Can it be proven that the Bible was written by God and documented without errors? I don't think so because we were not there when it was written. There are "thus saith the Lord" passages, but how do we know that they were documented or translated clearly? Anyone can say they have a vision from God. If I believed every person that said they had a vision from God, then I would probably end up in a mental institution.

So what other kinds of evidence could we have? The inerrancy of the Bible would be a tenable point if it is found to be beautifully consistent. I don't find it consistent. The closer that I look, the more inconsistent it seems. We've been talking about the inconsistency between "God is love" and "God commanded people to commit genocide." There are other foundational issues that I have problems with.

I guess another kind of evidence would be if the Bible was shown to work. Does it change the lives of people that believe it to be inerrant? That's pretty hard to judge, but perhaps it describes why some people believe it. This is a line of thought that I did not consider because I have felt something missing in church for so long. Christians are really great people, but I don't see the level of transformation that is claimed in the Bible.

I agree that some sort of base assumption is required. I am making the assumption that a book that is inerrant should not contradict itself. There are a number of contradictions that I just can't swallow any more. I know that there are harmonizations, but, to me, they don't justify the tremendous scope of the contradictions. So, for myself, I have disproven the concept of inerrancy. This doesn't mean that I have disproven the entire Bible. It just means that certain concepts are unreconcilable. To disprove the entire Bible, I would have to disprove every sentence. That would be an impossible task.

In addition, the concept of inerrancy typically goes along with a rejection of the authority of the church councils. This rejects the very source of the Bible itself. It was a church council that chose the manuscripts for the Bible. All of the church councils are rejected aside from the one council that picked the Bible. This, to me, also undermines the authority of the Bible. For this reason, Mousetheif's approach appeals to me. However, it doesn't necessarily solve anything. It pushes the question back to whether I have confidence in the church. This is an even bigger task that can probably only be accomplished through spending time in fellowship with other believers (which I am still doing btw) and in learning the teachings of the church.

Science is good at describing things that happen consistently and can be measured. God does not appear to be consistent or quantifiable.

I think that 1, 2 and 3 are possible. I have to rule out 4.

There's my take,

quote:

---

Originally posted by gbuchanan:
On reviewing this thread, I can't see much (indeed anything) which defines what is "theological" or "spiritual" which can be easily separated from "the rest" of the Bible - any takers on the inerrantist side?

Phrases such as "theologically inerrant" are meaningless unless some semantics are placed upon them - I don't think we have many literalists here, but if the Bible isn't purely made of "theologically inerrant" stuff, how do I tell the difference?

---

This is a good question, and not an easy one to answer.

You might say that the stories may have the numbers or the actions wrong, but that the teachings are correct.

This, however, I think we agree, just doesn't hold up. There are teachings that Moses gave that are completely, and rightly, contradicted by Jesus. There are declarations attributed to God Himself ("Let Me alone, that I may destroy them!" Exodus 32.10) that couldn't possibly have really come from God.

THough I am an 'inerrantist', I highly respect the very real, very honest objections to inerrancy that have been raised by the more skeptical among us.
If I might be so bold as to speak for the 'average' Christian, I think that there is a "little skeptic" that resides within all believers too. It is that little voice that gets in the way at the most inapropriate times.

This post is not about the 'tension' of faith that exists in Christians, but I think that inerrantists have often been unfortunately stereotyped.

I think a lot of the problem stems from the close relationship that 'inerrancy' and 'fundamentalism' has. There are many ill-learned pastors and priests who will universally condemn a certain segment of society (i.e. homosexuals, psychics, etc.) to hell and rationalize it with the flawless authority of scripture. (Yikes)
Likewise, there are hosts of Christian believers who 'wear a mask of confidence' about the Bible when, inwardly, there are genuine doubts. - This gives a very inacurrate picture and understanding of what I consider to be the 'pilgrimage' of the Christian faith.

I think that we have to be VERY careful in our exegesis of Biblical texts for one. But the fact remains that there just aren't any easy answers as to believing the Bible to be inerrant. Furthermore, the fact that 'inerrnacy' lacks a coherent and standardized 'defenition doesn't help matters. - Some "inerrantists" condemn other "inerrantists" for holding to evolution for an example.

I feel like I am rambling on, so I'll just say that I do believe that God can communicate "clearly" to us. It remains to be seen what we would define as clear communication though, much less if God has used 'maximum' clarity in the bible, or even if He wants to clearly communicate.

Personally, I agree with scripture that "SUrely, [God] [is] a God who hides [Himself]."
I don't think the real issue is whether we can "proove" GOd or the Bible through empiracle means (Although, I do think God has given us a logical and reasonable faith), rather I agree with Thomas Cahill in his book on the Jews, - We must believe in God as one believes in his friend or family member. God is a person. We are persons. SOmetimes I doubt my friends love or intentions regarding me, as sometimes I doubt God's love and intentions regarding me. The point is that the doubts are (as they are in the scriptures) revolving God's character not His existence.

Wow! I apologize for getting off track here. I'm sure that I can subjectively tie this in with biblical inerrnacy somehow.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekalb

Likewise, there are hosts of Christian believers who 'wear a mask of confidence' about the Bible when, inwardly, there are genuine doubts. - This gives a very inacurrate picture and understanding of what I consider to be the 'pilgrimage' of the Christian faith.

---

For once we agree, This dishonesty about one's doubts is a large part of the reason why inerrancy remains a widespread view (though I'm sure it's no longer the view of the average Christian).

It's hardly surprising that people are dishonest about their doubts. The Chigago Statement On Bilical Inerrancy which has been referenced on this thread says 'To Stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master'. People in churches controlled by this wholly unacceptable view would have to be very strong to 'come out' about their doubts.

Consequently inerrancy remains largely unquestioned in such places. If people were honest, then inerrancy would have been consigned to the scrap heap, as an irrational doctrine, long ago.

quote:

---

About the same time, I came to the realization that the God that I believed in was threatening me with hell to try to get me to love him. When I realized that the underlying foundation of the relationship was fear, my belief in God melted away. It was truly a release

---

This is a bit off-topic, but the above reminded me of a hymn line which goes (roughly) thus:

"Oh God, we praise Thee not because
We hope for Heaven thereby"

Which always provoked the thought in me, "Who do you think you're fooling, sunshine?"

------

quote:

---

About the same time, I came to the realization that the God that I believed in was threatening me with hell to try to get me to love him. When I realized that the underlying foundation of the relationship was fear, my belief in God melted away. It was truly a release

---

It would truly be a release not to believe in such a God. For some reason (I take no credit) I've never believed in such a God, and it was quite a search to find a church that didn't have such a God (along with other features I won't go into here). Thankfully, I have found one at last.

You're right. It is unfortunate that many Christians and churches don't feel comfortable to vocalize the doubts they have about inerrancy. No more unfortunate, though, than it is to see Christians walking into church on sunday morning wearing a fake smile and acting like all is right with the world, even though their life is falling apart. -very sad indeed.

But I hope you are not making the asumption that an 'examined' belief system would result in the nullification of said system.

I, myself, have been honest about the doubts I have regarding the inerrancy of scripture. I have 'examined' my inerrantist position, seen the problems with it, wondered why God didn't make inerrancy 'just obvious' to huamnity, and YET, I am still an inerrantist. Why?
Well, frankly speaking, I don't see that the 'errantist' side has had much better luck in 'proving' errancy. The vast majority of arguments become stalemated in presuppostitons and unanswerable queries.

Like I have said before, I think inerrancy and errancy are both justifiable systems of belief and thinking. Neither can be accused of being epistemologically sloppy.

So bonzo, take a second and think about what you are claiming. If more of Christendom had (in past centuries) critically analyzed their belief in inerrancy, would that have really necessitated the removal of the doctrine itself? -Unlikely.

I am claiming that, if the inerrant view was allowed to be openly debated, the view would all but disappear, because as I have said many times in this thread, it is unsupported by logic.

However much you state to the contrary, an errantist view is supported by logic.

We have been through this many times in this thread. I have provided evidence that the Bible is not inerrant which you have been unable to refute. That's all I have to do to show that inerrancy is an unworkable argument.

quote:

---

Well, frankly speaking, I don't see that the 'errantist' side has had much better luck in 'proving' errancy. The vast majority of arguments become stalemated in presuppostitons and unanswerable queries.

---

The errors can be harmonized by the inerrentist and we can argue over these points for years. Eventually it gets to the point where the harmonised meaning is IMO so far removed from the original content that the term inerrant is misleading.

Please note: I am not saying that the Bible is all wrong. Perhaps most of it is correct. I'm just saying that it's not 100% perfect.

unfortunately, you missed the piont of what I was saying.

I wasn't saying that 'errancy' is "unsupported" by logic. - I know that it is. Likewise, inerrancy is supported by logic.

As freehand rightly points out, inerrancy probably demands the larger 'leap' in faith to believe, but the point is that it is not "illogical" to believe. I think you have a serious lack of understanding in regards to what is "logical" and what is "provable". I'm not saying inerrancy is provable, I am saying that it is logical.

COntrary to your opinion (for that is what you are promoting), inerrancy is held by many reasonable people who have tested their faith and found it satisfactory for their epistemological worldview.

To make the claim that only an unthinking or illogical person would cling to inerrancy is about the most unsupported and unreasonable claim I have ever heard anybody make.

Inerrancy is NOT like believeing in 'Santa Claus'. The former can be justified on logical grounds, the latter cannot.

Can I refer you to the Purgatory Guidelines?

quote:

---

5. Be courteous in your debating style – Apologise when you err; apologies are always well-received here. Take personal offense or disagreements to the Hell board, where they won't bother other posters.

---

If you want to argue in this sort of tone with ekalb then you need to start a thread in Hell to do so. (ekalb if you're planning to reply in kind - then you should start a thread on the Hell board calling Bonzo to account)

If this sort of tone continues on this thread, then I will move the entire thread to Hell.

I apologise for my tone, the reason I used it was because you consistently accuse me of misunderstanding you or misrepresenting you or missing the point. I understand you perfectly well and I have never knowingly misrepresented you and I have not missed the point - I just think your point is wrong.

I stand by the substance of what I have said. This is not a personal argument between you and me, but it would be wrong of me not to continue to state categorically that inerrancy is an irrational belief.

Again, I am utterly amazed at the 'leaps in logic' that you are taking to prove your point. It would appear that you really don't understand the nature between what is 'proovable' and what is 'logical'. Something does NOT have to be provable to be logical.

For instance, you would say that other minds exist, right? Well, the existence of other minds is wholly un-proovable. You cannot empiracly proove that your friend's or parent's minds actually exist. Yet, is completely logical to believe that other minds do exist.

Bonzo, there are many people in the world that claim, "I won't believe it until it can be scientifically established".

The problem with that statement and approach to any truth claim is that it is 'self-referentially-inconsistent'. In other words, science and empiracism has grown out of numerous 'core' beliefs that can not be scientifically verified themselves.

If you think that you can 'prove' something by the scientific method, then it is only fair of you to admit that you are "believing" in some very unprovable truth claims: namely, the existence of order in nature, the reality of truth, the concept that our natural senses actually transmit valid data to our minds, and so forth.

Don't misinterpret me, - I also believe in the value of the scientific method, but I acknowledge that humans are, by nature, 'faith beings'. We are bound to belief. For you to make the assumption that the errantist side of the debate is employing objective verification techniques while the inerrantists are 'just believing' is very unfair of you bonzo.

Both sides have 'belief systems' at their core. It is merely a fact of life.

sorry guys, I just saw the above posts before I posted mine. Sorry if the tone is a bit negative.

I do think that you have, and continually, misrepresent my argument, bonzo. But I hold no personal quarell with you. I am content to continue this debate.

However scientists refer to something being illogical they mean that you start with a theory and try to disprove it. Once disproven it is said to be illogical.

Of course we then have to define proof. If you started with the theory that all coal was white, to disprove it I would simply need to produce a piece of coal that was black. You might argue that it's white and that we couldn't see it properly. But you'd be laughed at by any rational person.

I have shown over the course of this thread that inerrancy is disproven. I have taken one of many examples of a cruel act which is ascribed to God by the OT and compared that to the love of God described by Jesus.

Your response was to say that, because God was doing it, it was not cruel because he created the beings it was done to.

I pointed out that If I made a being and I was cruel to it, you, as my equal, would call me cruel (in fact you referred to it as sadism). You have given no logical response to this. All you have done is restate your original argument that God cannot be cruel because he made us. Your argument therfore stands disproved unless you have an alternative stance to take.

You then admitted that to take your stance required a leap of faith. You carried on to say that both sides of the argument require a leap of faith.

I'll take you back to the coal example. My leap of faith would be to believe my eyes. Your leap of faith would be to believe that everybody, inculding yourself, couldn't see properly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
I have taken one of many examples of a cruel act which is ascribed to God by the OT and compared that to the love of God described by Jesus.

---

This seems to be the major sticking point here.

It looks to me as though the "inerrancy" argument isn't going to go anywhere because of this.

I was hoping that the Bible could still be "inerrant" without having God commanding the killing of babies, and by overlooking the minor contradictions and discrepancies in, for example, the gospel stories.

I now give up on that, and am content to simply say that I accept the Bible's claim to divine authorship.

For what it is worth, let me say a word about why Joshua might legitimately and logically be seen as having a divine origin, despite all the baby killing that goes on.

It is only because the fundamental message is that if you obey and trust in God, He will be on your side, protect you, and give you success against your enemies. This is the message repeated in virtually every chapter from Genesis to Zechariah - and especially in Joshua.

The message becomes markedly more sophisticated as you proceed through the Old Testament, and becomes increasingly focused on morality, humility, kindness, and mercy.

In Joshua, however, the message is pure and simple. God will destroy your enemies big or small, man or woman, adult or child. It is manifestly barbaric. But that is not the way it seems when you feel desperately threatened by your enemies. Then you think that the only good Philistine is a dead Philistine.

This is not to justify the literal actions of Joshua and the Israelites of that period. It is, however, to justify the logic of the message as an important step in the development of faith in God. The most general ideas come first. The finer points are acquired in time.

So without literally having God Himself order the destruction of Canaanite women and children, I can believe in the divine authorship of the book of Joshua. God allowed Himself to be understood and presented in that way - a way that makes pure sense to children and unsophisticated people.

I believe that every word of Scripture is from God - allowing, of course, for a certain percentage of errors in transmission over the years. In that sense it is inerrant, because it is divine. But I don't think that it is literally without factual error, or that it does not incorporate the points of view and prejudices of the many people who actually penned it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by splodge:
2. I believe in providence, so I believe whats in the bible, God wants to be there. Even the gory bits where God is thought of as an ogre by the biblical writers.

---

ok,I'm gonna make this quick.

You're coal example is far too black and white (no pun intended) to rightly compare it with inerrancy/errancy.

You're right though, if you could show but one single error in scripture then that one error would 'logically' infer that inerrancy cannot be.

You've brought up some good objections to innerrancy, but none that I have not heard in the past. You say that I have not answered you're 'response' about you creating a hamster/whatever and then killing it and how I, as an equal, would call you cruel.

Well, I did answer that. About 2 pages back I posted you saying that the hamster analogy is ridiculous. Why? First, because it's apples and oranges. You're trying to hypothesize a 'theoretical' universe wherin killing (sadistically) you're hamster-creations is the normative action for you, their god. Further, it is a universe that apparantly is polytheistic. You say that I would be your equal and call you cruel. This also implies a universe with a transcedatory moral law above even its gods.

quote:

---

Well, I did answer that. About 2 pages back I posted you saying that the hamster analogy is ridiculous. Why? First, because it's apples and oranges. You're trying to hypothesize a 'theoretical' universe wherin killing (sadistically) you're hamster-creations is the normative action for you, their god. Further, it is a universe that apparantly is polytheistic. You say that I would be your equal and call you cruel. This also implies a universe with a transcedatory moral law above even its gods.

---

In hypothesising this theoretical universe I'm showing that it can be considered cruel to cause unnecessary suffering to something you have created. It doesn't have to be polytheistic I would know that chopping the feet of my hamster is cruel without you coming along! I only put you there to help you to realise it!

Let's approach it a different way. How can we say that God is a loving God without judging God?

When you say that genocide is not cruel because a creator did it, and to call the creator cruel is judging God. Then by the same token it must be judging God to say that He is loving.

In fact by the same token we can say nothing whatsoever about the nature of God because that would be judging God.

One thing we certainly could not say about God is that he wishes to communicate with men through the Bible, that would be judging God (by your argument).

Man has the knowledge of good and evil (in your inerrant book he got it when he ate the fruit from the tree). He is able to see a cruel act and understand it to be cruel. When any suffering is inflicted unecessarily on any creature capable of feelings it is cruelty. To argue otherwise is meaningless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gauk:
I'm not sure that I'm following how inerrancy is supported by logic.

---

How about the logic that without religious knowledge that is believed to be accurate there can be no belief, and therefore no religion.

Believing it doesn't make it accurate, of course, and there is a certain amount of uncertainty in everything about religion. But no one has faith in things that they know or suspect to be untrue.

So if you are going to believe something, it is unlikely that the basis of belief will be simply random. If a person believes in Jesus because of the testimony of the Bible, they must have some confidence in the truth, on some level, of this testimony.

quote:

---

But the "every word is true" approach has been the traditional Christian viewpoint for 2000 years.

---

It may have been commonly held among uneducated people, but the notion that every word is literally true would have moved educated people like Alcuin to tears of laughter - or possibly frustration. 'Genesis tells the story of the making of the world after the manner of a poem' was his comment on it.

bonzo, please don't get angry, but it is very frustrating to debate something I have never argued. I know you're frustrated because I have accussed you of using 'straw men' arguments against me. - I intended nothing else than to point out the facts.

Here is what I am talking about:

by bonzo:

quote:

---

When you say that genocide is not cruel because a creator did it, and to call the creator cruel is judging God. Then by the same token it must be judging God to say that He is loving.

In fact by the same token we can say nothing whatsoever about the nature of God because that would be judging God.

One thing we certainly could not say about God is that he wishes to communicate with men through the Bible, that would be judging God (by your argument).

---

You are arguing against something I have never said.
I 'have' said that it would be wrong to assume that we can superimpose the moral and perogative dynamics of humanity onto deity, but I am not saying that we can't 'say things about God'.

Further, I haven't tried to argue that inerrancy is obvious or even necessary for faith. I hope you realize that my purpose, in this discussion, is to show that anyone who holds to inerrancy is 'justified' to do so. 'Justified' doesn't mean we have all the answers. It doesn't even mean that 'errancy' has weak objections to inerrancy; rather, justified means that a Christian can believe the Bible to be inerrant without violating reason and logic.

My apologies if I have misunderstood, but when you said:

quote:

---

Your "views" fail to accept the fact that they are judging God in light of their own standards

---

What exactly did you mean?

If in your opinion we can say things about God then it follows that we can say that committing genocide is not in his nature.

Since the Bible says that God did do this then it's obvious, by logic, that the Bible is wrong on this point.

There is someone who is not prepared to debate. All you do is keep insisting that an argument which is so obviously flawed is logical.

quote:

---

Of course it is one thing to consider the creation story to be an allegory, and another to deny the truth of such things as the resurrection of Christ.

---

Indeed so - though the church has certainly had clergy who have taken the position that the resurrection stories are only true in some non-literal sense for at least a couple of hundred years. I wonder who was the first to come clean in public on this position - didn't one of the mediaeval popes talk of having been served well by this myth of a resurrected Christ?

Of course if he had gone public with this declaration he would not have been pope. And if the church itself had announced this, it would no longer be a church.

Hosts of Purgatory
Now hear my plea!
Send this to Dead Horses
And save our sanity!

That quote is merely saying that we can't judge God in the same way we judge oneself or another human. It is exactly what I said in my last post. It is wrong to think that God and humanity can be 'talked about' on the same level. Clearly there are diferences. God has some very unique abilities and perogatives that humanity does not. Further, humanity can sin and be evil where as God is perfect.
So, what I am saying is that we should be 'careful' when saying things about God and His nature because He is unique.

That said, I agree with you that we can say positive statements about God's nature. Some folk only think we can affirm what God is not, but I do think that we can affirm what GOd is.

bonzo, the real issue in the particular debate that we are sharing is 'what is the correct interpretation of the Joshua genocide?'. You interpret it to be a cruel act, unbecoming of God and therefore see it as an error within the bible. I interpret it as an act of divine punishment, wholly justifiable within the parameters of divine perogatives and therefore view the scriptures as inerrant.

You must recognize that both views are acceptable on rational grounds. However, both are un-provable. You cannot guarantee that my interpretation of divine punishment is wrong and I cannot absolutely say that your errancy view is wrong either.

Maybe I am the only one that I have convinced of inerrancy If so, that does not mean that my arguments are flawed.

I've said before (I can't recall if it was on this or another thread) that I'm intrigued by the use of the phrase "Word of God" to describe both the Bible and Christ. The Bible, like Christ, is both human and divine.
The words of Scripture are fully the work of fallible human authors (and later editors and compilers) and subject to all their weaknesses, prejudice and failings. As such it cannot possibly be inerrant.

They are also fully the word of God who is perfect and faithful. As such it cannot possibly be anything but inerrant.

So, just as we follow a Christ who is simultaneously and inseperably fully human and fully divine we also have Scriptures which are simultaneously and inseperably fully of human and divine origin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekalb:
the real issue in the particular debate that we are sharing is 'what is the correct interpretation of the Joshua genocide?'.

---

Several of us have offered positions on this Joshua issue other than Bonzo's. My heart is with you, kalb, but I don't think that you need to interpret the Joshua genocide as directly commanded by God in order to believe that God is the author of Scripture.

Then I did not misunderstand you.

Though we can't say that for God to act in a certain way judging Him by human standards, you seem to be saying that you can say that for God to behave in a particular way would be against His own standards.

We must be able to do this or we would not be able to say that He is loving or just.

So by that token it is obvious that if we God were to act in the genocidal way described in Joshua, by his own standards of love and justice he would have been wrong to act in that way. Since he is true to his own standards then it follows that God did not commit genocide.

Alan,

quote:

---

I've said before (I can't recall if it was on this or another thread) that I'm intrigued by the use of the phrase "Word of God" to describe both the Bible and Christ. The Bible, like Christ, is both human and divine.
The words of Scripture are fully the work of fallible human authors (and later editors and compilers) and subject to all their weaknesses, prejudice and failings. As such it cannot possibly be inerrant.

They are also fully the word of God who is perfect and faithful. As such it cannot possibly be anything but inerrant.

---

But the whole world is God's creation and by the same argument cannot be inerrant since it must be exactly the way God wanted it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
Is that what you're saying? There are no errant people in this world?

---

I think I accept the following as a rational view, If this is what you're saying then I think it's worth looking at:-

That the Bible is inerrant in the sense that God is perfect and faithful and so the Bible is the way it is because that's the way God has designed the world.

Consider this :

The existence of Hitler, the way he was, his hatred of the Jews are all part of God's plan for the world. Hitler happened in a world for which God has a plan and a purpose.

Of course that doesn't mean that Hitler was not wrong in what he did, It just means that his wrongdoing is in some way it is part of the plan.

In the same way the genocide committed by Joshua is wrong and the Bible is incorrect to say that God sanctioned it, but the Bible is that way becasue it is part of God's plan.

If we accept this point of view we must treat the Bible as a book containing human errors. But we would be right in asking what God's purpose is in allowing the human errors to be there as they may be important in understanding the wider, inerrant, plan.

So, just to make sure there is no more life in the Joshua genocide dead horse. The Bible says that God ordered the slaughter of the Caananites; in saying this it is simultaneously entirely accurate and entirely wrong.

If that's not clear it's probably a combination of me getting myself confused and needing a bit of sleep

There is a stream of thought in the bible that considers, in the final analysis, all destruction and death itself as divine judgement upon sin and we know that death is no respecter of persons or ages.
A very high monotheism makes God ultimately responsible for all events including the demise of the innocent as well as the grossly sinful; it is said that everyone is destroyed because all are interconnected, equally contaminated by original sin etc.

What happened to the canaanites is, in this contaxt, simply an accelerated judgement that happens to us all. We may feel repugnance at what happened to the canaanites because we believe God is love. However this is not simply a biblical problem, it is greatest theological problem: called the "Problem of Evil". Indeed, you, me and everyone are destined to die as well as the poor old cannanites. Well poor us too.
The Joshua story only throws the problem of evil into sharp relief, but it won't go away whether the Joshua story is history or fiction. Indeed the theme of divine judgement is as all pervasive in scripture as the theme of love and mercy.

That's interesting, It doesn't get round the problem of Joshua and the canaanites in the sense that we cannot justify genocide (Cannan Bosnia or Auswitz) or attribute it to God. But it does move the argument on to the big question of why is dying (and life sometimes) such a bag of shit.

When something bad happens to us, I don't think we are being punished for our wrong (disabled people are no more sinful than the rest of us). Nor do I think that death is necessarily a punishment (though it's a bugger I'll admit!).

I agree that the Bible does seem to point to divine judgement in a threatening tone and this is present in both the OT and NT.

I might be wrong but I don't see any mention of sons being killed for the sins of their fathers in the NT. Are there any examples of instances where God uses men to exact punishment on other men in the NT? If there are they are certainly not the main thrust of the NT.

The concept of judgement certainly pervades the whole Bible, but in the NT I think it centres upon judgement of your own wrongdoing, not judgement of a nation for the wrongdoing of some people within that nation.

It brings me closer to the picture of a developing theology. It makes me even more convinced that the Bible is not a conclusion but a documented starting point from which mankind has developed ideas and morality which have superceded some of the ideas of the Bible just as the NT seems to supercede some of the commonly held values of the OT.

I'm not saying, just because we have problems with the concept of divine judgement, we should start to say that the Bible is obviously wrong on this subject (though it's possible). Rather we should never be too hard line in our viewpoint, just because the Bible says something. We have to consider it and weigh the odds, and even then we might be none the wiser.

I've thought hard about your paradox idea, I don't think I can agree for the following reason.

People hold to a paradox of Jesus being fully man and fully God because the Bible doesn't hold evidence to suggest that Jesus was sinful (he was inerrant).

Suppose for example the gospels had contained a story about Jesus, at the age of 17, two timing his girfriends. It would then be impossible for the unblemished lamb idea to be understood. After reading the things he later did, people might say that he was a man inspired by God, but I don't think they would have said he was God.

The Bible, as you have said, does contain errors, so it's fine to say it's inspired by God but not fine to say it's inerrant (equating it with God).

Otherwise it is inerrant.

When God said to Moses to leave Him alone while he annihilated Israel, He meant it.

The fact that He didn't reveals far more to me about God, who negotiated with Abraham for the annihilation of the cities of the plain too, than a God who really didn't, really couldn't say that and that the Bible is therefore errant because our liberal induction isn't - which reveals a lot about our limitations for accepting God at His word.

The hard, old school, bronze-age, lethal God who revealed Himself in Christ as more gracious than we can possibly imagine.

imagine if you will, every bible and written word relating to it in the world disappears one night and we are left to cope in this world based on the spirit of Jesus's message. if we were able to do that, we might be okay. now imagine everyone has a bible but no spirit of compassion. sound scarily familiar?

i can accept that God is The Word and is inerrant, but not that the bible is The Word...too much like saying the collar is the dog.

Your argument is interesting. I would like it to work. It would be a very good way to say that everbody's right on this thread! Then we'd all be happy.

But, for me, it can't work. I'm not saying that the Bible has errors just because it was written by men who are fallible. I'm saying that it has errors because those errors are self evident.

In the paradox of Jesus (fully God and fully man). The paradox only works where errors in Jesus' character are not self evident. If he had self evident errors then he would be just a good man, not both God and man.

You couldn't say that Jesus was fully God and also fully man, if Jesus could be shown to be a sinner (As it is, He isn't, so perhaps you can say it).

You couldn't say that the Bible has errors (because it was written by man) and does not have errors (because the Bible was written by God), if the Bible can be shown to have errors (which is the case).

I'm not disputing that there is a difference between Christ being human and being a sinner.

I realise that you are not equating the Bible with God but I'm pointing out that when your analogy is applied to the Bible that an inerrant Bible is like an inerrant Jesus. In the Bible's case it has demonstrable errors, in Jesus' case He hasn't.

Those "errors" in the bible aren't exactly "evident" to me and whole lot of other, rational, Christians.

We've been through this. I'm not going to argue with you on the subject anymore because you are not going to change your point of view no matter what I say.