View Single Post
Old February 23rd, 2006, 06:25 PM   #25
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896

Quote:
Originally Posted by smsmith40
Well if you are saying that it is the infallible Word of God then you are stuck with trying to prove that everything in the Bible is accurate and factual to the nth degree, it cannot be wrong at any point and minor inconsistencies that don't bother me become very real problems for you because if the Bible is infallible then it can never be wrong. Good luck with that.

If you are saying that it is merely a realtively accurate historical account of divinely inspired events, then that is a significantly lower burden of proof.

Which proposition are you making?
Well, to prove it historical is much easier like you say.

My point was to just address the fact that people always give the disclaimer of, "It's full of contradictions and not historically accurate," as to why they don't examine it's claims and I was stating that neither of those is really true. The contradictions are usually easiliy understandable or just misinterpreted, and the historical accuracy is, from what I know, not controversial. It may not be provable, but for ancient historical documents, the burden is to disprove them more than prove what they says is accurate, KWIM?

However, I believe it is the infallible Word of God. I'm not sure I'm much into proving that, as for the most part, if the problems you have with it are that it classifies bats as birds, or states that rabbits chew the cud, then your really missing the point. If brief animal classifications are what hold you back from seeing the overarching thread of the redemption of man-kind: God creating man, man falling into a depraved unalterable state, God setting into progress the redemption because his nature is love, and the beautiful story it reveals, then proving it as God's Word isn't really a worthy pursuit at this point.

Those minor inconsistencies have two fronts. One, they don't bother me that much, namely because I know the author, so to speak. Second, I'm not sure they are all that important. I'd have to think about this one, but I think I kind of explained it above when I descibed Eastern and Western ways of thinking of writing. There's an intent that is more important that timing, etc. Does that make sense?

You also have to watch out, because often times there is a tendancy among Christians to idolize the Bible rather than God himself, which is what they can interpret calling it the "Infallible Word of God" to mean. You might be thinking of it the same way from hearing the term used that way.

Last edited by randilover; February 23rd, 2006 at 06:31 PM.
randilover is offline   Reply With Quote