6 ms·

I believe it’s utterly, infallibly, and inerrantly true. I haven’t been able to find a single contradiction that hasn’t been answered by a cogent explanation t

I believe it’s utterly, infallibly, and inerrantly true. I haven’t been able to find a single contradiction that hasn’t been answered by a cogent explanation that includes the surrounding context, intertext references and ties to larger overarching themes. And believe me, I love and enjoy peering deeply into those holes. Perhaps the beauty is that those 66 books written over centuries tell a continuous and noncontradicting story. This isn’t to say that there aren’t difficult sections of scripture. There are things that come off as quotes that are actually paraphrases. There are different point of views between the gospels that insist 1 person was there when 2 people were in another account of the same situation. These are easily remedied when you consider the focus and theme of the book and the clear intentions of the author. The authors are indeed flawed (as humans, standing in the pages of history), but they write with the inspiration of God himself and make no error in recording their account. Happy to help with other concerns.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
How do you explain this then? https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html
- rsyring 5y ago
  Easily. It's the same story from two different perspectives. The first chapter is on a more global level. The second zooms in and focuses specifically on how man was created. The animals were created globally first. Once Adam was created, God created animals again so Adam could see the process, understand that God is Creator, and participate in ruling over God's creation. Interesting website choice. I spent a year as an agnostic because of that website before I started to realize there must be another perspective to consider.
  - rjbwork 5y ago
    Okay. So you don't believe that the bible is utterly true. You believe that the bible, plus some supplementary explanatory material is utterly true.
    - rsyring 5y ago
      I certainly believe interpretation is necessary and that some interpretations are more faithful than others. I believe there are resources out there that can help someone to faithfully interpret. And the converse also. The skeptics annotated Bible being in the latter category IMO.
      - fenomas 5y ago
        To a disinterested outsider, this dialog reads like: A: everything in this book is literally true B: what about this passage where it says 3+4=9? A: my interpretation of that passage is that the 9 represents a 7 in that particular context The salient point being: that even if A has arrived at a literally true interpretation of the passage, the truth came from A, not from the passage. Further, although A believes they're arguing that the book is inerrant, what they're effectively claiming is that their interpretations are inerrant.
        no-dr-onboard 5y ago
        > the truth came from A, not from the passage How can an interpretation attesting the truth of two passages exist while the passages are individually untrue? There seems to be a logic error here. > what they're effectively claiming is that their interpretations are inerrant. I don’t think A is claiming that, as the most basic understanding of Christianity understands that the individual is terribly flawed and errant. If your presupposition for this conclusion is based on your earlier point might have either misstated something or you’re claiming a conclusion without an expressed premise.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  The passages are interpreted incorrectly. Humans aren't rational beings that form conclusions by logically composing facts into a singular point. Instead humans are more prone to construct a scaffold of logic in order to support and existing belief. That site is picking and choosing passages in order to support a misguided belief. Instead a person must start with no beliefs and formulate a conclusion from the facts. If you do this, it is undeniable that the bible is real. I once told this to an atheist and he was astonished because my description of his subconscious behavior and lack of awareness was 100% what he thought I was doing. This makes me wonder do atheists even realize how unscientific and illogical they are? Are they constantly thinking that I'm the one that's illogical? Are humans so unaware of their own biases that we can never ever truly determine what is real and what isn't?
  - rjbwork 5y ago
    To answer your final question - no, we probably cannot actually determine absolute truth about the universe. There is quite a long history of epistemology that indicates this. In addition, we've got the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_th... which lets us know that there will ALWAYS be true things that we cannot prove with any set of axioms. Coming to a full reckoning of truth or reality is impossible. We're each doing the best we can with the perspective we've been given and the information available to us. I also think you are being quite uncharitable to most atheists. The majority of us grew up in the church, have read the bible, utterly believed the bible was true, were devout believers, and generally were at some point quite indistinguishable from you or any other truly intellectual believer in terms of worldview. It really was the kinds of contradictions the comment you replied to indicates, along with hundreds of others, and the absolute mental knots that had to be constructed in order to justify them that set me on the path of disbelief. This is the path for millions of people as they take a serious reckoning of their beliefs and with their holy books and do a fundamental reexamination of their entire worldview and belief structure. I don't think that either of us is being disingenuous in our portrayal of our beliefs. That said, I really do think that your interpretation of what people are doing when they examine these contradictions and draw the conclusion of disbelief is, in fact, the theological equivalent of p-hacking is fundamentally untrue.
senectus1 5y ago
The pretzels "you people" tie yourself in... I can't fathom how you operate with that much cognitive dissonance in your heads all the time. You must willfully ignore all the hard questions you can't answer.
- tluyben2 5y ago
  But that is what real this real religious belief brings right? I am an atheist but (only early on) raised with: the hard questions you do not ask; it is up to god and not you to know these things. Just follow his teachings in life and do not reason why. I do believe (from the few people I know who really believed, all dead now) that if you deeply believe and follow this, you could be happy in a very easy way as you genuinely will leave these questions behind and believe all people who question you will end up south of heaven. Not your problem if you tried to help them by quoting scripture. Think it leaves your head more clear than having questions and finding ways (logic, physics etc) to answer them; just not have them at all.
  - senectus1 5y ago
    you need to prove god first (but it would help if it was clearly defined first). But the "teachings" basically boil down to "treat others how you would like to be treated. There is nothing god like in that... its pure evolutionary pragmatism.
    - tluyben2 5y ago
      Agreed, however, there are many interpretations which have many caveats. I was raised in a particularly hard-core interpretation of the bible and we had to do a lot more to get to heaven than just treat others how you would like to be treated. Also, what is your margin of error for that in a particular interpretation? Can you repent or off to hell with you after one strike? Ours was closer to the latter. All the questions I had as a child about those things and the logic fallacies coming out it where said to be god's domain, not mine (and continuing that line of questioning actually was said to be sort of a sin (I do not remember how severe it was, just that this is in the bible somewhere and that I got a lot of school penalties asking questions), with bible verses quoted).
gremlinsinc 5y ago
Can you supply archaelogical, or historical proof that Moses existed as a real person? The egyptians kept stellar records and there's no record of 100k people wandering the wilderness of a 20 mile stretch of land for 40 years. It's hard to fathom that'd go unnoticed. It's also a fact that the books of moses were first written down about 800 years after he would've lived...so how can that be infallible if it's passed by word of mouth.... Ever play the telephone game?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The egyptians kept stellar records The best evidence is that the egyptians were very biased in what was recorded in ways that would be likely to have survived (triumphs, yes, defeats, not so much) and that even when things were recorded, events and persons who later fell into disfavor were actively eradicated from the kind of durable, monumental records that would be most likely to survive. > and there’s no record of 100k people wandering the wilderness of a 20 mile stretch of land for 40 years. What 20 mile stretch of land are you talking about? With the classical (but probably wrong) association of the Yam Suph with the Gulf of Suez, the “wilderness” would have been (or at least started) on the Sinai Peninsual, which is more than 20 miles in either dimension. (There’s a number of other interpretations of the Yam Suph, including the Gulf of Aqaba, which would have put the wilderness in (again, starting in) Arabia. (There’s good reasons to doubt the Exodus story, but you’ve completely missed the real ones: while the absence of records of the actual Exodus is much less surprising than you make, the absence of evidence of anything like the population that supposedly took part in it ever existing in Egypt at any time in order to leave in the Exodus is the big one.) > It’s also a fact that the books of moses were first written down about 800 years after he would’ve lived…so how can that be infallible if it’s passed by word of mouth.... Ever play the telephone game? Societies with high literacy may not be good at maintaining stable oral traditions, but those without it are known to be. Even if that weren’t true, mundane written documents aren’t infallible either, believing in infallible writing usually involves invoking a special divine gift of inspiration. But if that works for writing, there’s no reason it can’t work for oral tradition, or for writing that is remote from events.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago

How do you explain this then? https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

rsyring 5y ago
Easily. It's the same story from two different perspectives. The first chapter is on a more global level. The second zooms in and focuses specifically on how man was created. The animals were created globally first. Once Adam was created, God created animals again so Adam could see the process, understand that God is Creator, and participate in ruling over God's creation. Interesting website choice. I spent a year as an agnostic because of that website before I started to realize there must be another perspective to consider.
- rjbwork 5y ago
  Okay. So you don't believe that the bible is utterly true. You believe that the bible, plus some supplementary explanatory material is utterly true.
  - rsyring 5y ago
    I certainly believe interpretation is necessary and that some interpretations are more faithful than others. I believe there are resources out there that can help someone to faithfully interpret. And the converse also. The skeptics annotated Bible being in the latter category IMO.
    - fenomas 5y ago
      To a disinterested outsider, this dialog reads like: A: everything in this book is literally true B: what about this passage where it says 3+4=9? A: my interpretation of that passage is that the 9 represents a 7 in that particular context The salient point being: that even if A has arrived at a literally true interpretation of the passage, the truth came from A, not from the passage. Further, although A believes they're arguing that the book is inerrant, what they're effectively claiming is that their interpretations are inerrant.
      - no-dr-onboard 5y ago
        > the truth came from A, not from the passage How can an interpretation attesting the truth of two passages exist while the passages are individually untrue? There seems to be a logic error here. > what they're effectively claiming is that their interpretations are inerrant. I don’t think A is claiming that, as the most basic understanding of Christianity understands that the individual is terribly flawed and errant. If your presupposition for this conclusion is based on your earlier point might have either misstated something or you’re claiming a conclusion without an expressed premise.
deltaonefour 5y ago
The passages are interpreted incorrectly. Humans aren't rational beings that form conclusions by logically composing facts into a singular point. Instead humans are more prone to construct a scaffold of logic in order to support and existing belief. That site is picking and choosing passages in order to support a misguided belief. Instead a person must start with no beliefs and formulate a conclusion from the facts. If you do this, it is undeniable that the bible is real. I once told this to an atheist and he was astonished because my description of his subconscious behavior and lack of awareness was 100% what he thought I was doing. This makes me wonder do atheists even realize how unscientific and illogical they are? Are they constantly thinking that I'm the one that's illogical? Are humans so unaware of their own biases that we can never ever truly determine what is real and what isn't?
- rjbwork 5y ago
  To answer your final question - no, we probably cannot actually determine absolute truth about the universe. There is quite a long history of epistemology that indicates this. In addition, we've got the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_th... which lets us know that there will ALWAYS be true things that we cannot prove with any set of axioms. Coming to a full reckoning of truth or reality is impossible. We're each doing the best we can with the perspective we've been given and the information available to us. I also think you are being quite uncharitable to most atheists. The majority of us grew up in the church, have read the bible, utterly believed the bible was true, were devout believers, and generally were at some point quite indistinguishable from you or any other truly intellectual believer in terms of worldview. It really was the kinds of contradictions the comment you replied to indicates, along with hundreds of others, and the absolute mental knots that had to be constructed in order to justify them that set me on the path of disbelief. This is the path for millions of people as they take a serious reckoning of their beliefs and with their holy books and do a fundamental reexamination of their entire worldview and belief structure. I don't think that either of us is being disingenuous in our portrayal of our beliefs. That said, I really do think that your interpretation of what people are doing when they examine these contradictions and draw the conclusion of disbelief is, in fact, the theological equivalent of p-hacking is fundamentally untrue.

senectus1 5y ago

The pretzels "you people" tie yourself in... I can't fathom how you operate with that much cognitive dissonance in your heads all the time. You must willfully ignore all the hard questions you can't answer.

tluyben2 5y ago
But that is what real this real religious belief brings right? I am an atheist but (only early on) raised with: the hard questions you do not ask; it is up to god and not you to know these things. Just follow his teachings in life and do not reason why. I do believe (from the few people I know who really believed, all dead now) that if you deeply believe and follow this, you could be happy in a very easy way as you genuinely will leave these questions behind and believe all people who question you will end up south of heaven. Not your problem if you tried to help them by quoting scripture. Think it leaves your head more clear than having questions and finding ways (logic, physics etc) to answer them; just not have them at all.
- senectus1 5y ago
  you need to prove god first (but it would help if it was clearly defined first). But the "teachings" basically boil down to "treat others how you would like to be treated. There is nothing god like in that... its pure evolutionary pragmatism.
  - tluyben2 5y ago
    Agreed, however, there are many interpretations which have many caveats. I was raised in a particularly hard-core interpretation of the bible and we had to do a lot more to get to heaven than just treat others how you would like to be treated. Also, what is your margin of error for that in a particular interpretation? Can you repent or off to hell with you after one strike? Ours was closer to the latter. All the questions I had as a child about those things and the logic fallacies coming out it where said to be god's domain, not mine (and continuing that line of questioning actually was said to be sort of a sin (I do not remember how severe it was, just that this is in the bible somewhere and that I got a lot of school penalties asking questions), with bible verses quoted).

gremlinsinc 5y ago

Can you supply archaelogical, or historical proof that Moses existed as a real person? The egyptians kept stellar records and there's no record of 100k people wandering the wilderness of a 20 mile stretch of land for 40 years. It's hard to fathom that'd go unnoticed. It's also a fact that the books of moses were first written down about 800 years after he would've lived...so how can that be infallible if it's passed by word of mouth.... Ever play the telephone game?

dragonwriter 5y ago
> The egyptians kept stellar records The best evidence is that the egyptians were very biased in what was recorded in ways that would be likely to have survived (triumphs, yes, defeats, not so much) and that even when things were recorded, events and persons who later fell into disfavor were actively eradicated from the kind of durable, monumental records that would be most likely to survive. > and there’s no record of 100k people wandering the wilderness of a 20 mile stretch of land for 40 years. What 20 mile stretch of land are you talking about? With the classical (but probably wrong) association of the Yam Suph with the Gulf of Suez, the “wilderness” would have been (or at least started) on the Sinai Peninsual, which is more than 20 miles in either dimension. (There’s a number of other interpretations of the Yam Suph, including the Gulf of Aqaba, which would have put the wilderness in (again, starting in) Arabia. (There’s good reasons to doubt the Exodus story, but you’ve completely missed the real ones: while the absence of records of the actual Exodus is much less surprising than you make, the absence of evidence of anything like the population that supposedly took part in it ever existing in Egypt at any time in order to leave in the Exodus is the big one.) > It’s also a fact that the books of moses were first written down about 800 years after he would’ve lived…so how can that be infallible if it’s passed by word of mouth.... Ever play the telephone game? Societies with high literacy may not be good at maintaining stable oral traditions, but those without it are known to be. Even if that weren’t true, mundane written documents aren’t infallible either, believing in infallible writing usually involves invoking a special divine gift of inspiration. But if that works for writing, there’s no reason it can’t work for oral tradition, or for writing that is remote from events.