Jump to content

Guest Mr. Thomas

Members
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Guest Mr. Thomas

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Earth
  • Denomination
    Fundamentalist
  • IFB?
    No
  1. To Alan: You're testimony is moving. Also, you are wrong about my intentions. To All: I think this might be my last post as well. I came here looking for help, and I am grateful to those of you who tried. However, I don't find answers that boil down to "I believe because I want to" to be particularly helpful, although at least they are honest. Even if that's all you contributed to this thread, I am grateful for your time and moved by your care. The reason why I'm considering quitting are the discouraging aspirations being thrown onto my character and my motives. You shouldn't treat me like I'm stupid or evil for asking questions that should have already occurred to you. Maybe if our pastors and parents had asked these types of questions, we would have answers by now that would help people like me who are struggling and help convert people who are now out of our reach. Maybe if we as a culture did this now we could have the way prepared for our children. But as long as we continue to fight against the practice of logic with concern to Christianity, we will continue to hemorrhage out of our churches all of our scientists, then other professionals, then the nation at large. Remember, God created logic, and at one point all of the great Scientists (Newton, Mendel, ect.) were Christians and fought with us to convert people instead of against us, and that's why whole nations were predominately Christian. God made the study of logic, and so when we kicked it out of the church we kicked out his blessings too and lost whole nations to the dark as a result. It's our fault that our scientists and leaders are atheist, we made them that way by bullying them out the church for doing what God made them to do. And now, thoroughly blinded and lobotomized, we won''t listen to the great Christian logicians of the past either; and call honest, good men like Thomas Aquinas evil because we would rather have abortions and gay marriage than to have to think hard in a church.
  2. To Pastor Scott Markle: I don't see your distinction between the two. How could you believe in one but not the other? But if neither Jesus nor any of the saints endorsed the Bible (it hadn't been compiled yet), then how do you know it inerrant? As far as I can tell, the Catholics were the ones to compile it and then claim inerrancy, but they also claimed other doctrines that we don't agree with. If the unwavering belief in inerrancy can be traced back to 'a pope told us so, so we believe it', then why do we believe this thing a pope told us but disdain other things popes have told us?
  3. I wrote all my answers that I tried to post yesterday in a text file and uploaded it here, because the website keeps messing up when I put it in the regular text box. Biblical Inerrancy Answers.txt
  4. The websites is giving me alot of trouble in uploading my replies.
  5. To Mr. Alan: Ok, to finish up: 10. Well, some people do just like to rebel, but the question is whether the Bible is the written word of God or if it has been tampered with in such a way that also leads to discord inherrently. I agree that if God wrote it then it must be inerrant because God inerrant. I also think Paul, Peter and such were also great trustworthy men, but not inerrant themselves, so if their book were written without God's direct intervention to the contrary, then their words would also be, strictly speaking not inerrant. And even if God did directly ensure inerrancy for these writers in this special case (and remember, none of the apostles knew that the Bible was going to exist, they didn't have that goal in mind), and produced an inerrant set on manuscripts, if any edits were made since the original letters, then the edited versions would errant even if the originals weren't, again unless God directly influenced the edits in such a way as to still reflect his will. At the very least some wording changes were made when they were translated (The greek 'logos' doesn't carry exactly the same meaning as the English word 'truth', but it is most often translated that way), and God would have had to influence all of the translators in such a way that the new meaning of the words would still reflect his will (even though it wouldn't be exactly the same meaning as before anymore). I really would like to believe that the Bible is an inerrant manual to God's will, but God himself didn't directly tell me it was, and I think there should be a heavy burden of proof when you say something speaks for God. 11. I think it is true for some people, but not everyone. 12. No, I don't remember ever coming across one. 13. I don't understand the question, but that is my understanding of how Darwin's theory works.
  6. To all: I'm sorry for the long delay; things have gotten unusually busy at work. I'm running on nearly 70 hours without sleep right now, but I had to make some time to answer a few more of Mr. Allen's questions before turning in. I plan to answer each of your responses as soon as I can, but after his because I've been keeping him waiting To Mr. Allen: I'm especially sorry to you sir, but thank you so much for waiting! I really appreciate it! I'm sorry I only got these two more typed, but the rest are coming ASAP (hopefully tomorrow, if I wake up by then.) 8. I think so. It certainly does have many different literary styles; Paul's stuff is written in a very different style than say Proverbs. Also, some authors were certainly less righteous than others. The author of Psalms 137:9 for instance, in the song professes a blessing on any man who would seize a Babylonian baby and bash its brains out on a rock. But I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing; I think some books weren't made for teaching. I think Psalms is like that; it is meant to be poetry, records of the joys and sorrows of God's people in that past, but not a theological dissertation. If that's the case, then it's ok for there to be mismatches in places like that, because maybe the 137th Psalm wasn't meant to teach you something, just to be a song about a man that really felt that way. Maybe God just likes poetry, even when there is not a lesson involved, and just decided to put some in the Bible. My point is that there are cases in which the Bible could have those kind of inconsistencies and still be inerrant. 9. I'm not seeing a question in this one either, but I'll give you my two cents. Maybe so, but maybe its possible that denominations would still exists because of cultural reasons. For instance I think Chinese Christians would always want more strict, hierarchical church structures and laws than American Christians would. And it seems like Russia would want to worship in a manner very different than the Congo would. Perhaps denominational distinctions have as much to do with those differences as Biblical disagreements. To No Nicolaitions: I really hate to put another response ahead of Mr. Allen, but I felt like this was particularly important. I figured something like that might jump out at people reading that post, so I would like to clarify. I've never posted on any forum other than this one, but when I argue with atheists in person I don't plead with them in the way I have done here. I'm being entirely honest that this is something that bothers me, and that I really would rather be convinced of Inerrancy, but can't see how. I think it's important to know that I'm really here in good faith, with my intentions just as I described them. And also, I would like to genuinely thank everyone who has taken time to help, it really does mean alot to me!
  7. Ugh, the website dropped the rest of my answers. I'll retype them after a while, but now I'm frustrated.
  8. To Allen on "God does not write the scriptures for your...: This is not totally relevant to my point, but oh yes, he absolutely does write based on his audience. Who do you think is reading this? Angels? Lizards? And you don't have to take my word, take Jesus' on the divorce law stuff I mentioned in my last post. He explicitly said that God gave a different divorce law to a different people in the past on the basis of their specific inclinations. Also, why do you think that there are so many genealogies in the Bible, especially leading to Jesus? Most modern people don't really care one way or the other (how many times do you 'skim' or skip past the genealogies in your readings?), and God certainly doesn't need to prove it too himself. Presumably he included it because there existed certain past and perhaps future cultures that really buy into the 'sins of the father' type of worldview, where the children of bad people are thought less of even before they've done wrong themselves, so he established a longstanding genealogy of good men and women (Ruth). On Dan Barker: Stipulation: I haven't read or heard of this fellow before, so the answers I 'm about to provide are directed to your questions and not based on a review of his work. Effectively I'm answering as if you asked "Is it correct to presuppose that the Bbile has contraditions' and not 'Is Barker correct ...'. I can't speak to what I'm unfamiliar with, but I'll do the best I can. Sidenote: I 'm sometimes inconsistent with my spelling of Bible with a capital. I mean no disrespect, you can assume I mean it to be capitalized. Sidenote 2: I reordered your questions as a set of nineteen instead of two sets of ten and eight (you skipped the second 5). 1. In general, no. It seems to me that a presupposition isn't necessary or logical; you should start from a neutral position and attempt to prove both errancy and inerrancy. My preferred method is to argue against as many hardcore atheists as I can in favor of inerrancy, and as many fundamentalists as I can in favor of errancy, and see which side posses the truth by finding which has the strongest arguements.This duality is important. I'm sure you agree that the Catholics have often presented lies and obscenities (purgatory, indulgences, ect.) (Fun fact: the official position of the Catholic church today is that Mary not only was a virgin her entire life (what about her other kids mentioned in the Bible?), but was also in fact born of a virgin herself.) as truth, so the people they deceived would have done much better to verify the accuracy of their claims. And remember, the same idiots who pray to saints and elected a high priest after God ripped the temple veil had their hands on the Bible at one point too and determined what books and what passages went where. I trust God, but I think it's wise to verify everyone and everything else. 2. Pretty much ditto. The question is whether the whole Bible is God-breathed or if some of it has been edited. If the Bible was tampered with by ancient Catholics, then that would explain the confusion on both counts. 3. No, I would take as granted that God acts both benignly and without error. 4. I don't think that is an atheist argument. I think there is a distinction in their minds between God the person, in whom they disbelieve, and god the concept, in which they observe but disdain. 5. Again, pretty much ditto. I think here they distinguish between oppressed and oppressing humans. To atheists, Biblical authors are oppressors who attempt to enforce imperfect systems out of madness or for material gain, and that rejection is a perfect reaction to imperfect deception. 6. I'm not sure there's a question there, but ok. I agree that there aren't many full-on errors, but there is tons of stuff that, in order to make sense, you have to take strange liberties with the original wordings. You have to read them in ways that you wouldn't have read them the first time. But you don't need a swarm, even one full error is sufficient to prove errancy. 7. I think that's pretty accurate. Sometimes people insist on things not because they really believe them but because they're psychologically adverse to anything else for one reason or another. That's one reason why I love truth and logic. If something is logical, then all people have something to really believe in and not just pretend. If I can find a logical backing to Biblical claims, then not only does it help me, but you can effectively 'save' all the people who just were just fake-believing up to this point. I'm sure you've seen, there's lots of people who are just halfway believers; who think they are but really aren't. Those guys are the hardest to truly save, because they only have enough Christianity to vaccinate them from the real kind. When you have logical proofs you don't need to believe something just because you want to, you can really have faith because you can feel the rocks under your feet.
  9. To Alan: If Jeroiachim had two reigns, don't you think both passages would have mentioned both reigns; instead of one mentioning one and the other supposedly referring to a second? As you demonstrated, other passages are very specific and do mention and distinguish when there are more than one reign or co-reigns. The same goes for Judas' death: if he both hanged himself and fell over in a field.If you hadn't already decided on the answer, that would have never been the interpretation you read into it. But worse than these inconsistencies comes from the gospels again when Matthew says Judas threw the 30 pieces of silver away, but Luke says he used it to purchase land and 'burst open' in it. That looks like a flat contradiction to me. Also, thanks for the response! I appreciate your time and you're laying your argument coherently and point-by-point. To DaveW: Ok. To Pastor Scott Markle: What's your opinion on the Mosaic vs Christian divorce laws I mentioned earlier? As a recap, Moses declared a set of divorce laws similar to what we have in law today. If a married couple wanted to split, they could so long as they signed a legally binding document to the effect, and they were free to remarry others afterwards. Jesus said something along the lines of 'Well, God told Moses give those laws because your ancestors couldn't handle the real law; which is that divorce is not to happen except for in cases of marital infidelity, and remarrying after a divorce is adultery." I think Jesus's law is better of course, and I think it's also more consistent with God's attitude towards marriage, even in the Old Testament. Now, suppose that a Jewish man in say 300 BC, read the Old Testament and logically concluded that Moses' divorce laws were not the true laws, and he derived the same laws Jesus later gave. Did our man do an ungodly thing by using his knowledge of God's character, his logic, and presumably the writings of contemporary scholars, to contradict the Bible as available to him at the time? Is is always wrong in any circumstances to contradict the Bible when God has a track record of reforming/changing laws as we grow 'less hard' than our ancestors?
  10. To Mr. DaveW: Do you think that men should value truth or not? Do you think truth is worth pursuing? On Lewis et al: I don't understand what you think God would disprove of when I stand up for great men of the faith. I don't get the impression that you or SAB76 have read much of the authors I have so far mentioned. Why then do you act like you know more about them than me? All I've done is mention people when they seem relevant to my argument, and it seems like you automatically hate them just because it was me who mentioned them. You can take a stand against my argument without trash-talking them, and I think you should; even on the off-chance that one or more of them are your brothers in the faith. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make everything I mention evil. On Inerrancy: I don't know how you expect to get anywhere with anybody (me or God) with these arguments. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you've decided on an answer, and try to support it after the fact by any means necessary. Is that how pursuing truth is supposed to work? Why are you so afraid of building logically and finding where you end up step-by-step? If you really believe you are right, won't you end up at the same conclusion, just this time with the proper knowledge and support? I think you react so aggressively to challenges to your beliefs because deep down you know that you have no foundation at all; you're afraid that you are floating alone in empty space, so you hate anybody who tells you to anchor yourself because it would require you to look down and see that there is nothing beneath you. In a sense I think I am more faithful to the Bible than you; because deep down I believe that I can find the logical bulwark underneath the Bible and God's teachings, and so I look for them. I don't think you believe that, which is why you're afraid: you're afraid that when you go looking you'll find that there is no truth to it. Anyhow, I hope that you'll find some way to help me out and I hope that I'll find some way to help you out too.
  11. To Mr. Jim_Alaska: So then, do you argue, like the Methodists, that disbelief in the doctrine of Bible inerrancy doesn't preclude someone from being saved? To SAB76 on Inerrancy: Well, whether I'm saved or not seems to depend on whether or not it's possible to be saved and not believe in Bible Inerrancy. I would say that I am, I suspect that you would say I'm not. To SAB76 on Lewis and Aquinas: Also, (and I don't mean this as an insult, but reading that part in your post did make me chuckle a little), you have nooooooooooooooooooooooooo idea what you're talking about with Lewis. He literally wrote two whole books (The Great Divorce and The Pilgrim's Regress) that were about his salvation and begin with him going to hell. There may even be a third (The Screwtape Letters), but I think the person in there is not meant to be him. All three of those are excellent books, and 'The Screwtape Letters' is particularly well loved. You can find copies of it in every Christian bookstore. And what on earth could you have against Aquinas? Seriously man, shouldn't you get to know someone before you hate them? I challenge you man, read 'Mere Christianity' by Lewis or 'The Screwtape Letters' (I think the forward is important on that one though) and then tell me you still think he was bad.
  12. To SAB76: I think 'reprobate' is a little harsh for poor Plato, he advocated for the existence of One God even though he grew up in a pagan country and never heard of Christ or Judaism, and he was a big scholar of justice. In fact once, he described what society would do if a truly perfect and just man appeared like this: "our just man must have the worst of reputations even though he has done no wrong. So we shall be able to test his justice and see if it can stand up to unpopularity and all that goes with it; we shall give him an undeserved and lifelong reputation for wickedness, and make him stick to his chosen course until death … The just man, then, as we have pictured him, will be scourged, tortured, and imprisoned, his eyes will be put out, and after enduring every humiliation he will be crucified." That's pretty close to what actually happened when Christ appeared, which I think is pretty neat. Also, my understanding is that he was beaten and sold into slavery himself (and his friend Socrates was executed) for fighting corruption and paganism in Greece. Sure, he was not a Christian, but he also died 300 years before Christ was born and never met an Israelite so I think we ought to give him a pass on that one. Also, to say CS Lewis taught that Genesis and Job were fables is a little strong, I think it might be more accurate to say that he tried to logically prove the existence of God and some other primary Christian principles, like the existence of miracles and the trinity, but didn't think he could prove Genesis or Job. And some of his more famous quotes include things like "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.", and " Once people stop believing in God, the problem is not that they will believe in nothing; rather, the problem is that they will believe anything. ". I think those are pretty cool sayings, and his books often had subjects like how to overcome temptations and such. He wrote a lot of christian stuff in a manner specifically to bring stubborn highbrows like me to Christ, which I think is pretty commendable. And I think Aquinas probably would have agreed with everything you have said, I only mentioned him because he also thought Biblical principals could also be affirmed logically (that a logical person would have to eventually believe in God, because God's word is the only thing that is logical). I'm don't think you can take any of these guy's word without question, but I think they might have been better men than you think. I think you'll definitely see Lewis and Aquinas in Heaven though, so you probably shouldn't talk so bad about them. I think Peterson is the only one you wouldn't like if you met him, but I think he might be a better man than you think too (he became famous for refusing to obey Canada's new "gender pronoun" law, and he tours around the world promoting truth and a return to traditional values). I get that I might be irritating (though I swear I don't mean to be), but I don't think any of those guys deserved to be talked down to. But that's not really relevant to my questions, I just thought I ought to not give them a bad name. So what's your opinion on the divorce law thing I mentioned in my last post?
  13. To No Nicolaitians: Well, you've proven me wrong about the read through part; thanks alot for doing so! For the 'dead languages' thing: Oh, ok then. For the 'believe the same as you' part: Well, I know it's splitting hairs, but we do both believe that they tried their best, but you just believe they succeeded and I am in doubt. I did have that in mind when I claimed we did, but I understand your objection. For the 'debate' part: Well, I think the King James uses 'debate' here to mean 'quarrel', not what is going on here, but I understand your point. I also understand how you could think (despite my best efforts) that I'm trolling or just looking for a fun debate; but I'm not, I truly am looking to be convinced, on peril of my very soul. On the 'study the Bible' part: I do study the Bible, and I have all my life, which is why the inerrancy question disturbs me so. But I don think regardless that God loves truth and knowledge, and that reason is something holy designed by him for that purpose, so I do read as much as I can on my own so I can try to find the truth, for the same reason I'm writing to you. In conclusion: I don't believe that true logic or debate can lead you away from God. The truth is God's domain, and reason is his creation. If something is truly logical, then it is truly godly. Emotions on the other hand, do often lead people astray. Remember Jeremiah's warning: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?". If you allow your emotions to determine your decisions, you are leading an ungodly life. The bible often reprimands those without self-control, and that is exactly what that is: self control is your minds ability to prevail over your emotions. Your emotions are meant for pleasure, not to rule you. Thank you for your time! Pot- Script Edit: Deuteronomy 24:1-4 says "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. Matthew 19 3-8 says: "The Pharisees also came unto him [Jesus], tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Here we have a situation where God gave a commandment in the Bible that was not a real commandment; it was only the approximation or dialing back of a real, greater commandment. In the old testament passage it says that divorced people can remarry (as long as it is not to each other), but Jesus says you cannot remarry at all (unless your wife cheated on you). Was the Mosaic text in error? It certainly did not tell the truth; the truth was nearly the opposite in fact. If God sometimes presents semi-true or semi-accurate commandments, only to retract them later, then how do you know if any of the passages in the current Bible are not also semi-true or semi-accurate? How do you know that when Paul says women shouldn't be preachers, God isn't giving us a bad commandment "because of the hardness of [our] hearts"? How do we know anything is the real, true, inerrant commandment when God sometimes puts untrue ones in the Bible?
  14. To No Nicolaitans: I don't think you have read my posts through. 1. There's no need to put the phrase 'dead languages' in quotes, I've never made that argument or even used the phrase in any of my posts. in fact, I don't think I've even used the word 'language' at all, but you acted so confidentially that I went back and checked my own posts. If you had read the thead you would have seen that the dead language thing Mr. SAB76 kinda randomly interjected on his own, but I never made or even thought about that point, and I don't contest it. 2. I also have never contended that the authors of the New Testament didn't exist, or even cast aspirations on their motives. I believe like you do that they both existed and tried their best to give an honest, godly account. There's no need for the George Washington bit, I already agree with you there. 3. As I've discussed before, I think it's pretty clear that's not what Luke was trying to say about Judas, but even if you waive that potential error, there are plenty more that I have referenced in earlier passages, and plenty more that I didn't reference yet at all. 4. It's kinda difficult to study God's word if you're not sure what God's word is, don't you think? The question here is whether or not the Bible is God's infallible word or not. If the question is "are these God's words", then I don't think it's valid to say "these words say they are God's words", because that's not exactly a robust proof. However, I am extremely open (and a little desperate at this point) to be convinced in any manner, so I'm willing to go along with you if you try. 5. CS Lewis is not really relevant to my argument, I just felt like defending him because I think he was a good guy. I think it's clear that I don't hold holy 'the word of CS Lewis', I just think he was a good christian who was helpful in my spiritual life. It seems like for the most part you have responded to questions and challenges that I never posed, which is not super helpful. I'm grateful for you taking the time to post, but it's pretty clear that you don't understand the exact nature of my question. I know it's long, but if you don't read through all the posts, you won't know what has been said before or understand the position and trajectory of the conversation now. If don't have time for that, if you would at least read my first post through I think you would understand my position alot better. Again, sincere thanks for your attempt, but if you're going to take the time to respond I think we should make sure the time is productive and well-spent.
  15. First, thank you for reading my post with such detail! I really appreciate it! Taking things in order and starting first with your first (and incidentally also your last) stanza: I'm not really sure why I became a Christian; I grew up in a good Baptist household, and I was baptized when I was very young. However, I can tell you why I stayed in: exposure to the works of CS Lewis. I know he's just a man, but he was probably the most good, wholesome, and honest Christian from whom I have ever read, excepting of course the apostles and Paul. He, like the great St. Thomas Aquinas and Plato the ancient Athenian, believed that not only nature and the moral laws contained evidence of Christ, but logic itself too. He was a great boon to my Christian life, because he provided such compelling logical arguments that I became totally convinced of the validity of God's word in my mind as well as in my heart. He was wrong about some things no doubt, but he was undoubtedly a great man of God; I would stake my life on that. If you ask why I still manage to cling to God even as I doubt the Bible (and the earth might as well have collapsed for how stressful that is) it is because of the straightforward and Godly logic and teachings of CS Lewis. I'll try anybody you think will help, including Dr. Peter Ruckman, but CS Lewis is the one man I most hold responsible my salvation. He's not a source of doubt Jordan Peterson I can take or leave, I just mentioned him because he seemed relevant. As to your second set of paragraphs, the one that references 2nd Peter: I don't really doubt God, I just doubt that the Bible is his word. You don't really need to talk about proof of God, I'm already there. As to the set that referenced 1 Kings: Yes, the widow might have doubted that the command "give your last biscuit" was really from God, but she had the prophet Elijah there, who she did know spoke on behalf of God, to verify and back the claim up. She didn't take it as blind faith either; she had a verified mouthpiece of God to confirm. I, in perhaps a similar situation, might (reasonably I think) doubt that the Bible is really from God, so like the widow, I think I should have a verified mouthpiece of God to confirm. Now, I don't know anyone God has trusted enough to perform miracles and speak for him like he did Elijah, so I have to resort to other verified mouthpieces of God to confirm the Bible. The only other mouthpiece I know of is truth, which God confirms to us by way of logic. If you (or anyone) can logically prove to me that the Bible is inerrant, then I will accept that as Godly verification. I want that proof, so that's why I'm out searching for it, but if I can't tell if God wants me to give away my starving son's last biscuit to a fat man, then I think I should feed my son. As to the part about Judas: Yes, we do use "he" in that manner, but we still don't say 'he broke his arm' or 'he fell down on his face' about cadavers, and I think this usage of "he" falls closer to that usage. As to the use of "headlong", yes I agree, just like you said, how could a hanged body fall headfirst? Well this is the definition of headlong: And that makes it seem like he wasn't hanging. I'm think it's pretty clear the author here meant "headfirst" because saying a body fell "in an impetuous manner", "rashly", "without deliberation" or "without respite" makes even less sense than the other meaning. Finally, to touch back on your last paragraph: Piecing the truth together from the Bible is exactly what I am trying to do, with your (plural) help. The problem is that the closer you look, the more disjoints you find between the pieces. Also, as a mostly irrelevant aside; even if you believe the Bible is inerrant, there's still lots of passages that you can't believe in literally. The Catholics loved to use the passage from Psalms 19:6 about the sun: "It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is deprived of its warmth." as supposed "proof" that the sun revolved around the earth, and there's plenty of other, darker passages like Psalms 137:9, which gives a blessing to any man who would snatch a Babylonian baby from its mother and bashes it's brains out on the ground. That clearly don't align with God's will. Those passages don't necessarily mean the Bible is errant, it just means that some books (like Psalms) are meant as just holy poetry and not serious theological teachings. In those cases, it would be just as wrong to take them literally as it would to take some other passages symbolically, because it's wrong to use parts of the Bible outside their intended purposes, and the intended purpose of those passages is only related to music and worship. CS Lewis didn't think Genesis and Job were symbolic/fictional because he believed they were in error, he just thought they were meant to be passages like Psalms and taken symbolically, not literally. As far as I know he still believed in biblical inerrancy, that part is my own 'discovery', not his. I think Jordan Peterson does think the Bible is all a myth though, (in a way that is less reverent towards the Bible than me). In that way Peterson is pretty sacreligious, but he seems to be an admirer nonetheless, and he has studied the Bible so thoroughly that sometimes he extracts lessons that you probably would have otherwise missed, and he still sometimes (inadvertently) provides teachings genuinely useful to a Christian life. Like I said, I don't approve of his attitude though, so I wouldn't call myself a fan.

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...