(jepler)
The first hard issue is how I should know which books are inspired and
which aren't. Your answer doesn't help us figure out this important point.
(jepler)
Secondly, if the definition of the bible is "start with fact X in book B
and throw out all books which disagree or contradict X or anything in B",
you're right --- the bible should be internally consistent. So how does
that explain the fact that it isn't? Or did you merely define "valid,
sound and non-contradictory" to mean "valid, sound and non-contradictory,
or the bible"?
(jepler)
It is all very well to assert that one particular version of the bible is
the perfect one, but another thing to explain why that is. It's one thing
to say that the bible is inerrant, and another to explain in a credible way
the multitude of obvious errors.
(jepler)
Take for instance the two genealogies of Jesus given in the "inspired" (as
opposed to apocryphal, I suppose) gospels. If I recall, you've said that
the conflict is because the different gospel authors each "emphasized a
different aspect of Christ's life", or some such words. However, if I
emphasized to you that my father's first name is Bob, and I emphasized to a
coworker that my father's first name is Lawrence, I don't think many
people would be inclined to think that I was doing anything but lying
in at least once of those instances. If my father is Bob, my father is
not Lawrence. Etc. You could at least try "umm, maybe 'bob' was your
father's middle name, and 'Lawrence' was his first name. Or, his friends
at work called him 'bob' because 'Lawrence' was too long, and he bobbed up
and down while he walked." Not that anyone would be particularly impressed
with that explanation.
(jepler)
Another funny point is that the need for Jesus is usually explained by
saying that God himself couldn't communicate directly with people, so he
had to send a human to communicate with humans. I've heard an analogy
involving people communicating with ants or bees, which obviously we do
anyway. Now, one might argue that if god is really omnipotent he would be
able to overcome this language barrier. "Yes, He can," replies the
inerrantist, "and that way of overcoming the communication barrier was Jesus
Christ." However, this response means that the inerrantist has to avoid
thinking of his inerrant old testament where God spoke directly with Adam,
Eve, Noah, Moses, the prophets, etc. Did God lose his powers somewhere
along the way between the OT and the NT, did he get too annoyed to
communicate directly, and force the job on his son, or does the OT lie
when it says that the lord spoke to so-and-so? Perhaps it takes a superior
human to be communicated to by God, but if I'm made so inferior that I
can't communicate with God or understand the bible, it's not I who should
be made to suffer as a result. It's not human practice to treat those
with mental handicaps poorly just because of those things the handicap
makes difficult or impossible for them to do. Will I be punished by God
because my brain was improperly made and cannot understand the thought
of Him or the truth of the bible? If so, how is this compatible with God
being a just entity?
(jepler)
Enough for one night, I ought to sleep.
Jeff
the ungroped
who doesn't know why he keeps trying
-- \/ jepler@inetnebr.com http://incolor.inetnebr.com/jepler/ (0|1(01*0)*1)+ You may have heard that a dean is to faculty as a hydrant is to a dog. -- Alfred Kahn