaws are so disturbing to you?

> that its authors didn't even know Jesus

Now this you can't prove at all. There is great debate about these matters, and very little can be proven. You may be basing your life decisions on opinions, not facts.

> in fact wrote it decades after he died?

Decades is nothing. Do you think we could find anyone to give us an accurate account of Bill Clinton's presidency in the 1990s? Easily.

> Imagine if I were to ask people who had no access to the internet or anything of the sort to recite Gerald Ford's first state of the union speech... that kinda seems like what happened with Jesus' sermon on the mount, it would be a miracle in itself if what is written is accurate.

In a world where minds are trained from early on to remember (oral transmission), especially the sayings of a great man, such a task isn't so hard. Our culture isn't like that at all. I can't even memorize a shopping list to go to the store. In those days people were trained to remember. Even Socrates said things like:

- "Words put into writing are incapable of being clear and are only useful to remind someone of what they have heard."
- "Written words cannot be defended by argument and cannot teach truth effectively."
- "If an author thinks that what he has written has certain and clarity, it is to his disgrace."
- "Written words do not provide opportunity for questioning and teaching."
- "Written words are of little value unless an author is able to back them up by explanation."

Rabbinic confidence in memorization was so high that some rabbis even banned the writing of oral traditions (Babylonian Talmud, Temurah 14b).

It was a different world than ours. It's not miraculous at all for people to be able to pull it together. It is also widely believed that the teachings recorded for us in the Sermon on the Mount were repeated often through Jesus's ministry. That would add to their being able to remember them. And, of course, you also must understand that Jesus spoke and taught in Aramaic, and Matthew is written in Hebrew. We don't have Jesus's actual terminology—a recitation.


Last bumped by Anonymous on Mon Jun 25, 2018 6:24 pm.
jimwalton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9102
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm


Return to Bible

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


cron