quote:

---

---

So, in order to punish child sacrifice and make sure Isreal did not follow that example, God commands Israel to kill all the Canaanite children. This is extremely odd!

And if God was killing them only to take them to heaven, why doesn't it say so?

We must surely

• as Christians and in the light of the morality we have learned from Jesus (NOT as 'postmodernists')
  
• and especially in the light of the appalling slaughter of peoples in the 20th century
  
• not to mention the burning of heretics to save their souls in earlier times,

be deeply suspicious of claims by anyone that God has commanded them to put someone to death.

The inerrantist approach to scripture is motivated by the idea that if the bible is Gods word then it must be perfect. But it can still be a means of revelation to us without being perfect. There are, arguably, good reasons why God would not want it to be perfect. One reason is that if it was perfect then then people would be inclined to obey and believe what it says thoughtlessly, without grappling with it and arguing with it. Blind obedience and belief('I was only obeying orders, only doing what i was told to by God') lead to immature not whole people with a developed moral sense - 'the letter kills' says Paul. Is it not an offence to non-Christians that so many Christians appear to be able to accept the clearnce of Canaan with such ease?

The doctrine of inerrancy is useless anyway. Even if the text is inerrant it still leaves open the crucial question of how we interpret it and Christian history demonstrates how diverse such interpretations can be.

But it is often useless to argue the issue with inerrantists since they have so many ways of explaining why apparent errors are not errors. Where parallel accounts of the same incident occur such as in the Gospels and in Chronicles compared with Kings errors seemingly must exist because the accounts differ. But few statements in the Bible are precise enough to be beyond ingenious harmonisation with other passages. Where we have precision such as the numbers of horses, infantry etc that differ so markedly between Kings and Chronicles they just argue that there was an error in copying the original manuscript. Other ways around problems include arguments that rely on 'God can do anything' and 'God can have reasons for his actions that are inexplicable ('My ways are not your ways' etc.)' If none of these work then just argue that the original manuscript (which we no longer have) must not have been in error.

What does this all prove? Simply that there is no error in the bible that is beyond the ingenuity of some Christian somewhere to explain away, however improbable the explanation may be.

But I can't resist throwing in a couple of examples anyway:

• 1. Matthew implies that Joseph and Mary were living in Bethlehem before Jesus birth ( the magi visit them at a house (Mt 2:11)), then they go to Egypt and then set off back for Bethlehem but, being hearing that Archelaus is king of that region, go to Nazareth to set up a home there instead (see Mt 2:23). Luke, in contrast, has J & M living in Nazareth, then going to Bethlehem where Jesus is born, then to Jerusalem, then back to their home in Nazareth (with no time for a trip to egypt). They can't both be right. What we learn from these passages is how M saw the birth of Jesus as fitting in with OT prophecy. We don't have to take the passages as historically accurate. (see Matthew
• 2. who killed Goliath, David or Elhanan? See 1 Sam 17:50-51; 2 Sam 21:19; and I Chron 20:5-6. Again one of these passages must be in error.

Polly, ekalb please note.

But there are those who want to know the truth about the issue and want to know it even if it is uncomfortable. Is the Bible without error or not? They look at the Bible and what it is like, they consider it and their understanding of God, they consider the writings and arguments of others, they consider the moral and theological implications of inerrancy and non-inerrancy, their effects on how the bible should be interpreted etc. All of these are interelated and influence one another. And they try to decide what is the best explanation for the presence of apparent errors in the Bible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
The inerrantist approach to scripture is motivated by the idea that if the bible is Gods word then it must be perfect. But it can still be a means of revelation to us without being perfect.

---

The Bible can also be God's Word and perfect without necessarily being literally accurate. The fundamental point is that it is a book filled with spiritual information. It is not a history or science manual.

I am in complete agreement with Glenn and Bonzo over the bedrock idea that God does not condone, much less command, genocide. The justification that the Canaanites deserved it works fine with children and uneducated people. But it is simply not consistent with the overall view of God that Scripture teaches.

There has to be a better explanation.

The explanation that works for me is that this was an evil time in the history of the human race - the time just before the Advent. Despite the unhappy and violent nature of human interactions, God was able to use the budding technology of the time to set down a narrative that could prepare the people in Palestine for His coming. The narrative was so highly symbolic, and so cleverly written, that it both appealed to the people's national pride, and contained deep ideas within it. The violence and cruelty of the history is transformed into an account of how God drives evil out of our spiritual lives.

My fear is that people who recognize the literal inaccuracy of many parts of the Bible go on to throw out the baby with the bathwater and do not consider it a reliable source of spiritual truth.

Firstly the textual question. Which books constitute the Bible? The Ethiopian Coptic Church doesn't include Revelation (nor did the rest of us very nearly), the Roman Catholics include the Apocrypha, the Reformed Churches don't. Then of course there are those passages which were incorporated into the KJV but which modern scholars tend to leave out (Mark 16:9-20 and the passage in 1 John 7 which mentions the Holy Trinity). If you check the footnotes of any modern Bible on virtually every page you will find a comment to the effect that "other ancient authorities ..." This is because we have a variety of manuscripts of the various books of the Bible and not all of them agree. It seems to me a little pointless arguing about whether a book is inerrant when there is no settled consensus as to what it's contents are.

The second, more fundamental, objection to inerrancy is the cognitive question. Words are symbols. Human language is not an exact tool. There is no one on one correspondence between signifiers (words) and what is signified (things, concepts). To take an obvious example, if I use the word "table" it will depend on the context as to whether I am refering to a big wooden thing that I put my plate on when I am eating dinner or an arrangement of numbers in a report which was put together using an Excel Spreadsheet. If a word as basic as "table" contains this degree of ambiguity, what can we expect from terms like "God", "eternal life", "sin" and so on. The matter is further complicated by the fact that those who used the terms are separated from us by culture and by a period of millenia.

Firstly, I will admit that I have not presented my case as well as I should. For that, you have my apologies.

But did You EVEN READ my last post?

You said, in your 'response', that I attributed the genocide to God. Hello? My entire post was about how God DIDN'T commit genocide.

I didn't shift the argument, I have said/am saying that genocide is something men do to one another out of hatred.

In CONTRAST, God may kill a group of people for their sins (not out of hatred, envy, etc.) and be justified for doing so.

Every one of your responses have been nothing more than MIS-interpretations of my argument and refutations of those misinterpretations. In other words, stop making "Straw Men" arguments.

Have you tried refuting my analogies (which I have made)?

I have drawn out (twice now) the "qualitative" difference between 'divine punishment' and 'genocide'. Please READ them at least once before trying to refute them (it Helps!).

In response to your last post I have two things to say:

1) Yes, I am starting from an intrinsic belief in the Bible as God's perfect word. So what? can you prove that this belief hinders my ability to make arguments. You are also starting your arguments from intrinsic beliefs too. (You appear to believe in the transcendant value of logic and reason for one.) I'm not saying that your beliefs are wrong, but merely saying that we are "enclosed unto faith". It's an old saying that means that humans are, by nature, 'faith-beings': We 'believe' in our existence, we 'believe' in the existence of other minds, we 'believe' in the value and validity of empirically-derived truth claims, etc. etc. So, don't assume that my 'beliefs' hinder me from arguing properly anymore than your 'beliefs' do, ok?

2) You said that I havn't really given evidence of my claim that there is no difference between the 'god' of the OT and the 'god' of the NT. - Guilty as charged.
So here goes,
God's love in the OT:
Gen.18.20-33
Exod.34.6-7
Is.49.14-15
Jer.3.19
Ps.136
Lam.3.25-33
Zech.7.8-10
God's wrath in the NT:
Matt.21.12-13
Mrk.8.33
Acts 5.1-11
Heb.10.30-31
2Pet.2.4-10
Rev.19.15

The whole point of this is biblical inerrancy, right?
While belief in the inerrancy of scripture is something to be taken, primarily, on faith, the fact is that your arguments are weak.
You say that it was the Hebrews who actually committed "genocide". If that was true and if the Bible attributed God as the instigator of this "genocide", then you would have a point. The argument 'hinges' on whether this was "genocide" or not.
Like I said, the text does not consider it genocide (You are arguing against the authorial intent/interpretation of the text), and secondly, there is a 'good' and 'reasonable' alternative explanation which fits the authorial intent of the passage: namely, God was divinely judging the 'sinners' for their sin.

quote:

---

2) Like where? Just because one account says something that isn't mentioned in another doesn't make it contradictory.

---

So, for example, Gen 2:19 is in the pluperfect tense in the NIV - God HAD formed the beasts before he brought them to Adam for naming. The NRSV, the NJB, the REB and even the KJV all say 'God formed', making the creation of man prior to that of the animals and thus a contradiction of 1:24-26. It's logical from the standpoint of infallibility/inerrancy, but AIUI the more natural translation is perfect rather than pluperfect.

The other point is that Polly keeps referring to Lee Strobel's book and must be wondering why everyone else either ignores it or dismisses it. There's a very good review by Jeff Lowder - admittedly hostile, but closely reasoned and ready to give him his due where appropriate - at this site . To reproduce just a short extract:
'Strobel did not interview any critics of Christian apologetics, even though he attacks such individuals in his book. For example, Strobel devotes an entire chapter to his interview of Greg Boyd (an outspoken faultfinder of the Jesus Seminar), yet Strobel never interviewed a single member of the Jesus Seminar itself! Likewise, he repeatedly criticizes Michael Martin, author of Case Against Christianity, but he never bothered to get Martin's responses to those attacks. This hardly constitutes balanced reporting on Strobel's part'

Personally I am always rather suspicious of those who claim to have been totally sceptical about Christianity when starting to write their book/article and then to have been converted by the time they finish. It's a good rhetorical device, but it's been done to death (UK readers only have to look at any article by Colin Wilson about the supernatural appearing in the Daily Mail...).

In fact, having just done another search... here is a page on a Christian website where -if you look carefully - you will find that Strobel admits the book was written when he was already a Christian. He says it 'retraces' the path that he followed, but I would submit that it is very difficult to do that with honesty. It's certainly not the book of 'A journalist who has a law degree [who] made it his task to prove that the claims about Christ were false but after his research became a Christian' as Polly originally wrote, and many readers of Strobel seem to believe - presumably because they take his description in the book to be literally true...

quote:

---

Originally posted by elkab

I didn't shift the argument, I have said/am saying that genocide is something men do to one another out of hatred.

In CONTRAST, God may kill a group of people for their sins (not out of hatred, envy, etc.) and be justified for doing so.

---

What you were saying is that my argument judges God. My argument is that God did not instigate the genocide, men did. Therefore how can my argument be a judgement of God?

I said your argument attributed the Genocide to God because that's exactly what it does. To argue that God has the right to take life away might hold some weight, but for God to compel humans to perform the acts for him is genocide. You're surely not saying that every israelite wept tears of love as they chopped the heads off the babies, that is beyond belief in any rational thinking.

Ah, but you're not rational are you? You imply so here.

quote:

---

(You appear to believe in the transcendant value of logic and reason for one.)

---

If we don't apply logic and reason then we can successfully argue that the Bible is the work of little green men from Mars. All we have to do is say that's what we believe.

The biggest problem is that the thing you seem to have complete faith in, is a claim made, not by God but by men! Namely that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

The Bible doesn't say that it is inerrant. The majority of theologians don't believe that it's inerrant. But you do! And you dont allow, even your own mind, to use logic to justify that absurd claim.

I have never denied that there are instances in the OT where God shows love. Nor have I denied that there are instances in the NT where God's wrath is mentioned. But just because God shows wrath in the NT doesnt mean that he slaughters one person for another's wrongdoing. Also it doesn't mean that he gets men to do it for him.

You believe that God instigated the killing of innocent people (babies would have been put to death) and used men to do it, rather than taking their lives directly. I say that the only reason you believe that is that you are starting from the (man made) premise that the Bible is inerrant.

quote:

---

Luke has him born when Quirinius was legate of Syria and Cilicia (i.e after 6 AD). They can't both be right. And attempts by literalists to argue that somehow Quirinius was legate before this, or that Luke is referring to the census before Quirinius was legate are very dodgy to say the least.

---

Although I'm not a supporter of the Inerrancy of Scripture line, we need to be a little clearer here about the Greek.

The relevant word is 'protos', which indeed generally means 'first'; however, it can also mean 'before' (and is indeed used with that meaning elsewhere in the Gospels), and the Lucan passage could certainly be read as 'This was the census before Quirinius was "kurios" of Syria'

Thus, the only "true" truth (to use a phrase I think Francis Shaeffer used) is historical and scientific factual truth. Any other kind of truth, such as analogy, poetry or any kind of truth which can't be backed up by reference to "fact" could be seen to be based on a "lie."

Thus, Jonah has to be swallowed by a whale because otherwise it would be fiction, and that would be a "lie". It doesn't occur to them that fiction is as good a way of conveying truth as a historical account; if not better, because it doesn't have to prove anything. Jesus himself used parables (which are fictional) in order to convey spiritual truth. There is no reason to suppose that the writers and compilers of the Bible were not often doing this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gauk:
It seems to me that the inerrant position must come from prejudgement of the issues. Could one take the Bible as we receive it, read it, assess it impartially, and come to the conclusion that it is an inerrant text? I rather doubt it.

---

You seem to be assuming that inerrancy and literalism are the same thing. Inerrancy is about the truth of its spiritual teaching when it is properly understood. Literalism is about the exact date and circumstances under which things happened.

Literalism is such an easy target that I don't know why we are even bothering to talk about it. But the holiness and spiritual truth of Scripture is something that Christianity has always accepted.

The Bible repeatedly claims that it is the holy Word of God and that everything in it is true. An impartial observer could not help but notice these statements. You can accept or reject them, but the church has historically accepted the truth of the Bible.

For example:

quote:

---

"The entirety of Your Word is truth." Psalm 119.160
"The Word of our God stands forever." Isaiah 40.8
"Man shall not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Matthew 4.4
"He who received the seed on the good ground is he who hears the Word and understands it, and bears fruit." Matthew 13.23
"The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life." John 6.63
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away." Luke 21.33
"Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the Law until all is fulfilled." Matthew 5.18
"You make the Word of God of no effect because of your traditions." Mark 7.13

---

The "Word of God" in the Old Testament is identified with the law of Moses (as in Psalm 119) and with the statements of the prophets ("Hear the Word of the Lord"). In the New Testament it is identified as the entire Old Testament (Luke 24.44), the words of Jesus, and of course as Jesus Himself.

I think we need to clarify the distinction between the truth of the religious doctrine that is the purpose of the Bible, and the minor discrepancies within the Bible account and between the various versions of the Bible. These discepancies are so minor that you need to be looking for errors to notice them, and they have virtually no effect on the actual spiritual teachings of the Bible.

The whole genocide/judgement thing is all based on how people read scripture. You are taking it on face value not really knowing teh context of everything going on.

Yes I agree that it is really hard to see anything but contradictions in Scripture and that God seems to be inconsistant in teh OT and NT.

However whatever list anyone provides and I try to give (IMHO) answers there will always be more examples and guess what I don't know all the answers.

There are now more "experts" and books by "experts" around if anyone wants to know more about issues.

Go and be adventurous and read a little!!

Those of you don't believe things is it because of understanding or simply because you won't?

I question the fact that just because it is hard to understand something in scripture we judge it to being "dodgy".

I have to also point out that there were a few times when God "killed" a number of Israelites.

The challenge by Levite priests to Moses' leadership for one.

What does this tell me about God.

Well (IMHO again!) he does hold his anger back time and tme again and His Mercy and Love do prevail .

However when someone ( group of/ peoples) continue to ignore His calling to repent and continue practices like child sacrifice and rape etc should God continue to "ignore" it because He is a mercyful God or should something be done.

Have just read you post from a while back!!

You sound as if you have greater knowledge over the archeological stuff than me.

Not got a problem with that.

However my understanding was that Albright still carries a certain amount of weight and his theory is still a theory and an option and hasn't been proved wrong.

The point I was trying to make was that certain people on this thread have read pasrt of scripture and made judgements on it not being open minded enough to either do further research or listen to other points of view.

I don't claim to be an expert but have done some research just to be able to give reason for my faith.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
[QB]
You seem to be assuming that inerrancy and literalism are the same thing. Inerrancy is about the truth of its spiritual teaching when it is properly understood. Literalism is about the exact date and circumstances under which things happened.
QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gauk:
In that case, how can one judge inerrancy at all? Particularly when hedged about with phrases like "when properly understood" (trans.: "when interpreted by me"). There is no reference point for judging the truth of spritual teaching except our own faith. References to the Bible commenting on itself won't do, as the holy book of any religion can say the same thing.

---

You've got it exactly. This is why it is a point of faith. Christians supposedly believe in the claims of the Bible, even though there is no objective way of proving such things as the resurrection. Surely no one could objectively demonstrate that God became man and walked on this earth. That would be absurd.

As for phrases like "when properly understood" (trans.: "when interpreted by me"), this is not as subjective as you might think. The Bible has a remarkable internal consistency and pattern. Passages are properly understood when they are measured against and compared with many other passages. This is not easy, and it is why we need "experts." But you are right that it is also somewhat subjective, so people are likely to disagree about it. I'm no expert, myself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly
The whole genocide/judgement thing is all based on how people read scripture. You are taking it on face value not really knowing teh context of everything going on.

---

You're doing it again, Polly. It's the people who believe in an inerrant view of scripture who are taking it at face value.

quote:

---

Yes I agree that it is really hard to see anything but contradictions in Scripture and that God seems to be inconsistant in teh OT and NT.

---

Then why not accept that there are inconsistencies. What harm will it do? You can still believe in God, still be a Christian.

quote:

---

Go and be adventurous and read a little!!

---

You're rather assuming that people haven't. And you're rather assuming that you have.

quote:

---

Those of you don't believe things is it because of understanding or simply because you won't?

---

That's really insulting. I won't believe in an inerrant Bible because the evidence doesn't support it. As you say yourself 'it is really hard to see anything but contradictions in Scripture and that God seems to be inconsistant in the OT and NT'.

quote:

---

I question the fact that just because it is hard to understand something in scripture we judge it to being "dodgy".

---

I question the fact that when something in scripture obviously means what it says, some people will believe that black is white to support their man made view, that the Bible is inerrant.

quote:

---

I have to also point out that there were a few times when God "killed" a number of Israelites.

---

Oh! so that makes it alright then. 2 wrongs make a right don't they?

quote:

---

However when someone ( group of/ peoples) continue to ignore His calling to repent and continue practices like child sacrifice and rape etc should God continue to "ignore" it because He is a mercyful God or should something be done.

---

Like killing them all including their children? Something was done - God sent Jesus.

quote:

---

I don't pretend to fully understand the issue but if it really is a stumbling block to your faith then either research the whole thing properly or let go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy

Fundamentally, however, the idea that the Bible is a divinely perfect book is a matter of faith. Faith is supported by reason and logic, but is not proved by them. To me it is compelling and logical that God would cause a book like this to exist. But this isn't the kind of thing that gets proved. If it does not make sense, however, who is going to accept it?

---

I quite agree that it is a matter of faith, but it is not supported by logical reasoning. What I don't understand is why it should be important for you that it contains no errors. Surely that would exault it's writers and compilers to god-like status (unerring) at least for the time they spent writing it.

So it's quite true that it's a matter of faith, but it's misplaced faith.

I have to say also that it's this misplaced faith which causes so many people to dismiss Christians as crackpots! It serves to keep reasoning people from taking what you say seriously.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
What I don't understand is why it should be important for you that it contains no errors. Surely that would exault it's writers and compilers to god-like status (unerring) at least for the time they spent writing it.

---

The whole idea of calling it the "Word of God" is that it comes from God, not people. The writers were simply carriers of the message, not gods themselves.

The reason that it needs to be "error free" - by which I do not mean that it does not sometimes seem to present false ideas, or that it is literally accurate - is that its author is God. As a concept this idea is so frequently stated and exalted in Scripture that accepting it is implicit in accepting Christianity.

quote:

---

I have to say also that it's this misplaced faith which causes so many people to dismiss Christians as crackpots! It serves to keep reasoning people from taking what you say seriously. In short it works against God.

---

That's a surprising statement. Believing in Scripture, as Christians have believed since the Gospels were written, goes against God?

I certainly agree that you have to have a resonable way of accounting for the discrepancies, inconsistencies, and apparent errors of both fact and theology in the Bible.

Christianity is a religion which asks you to believe that God came to earth, performed all kinds of miracles, and yet was killed by the people. This is as strange an idea as has ever existed. It's not any stranger to believe that the account of His life was also given from God.

You have once again bulit your 'straw man' out of something that I have said and used it to disarm my argument.

I AM rational. You have made a very illogical leap by assuming that a positive deduction of your belief in the value of logic and reason means that I somehow MUST believe the opposite.....Very sloppy bonzo.
The point of that sentence was merely to show you that everyone holds to certain 'core' beliefs. It wasn't about me NOT valuing reason. I think reason is one of the greatest human qualities.
Maybe I should rethink my deduction that you are rational? (read my posts "carefully" if you want to respond)

Anyways, onto the points of your post.
Finally, you have acknowledged the very real, very qualitative difference between genocide and divine punishment.
But then you fall back to your emotionally-charged rhetoric. "chopping heads off babies". I'm not even saying that that wasn't what happened when the Hebrews killed the people-groups in Caanan. What I am saying is that the real argument is unaffected by it. So what if God instigated HIs "punishment" of people which included the massacre of babies. Does this somehow make any difference? I have said that all people deserve death by nature (read Ps 51).

If God wants to excercise His RIGHT to kill these people, than who are you to stand back and draw the limitations of what and who God can and cannot destroy. Also, God can use men as HIs instruments of punishment much like He uses us as His instruments of grace through the gospel.

Now I don't want to see your next post with a quote from me (ripped aout of context) about how it doesn't matter if God kills babies. I'm not saying that. I AM saying that God has the divine right to kill babies for the reason of sin. Please represent my argument truthfully.

You still have not given any evidence that what God did in Joshua is "genocide". All you have done is "banked" on the idea that killing women and children in certain ways is somehow universally, under any circumstances, for deity and mortal alike evil. - Very hard to prove.

I, on the other hand, have given good evidence that the text is referring to divine punishment. The authorial intent/interpretation favors this, the argument from the relational dynamic 'difference' between Creator and created shows this, and now I await your response.

quote:

---

If God wants to excercise His RIGHT to kill these people, than who are you to stand back and draw the limitations of what and who God can and cannot destroy.

---

but god didn't. people did. they claimed that god told them to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekalb:
If God wants to excercise His RIGHT to kill these people, than who are you to stand back and draw the limitations of what and who God can and cannot destroy.

---

I'm with Bonzo here. God does not destroy, punish, or kill anyone. He especially does not kill innocent victims. This is inconsistent with the idea of God given, as a whole, in Scripture.

I appreciate the desire to justify what parts of the Bible actually say. They do, it is true, frequently refer to Divine punishment, and Joshua is written as though God commanded Joshua to slaughter whole cities.

I think that it is more accurate and consistent with the Bible, however, to realize that references to divine anger and punishment are written according to the appearance, and are not literally true.

This is not to say that the evil are not punished. The law of divine order is that all good and all evil returns to the one doing it. The evil essentially punish themselves, or are punished by others like themselves. But the punishment does not come from God. He grieves at their punishment, and would end it if this were possible without destroying human freedom.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:

There are now more "experts" and books by "experts" around if anyone wants to know more about issues.

Go and be adventurous and read a little!!

Those of you don't believe things is it because of understanding or simply because you won't?

---

I rather agree with Bonzo; for the reasons I've already explained, if you come in with Lee Strobel as a source, those of us who've read more rigorous analyses are not going to be impressed.

If you are indeed prepared to be adventurous and read a little, I'd suggest any or all of the following for starters:

'The Gospels & Jesus', Stanton
'The Living World of the Old Testament' Anderson
'The Historical Figure of Jesus' E P Sanders

And perhaps someone else who knows it can post the name of the book where NT Wright and Marcus Borg go head to head - my copy is on loan to someone else at present and I can't remember the title. That would be a very good antidote to Strobel - it does what Strobel says he is doing and doesn't...

It's been interesting reading.

I used to be an inerrantist. I used the same lines of argument as Polly and Ekalb are doing here.

But they didn't work.

I couldn't love a God who ordered the slaughter of children. Of the innocent along with the guilty.

This could have been a problem. But when I looked at what Jesus was like, I realised there was no problem. This image of God was flawed.

It has to be.

Let's get real for a moment, folks. Imagine that during a prayer meeting, someone does the "Thus saith the Lord" thing, and tells you that a given list of wrongdoers are to be brutally slaughtered by you. God's had enough of them, they've had their warnings, and the time's up. Oh, and you're to kill their children and pets too. And raze their houses to the ground.

Now, would you really think that was God? No. And why not? Because it would be out of character.

[replaced long URL to remove horizontal scroll]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy

The reason that it needs to be "error free" - by which I do not mean that it does not sometimes seem to present false ideas, or that it is literally accurate - is that its author is God. As a concept this idea is so frequently stated and exalted in Scripture that accepting it is implicit in accepting Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
Does this mean that in your view I am not a Christian?

---

I don't know if you are a Christian or not - or for that matter if I am one.

I only meant that accepting the truth of the message of the Bible as something that is from God has always been considered to be a fairly normal aspect of Christianity. Certainly there can be differences of opinion about what constitutes "accepting" this. But if someone says they are a Christian most people would expect that they believe in the Bible.

Someone might accept its general message as having a divine origin, but the details as having their origin in the minds of the writers. This is fine with me.

Well lets start with nicole's response:

You rightly point out that 'men' did the killing. But if you will re-read my post, you will see that I said that God can choose to use men (or animals, or angels, etc, etc) to do His will. I even point out that in the NT it is 'men' that are used by GOd to administer the gospel of His mercy. So, whats the problem if He uses 'men' to administer His justice too?

Now freddys response:

You say that "God does not destoy, punish, or kill". Well, that is one HUGE claim. I wonder how you would attempt to sustain the claim. My claim is that God 'does' destroy, punish, and kill, - but only for justified reasons and only out of His desire for good towards His creation.
But more importantly (and something that no one on this thread has really tried to defeat yet), is the 'qualitative' diference between 'Creator' and 'created'.
For instance, as I write this post I am crafting each sentence towards my purpose. If a word or phrase is not where I want it, I have full control over erasing it or moving it elsewhere. No one else can erase my words or craft it, - it is 'mine'. Mine to make, and mine to change, and mine to erase if I so choose. Are you seeing the point yet?

God's relationship to humans is more complex than my relationship to my post, but the "me-post" example above 'does' represent a very real aspect between God and man.
True, God is our Father. In the person of Christ, God is our saviour and brother, BUT never forget that He has always been, and always will be our MAKER.

God DOES have the RIGHT to kill his creation, not merely because He is stronger, but because He has a very real 'ownership' over us. Christian Humility is based on this fact. Thats why Abraham spoke to God saying, "I am nothing more than dust." Obviously, Abraham didn't have a self-esteem problem, but when we face the One who made us (crafted us and formed us to His will and purpose) I think we would all realize how small we are in comparison.

The point is that God, because He is Creator, has the 'unique' right and priviledge of deciding when -if at all- a person should die for their sins.

Attempts by bonzo and freddy to 'superimpose' human rights and priviledges onto God is foolish. St. Paul said it profoundly in Romans 9: "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall What is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'"

Because this is about "Biblical Inerrancy", not to mention for those who are wondering what this has to do with it, I am showing that no one can use the slaughters in the book of Joshua as proof of the 'errancy' of scripture. Some have said that because it attributes 'genocide' to GOd that the text cannot be truly inerrant then.
The fault with this argument is that the text does NOT attribute 'genocide' to God, rather the authorial intent/interpretation points towards 'divine punishment'. Furthermore, I have spent many posts clearly showing that 'divine punishment' is valid, logical, consistent with the revealed nature of God in the rest of scripture, and therefore negates the attempt to use the 'genocidal-god' argument.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
To me it is compelling and logical that God would cause a book like this to exist. But this isn't the kind of thing that gets proved. If it does not make sense, however, who is going to accept it?

---

The problem here, as I see it, is that if it is logical for God to cause a book of instruction to exist, it is also logical for God to make it very clear what those instructions are, and that this book is God's word. Otherwise the exercise becomes self-defeating. The fact that so much effort is required to interpret the Bible, and that so many different interpretations can evidently be made, suggests that, as a book, it is not very well designed. If we impute that it came from the Great Designer we reach the unpalatable conclusion that either He isn't able to express Himself very well, or He is teasing us with deliberate obfuscation.

However, I don't believe that is what he wanted to give us. I believe that God wants us to freely enter a dynamic relationship with him. One of the primary ways God has chosen to communicate with us is through the Bible; the nature of the Bible is therefore dictated by the requirements of the type of relationship he wants to have with us.

God relates to us as individuals; therefore the Bible needs to deliver a slightly different message to each of us. He also relates to us as a community (on many different levels from small groups to the entire human race) which constrains how varied that message can be.

God wants us to come to him freely, so his message can't be irrefutable. And he wants us to exercise our freedom within that relationship so the Bible can't be totally prescriptive about doctrine or behaviour.

God wants us to us our gifts and abilities, including the ability (corporately and individually) to question and debate the Bible to gain greater understanding. And since God is infinite trying to communicate with finite beings then the Bible would be expected to contain plenty to engage our minds.

I think that the books we have actually suit Gods purpose pretty well. Whereas, a set of divinely dictated totally inerrant writings wouldn't be as suitable.

I have a pet hamster. It's mine. I bought it I own it. It's mine to feed. It's mine to chop the feet off (in a loving and caring way of course).

God, through Jesus has shown me, that he is loving and forgiving. He has shown me that he would rather forgive than condemn his own murderers. He wants me to be the same sort of person as him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I believe that God wants us to freely enter a dynamic relationship with him. One of the primary ways God has chosen to communicate with us is through the Bible; the nature of the Bible is therefore dictated by the requirements of the type of relationship he wants to have with us.

---

Thank you, Alan. Once again, beautifully stated and reasoned.

The key word, I think, is freedom. The nature of the book is that you can get much or little out of it according to your own free choice and interest. In one sense it is true, but in another sense it is all wrong.

This is the point of Jesus' words to His disciples when they asked why He so often spoke in parables:

quote:

---

Matthew 13.14
Hearing you will hear and not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive.
For the heart of this people has grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their heart and turn,
So that I should heal them.

---

The statement is paradoxical, since you would think that Jesus would want to heal them. But the meaning is that He is not going to heal them unless they want to be healed. If they don't wish to understand they will not understand.

The Bible is written to facilitate an individual and unique relationship between each person and God.

So in one sense I agree that the Bible is filled with apparent mistakes and misleading ideas, both of fact and of doctrine. But in a more fundamental sense I believe that it was written by God, or caused by Him to be written, in a particular way for a particular purpose. It is therefore a perfect book, and will not fail to accomplish His purpose, which is to cause people to freely love Him and one another. As Isaiah said:

quote:

---

Isaiah 55
For as the rain comes down and the snow from heaven,
And do not return there but water the earth,
And make it bring forth and bud,
That it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater,
So shall My Word be that goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me void,
But it shall accomplish what I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

---

quote:

---

I have a pet hamster. It's mine. I bought it I own it. It's mine to feed. It's mine to chop the feet off (in a loving and caring way of course).

---

If you created the Hamster and gave it life then the answer would be yes do with it what you like but you didn't create the Hamster and it was a gift to you to look after.

Bonzo your analogy was bad.

The point with did God order the killing/genocide/judgement of anyone let alone a "nation" has to be taken has to be taken an example at a time. No sweeping statements that all such instances were or weren't of God can not be made. I haven't made any statements like this.

However do I believe that some of God's people acted out of their own iniative in such ways ( eg King Saul) yes!

Do I belive that God used inidviduals to act out "His" judgement (Joshua) Yes.

In fact with Joshua after they had taken the land the Israelites were given precise instructions and when someone (sorry don'ta have a bible handy or able remember the guys name)disobeyed that his whole family were taken any killed.

The fact is that God hates Sin but also cares for His people ( don't misread me on this as he cares for everyone) and so when HIs people have been in danger there have been numerous examples where God has protected His peole eitehr by supernatural means or (IMHO) commanding His people to "War".

Do I understand it - not really but I won't make judgement on something I have little understanding of. As God said to Job "Who are you to instruct and know the ways of God Almighty".

What I do know is that if there was something that troubled me and I needed to clarify specific aspect of scripture I can do some own research rather than make my own judgements like a few are doing on this thread.

I am not going to be able to convince you Bonzo of anything purely because the issue is yours and you aren't being open minded enough to even look at the options let alone listen to an "amatuer" like me trying to help you.

If you have any knowledge or qualifications in the subject of Biblical History lets hear it because at least you would have a leg to stand on.

[UBB fixed]

quote:

---

originally posted by polly

If you created the Hamster and gave it life then the answer would be yes do with it what you like but you didn't create the Hamster and it was a gift to you to look after.

---

So if I had created the hamster then it would not be cruel?

quote:

---

Also posted by polly

Do I understand it - not really but I won't make judgement on something I have little understanding of. As God said to Job "Who are you to instruct and know the ways of God Almighty".

---

I'm not sure I totally agree with Polly's response, but your analogy 'is' bad.

It is true that you would not have 'created' the hamster. My analogy worked (ie. me 'creating' the post) but a hamster would be a relationship of steward-creation, not creator-creation.

The difference is still there. Further, I would ask you why you would cut your hamster's legs off, etc.? You imply that the act is done in some sadistic sense, in which case you have missed the point yet again.

You're right, GOd is a God of love. Try looking at it this way: All of humanity has sinned, done horrible things to each other and totally failed the purpose for which we were created in the first place.
The really awesome part of the whole thing is that God hasn't killed everyone already. He is a God who 'chooses' to redeem rather than scrapping humanity and starting again.

So, afraid your analogy just won't work. God is love, but equally He is justice. God knows when a group of people 'need' to be punished for their sins and He also knows when you or I 'need' redemption. It's His choice to do either and He is fully justified to do either.

So you are saying that if, hypothetically, I was able to create a hamster, and I chopped it's legs off that it would not be a cruel thing to do?

You ask me why I would want to do it. I wouldn't, I'm not cruel.

quote:

---

But you seem to be arguing that because I created it that doing so would not be cruel.

---

This is where you are missing the point as if you could create the Hamster then it would be your right to do with it what you like whether you leave it to grow old and die or whether you did want to chop its legs off.

As you can't create a hamster then you can't tell the one who did create them whether He is right or wrong to do what He wants.

Bonzo said

quote:

---

But by believing the Bible to be the implicit word of God you ARE making a judgement. A judgement which is not necessary for you to be a Christian. God never said that the book of Joshua should be considered to be inerrant MEN did that!

---

No by doing research and asking questions and trying to find answers by eitehr books or speaking to people who do know such things do I believe that the Bible is true.

"All scripture is God breathed...." 1/2?? Tim 3 v 16

Suggest you try it.

Bonzo also said:

quote:

---

But you seem to be arguing that because I created it that doing so would not be cruel

---

I might find it hard to understand not think what I do but it is not my place to pass judgement on you if that is what you chose to do and if you decided to explain your reasons to me than fine if not fine again.

[UBB fixed]

quote:

---

No by doing research and asking questions and trying to find answers by eitehr books or speaking to people who do know such things do I believe that the Bible is true.

---

quote:

---

You have either been very unlucky or very selective in your research.

---

That's a bit harsh ....

Surely this is one of those chicken and egg things. People who believe that the Bible is true will seek out books by Stobel and his ilk so they can back up their arguements. Someone who believes the opposite is more likely to find other books like the ones Mike recommended.

Years of library work has convinced me that no one comes to this sort of issue with an open mind - but instead seeks out stuff that will enable them to argue their views better However, before anyone jumps up and down, I'm not saying that views don't change.

quote:

---

---

That is an extremely judgemental comment if I ever heard one.

When you have done research to say otherwise and instead of using your own opinions then you may get others paying more attention to you.

Besides I don't know many people who would say that the likes of Wayne Grudem, Charles Colson and Lee Strobel (to name but a few) have got it wrong.

Until then your point is still seriously flawed and the way you interpret scripture and then use it to your own ends is how fundamentalists work

Here some to add to the hand which opposes inerrancy.

James Barr - Escaping from fundamentalism.

In which he successfully argues that you can not believe parts of the Bible and still be an Evangelical.

James Barr - Escaping from fundamentalism

I agree with you when you say that it's 'all about the Grace of God revealed in the life of Jesus'.

But IMO the concept of Biblical inerrancy stands in the way of many people believing in Christ.