** QUOTE **
Hobbs,
Your problem is that you are equating the truth value of christianity =
with the provability of inerrancy. Even if inerrancy were not true and =
someone was to concede to all of the discrepancies that you =
assert...that still does not negate the possibility that God exists and =
has revealed Himself in the Person of His Son Jesus Christ. You seem to =
have this naive all or nothing mentality about the truth claims of the =
Bible...this type of reasoning would dismantle any reliability for any =
ancient truth claims about historical events. I repeat, even if the =
Bible was shown to be errant in certain texts, this does not =
categorically negate its theological and philosphical assertions. If =
you are seeking the truth value of christianity, then you should get off =
the inerrancy kick and pursue some other direction (ie. resurrection, =
origin of the church, etc...)
His,
Walt Jr.
----------
From: HOBBSK@ACAD.RIPON.EDU[SMTP:HOBBSK@ACAD.RIPON.EDU]
Sent: 30 March 1997 07:43
To: errancy@infidels.org
Subject: Re: First Cause (to Walt Jr/Jason/Tod/Michael Fisher) (fwd)
>DAVE 3/28
>I simply propose that that which is self-existent we call God, and get=20
>on with it.
HOBBS 3/30
Fine. So, get on with it, then. Show us some reasons to conclude that=20
the Bible is the inerrant, fully reliable word of this "God".=20
** UNQUOTE **
HOBBS
All right, then, if you are finally willing to admit that the Bible is
not inerrant, show us some reasons to conclude that the biblical god
Yahweh is the same as this "self-existent we call God". Aristotle,
Spinoza, and many many others have called this "self-existent" "God",
but have not then gone on to claim that this and the biblical Yahweh are
one and the same. Why couldn't it be Allah? Why couldn't it be a deist
god who is uninvolved with its creation?
I've never equated the truth value of Christianity with the provability
of biblical inerrancy. That is your position (or, at least it has been
until now). Further, I have never claimed that showing that there are
contradictions or inaccuracies in, say, the writings of Josephus would
render all his writings completely unreliable. I have frequently pointed
out to you and other inerrantists that there are many Christians who do
not believe in biblical inerrancy, and it has been the inerrantists, not
me, who have said that these aren't "real" Christians. I think it is
possible to be a Christian, and even for Christianity to be truthful,
even if the Bible is not inerrant; it has been the inerrantists on the
list who have had the all or nothing mentality that says that
Christianity would fall if inerrancy falls, and that there is no "real"
Christianity without inerrancy. Sure, it certainly could be the case
that Yahweh is God and that Jesus is his son and the Bible is a
collection of undivinelyinspired books written by followers of this god
(these gods?) who got some things right and other things wrong. And if
you can provide some evidence that would demonstrate this to be true or
at least likely, and if you can refute at least most of the evidence
against it, I'll believe that it is true or at least likely. So, get on
with it, then. Show us some reasons to conclude that this "self-existent
we call God" is Yahweh of the Bible, as opposed to Allah of the Koran,
or the nonsentient, nonconscious "God, or Nature" of Spinoza, or the
deistic god of the far from inerrantist Founding Fathers whom
inerrantists (in their ignorance of these Founding Fathers' real
beliefs) love to invoke.
Have you given up your all or nothing mentality of the Bible? Are you
willing to admit that the Bible has errors and contradictions? Do you
think you can do so and still be a real Christian? I think you can. Do
you? Or are you the naive all-or-nothing one here?