The debate "The Holy Bible is inerrant and holds absolute authority" was started by
January 4, 2017, 8:44 pm.
14 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 40 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
PsychDave posted 10 arguments, PoliticsAsUsual posted 16 arguments, historybuff posted 7 arguments to the disagreers part.
redeemed, ProfessorX, makson and 11 visitors agree.
PsychDave, PoliticsAsUsual, thereal, shuhel_2005, KrotoR, WolfiesMom, karlos, R3HAB, emshanley, dapollman, jazzyjay, ProfDoke and 28 visitors disagree.
then it is justfiable to believe that. I do not personally but who truly can say they know all the answers besides God? we all have to follow the path we believe to be right.
As a catholic, we believe that the Crucifixion was a repayment and forgiveness of the original sin of Mary. This is the immaculate conception. In order to make Mary a perfect vessel for the coming of Jesus, she needed to be removed from original sin as to prepare for the birth of Christ.
u said that she is without sin but I would like to ask. OK so we both agree she is Jesus's mother but I don't believe she was without sin. only Jesus was. Mary was human therefore as we all are she is prone to sin and will fall. that's why we needed to sacrifice animals until Jesus. how can she be without sin?
As always a disclaimer: if you want the true teaching of the church consult the catechism. I am prone to error.
But they are knelt before since they are a reminder. As you see the crucifix, you are actively remembering the sacrifice made by Christ. You fall before thoughts of God, not the statue.
Now onto the bowing point: the intention and context of the Bible is easy to see. The purpose was to prevent Idolatry. During the exodus, the Israelites began to worship a golden calf during the absence of Moses. They replaced God with an inanimate statue that they truly worshipped. Catholics do not worship the statue. They worship only God.
Now onto the Mary topic. We do not worship Mary. She, as a member of the communion of saints, is a guide for us as she was without sin. We dont pray to Mary, we ask her to pray for us. Afterall, our God is the God of the living. This means that all of those on earth and also those who have died in the graces of God are living and worshipping God. This also indicates that saints, like our brothers and sisters on earth, are able to pray for us. Mortality is nothing to Catholicism, since if we truly receive eternal life, then those in paradise are still living and may pray for us just as those on earth.
The reason people ask for the intercession of Mary is she is the Mother of God and and in the grace of our Lord.
You can pray anywhere you want to. There is no confinement to prayer.
If someone does that, they are sinning. I dont understand your premise.
"Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it"
Quoted from the King James Bible. Yet people bow to statues, crusifixes, crosses, etc all the time, sometimes expecting a miracle to manifest. If the statue itself holds no power, why no pray in a church, at home, in a park, or basically anywhere else? Why are these statues knelt before if they have no power?
It has never prompted me to fall on my knees in front of it weeping and hoping it would cure me of cancer. How about yourself? Any bouts of lying prostrate expecting a cold to go away after looking at a loved one's photo?
Have you ever felt any feeling of love/tenderness after looking at a picture of a loved one?
No? Could you explain the behavior if they aren't expecting a miracle from touching /kissing a statue?
History, would it be sinful if you were to prat for me or if I was to ask you to pray for me?
Not from the statue itself.
I do see the crucifix as an idol though.
what individuals do may not be representative of what the church teaches. you'd have to show priests doing it or encouraging the doing of it on a more than sporadic basis, or official doctrine promoting it.
also, I understand why you would target catholicism as it is the dominant form of Christianity world wide, however this discussion is almost entirely of American christians, and they are predominantly protestant. different donominations may as well be different faiths, and they usually do not see the others as truth. I don't think criticizing the actions of the wrong denomination will prove any point successfully.
So when people touch a statue or kiss it hoping to be healed they are not believing 8t has power?
here is a link to an article about how the Catholic Church goes contrary to the Bible about idolatry. but Catholics have used tradition as a way of adding things to Christianity that do not appear in the Bible since the beginning.
Also, statues mean nothing. They are a reminder. I would call it sinful to believe they had power.
Icons are an Eastern Orthodox idea. Catholics oppose them and idols. Ultimately, the Church will not contradict the Bible. We differ from other sects too due to having more books.
idk I'm not Catholic. I can only say how we should be and how I try to be.it should hold absolute authority if we follow God how we are told is correct. but people have free will and will sometimes do as they please. this annoys me if I'm honest when they do sin in public because it gives us all a bad name and makes it harder for people because they think of them instead of what we are.
On the topic of its absolute authority, even amongst Christians it does not. Catholicism is the single largest sect of Christianity teaches many things that the Bible does not. For many, the church doctrine and the Pope hold absolute authority since they don't actually read or follow the Bible.
This list goes through many changes to Catholic doctrine. Some of them are not really big deals, but some are fundamental changes to the structure of the church (like priests not being allowed to marry) which change how people worship.
Some of these practices directly contradict the Bible. I'm fairly sure the Bible says negative things about the making of and worshiping of icons and statues, but that is now common practice in the church. I don't mean the cross itself necessarily, but how many people kiss the feet of statues of Jesus or the virgin Mary?
ok it depends on what we mean by errors. by this statement I'm thinking more on the lines that it changes the meaning more than anything else. sure their is probably mistypes like adding therefore but I wouldn't consider that an error. depending on what we mean by the Bible contain errors. this statement is used a lot. when I have heard it it mostly goes with my way of thinking which is their are no major mistakes. typos not included. also on absolute authority this is a statement made by Christians and yes for Christians it most definitely holds absolute authority. not for atheist or other religions obviously.
Sorry referencing an older comment, but I feel you again missed a fundamental part of the debate in your response.
The topic isn't about the Bible being wrong, it is about it being inerrant, meaning without error. I'll break it down to a few simple questions so we can clearly see at what point we disagree.
1)If I quoted someone but removed a word or a letter, it is an error. Do you agree?
2)The Bible contains such examples of mistranslations, typos and minor variations and errors. Do you still agree?
3)If you agree that typos are errors, and you agree that the Bible contains them, by definition you acknowledge that the Bible contains errors.
I am honestly not sure where you disagree with me on this part, which is why I want to nail it down before moving on the the second half of the topic, the Bible containing absolute authority.
maybe in a diff. debate but let's keep this one going for now.
I see, he did bring it up, however I disagree with you, I feel that you are the one who is risking more. you are right. this is a tangent and I won't pursue it unless you choose to continue.
he is right.
I believe his second line says we have much to lose. I would say we all have much to lose. honestly why is this such a big deal? it literally has nothing to do with the debate.
I don't think neveralone does as he was insisting on a 50/50... do you speak for everyone?
that post by buff has nothing to do with pascal's wager. you responded to that post with a "you have more to lose"
your response makes no sense considering the post it was responding to, but it was clearly a reference to pascal's wager, which is where I came in.
Everybody knows this.
"i didn't say I pity you. I said it was sad. you have a great deal to lose by wasting your life worshipping a cult. but that isn't really my point. my point was that your blind faith forces you to make excuses for its faults. there were countless errors in countless copies of the Bible. yet despite this undisputable fact, you continue to argue the Bible is perfect. the fact that you are willing to completely ignore reality to protect your faith is extremely sad."
so says history buff not me
you brought up the point of belief vs disbelief when it comes to the afterlife. that is not a discussion strictly about the bible.
if you want to consider the gamble of disbelief, you have to consider the fact of multitude of beliefs. otherwise it's a useless discussion based on fantasy. that's useless.
why would we add all these other religions when we are talking about the holy Bible? that is what this debate is about.
I'd prefer to take my time then a quick debate about a fantasy world that doesn't exist. I guarantee you it won't be any longer.
I was limiting to two in the debate not reality so we can get a move on. unless u want to sit here for days getting nowhere.
a word doesn't make it wrong. for example. the car is red. sentence one. the car is really red. which is wrong? neither. a extra word that doesn't change the meaning doesn't mean it's wrong.
People enjoy being Christians.
"I was limiting to 2 out of simplicity. if we considered every religion out their we would get nothing done."
so you want to pretend that the choice is between Christianity and atheism in regards to the afterlife... that's not reality.
and we will get plenty, we only need to consider 2 things about all the religions. they have contradictory commandments and rules, and all of them have no proof or evidence relying entirely on faith.
therefore all the religions have an equal chance of being true, and your 50/50 gamble goes out the window. you may very well pick the wrong God and waste both this life and the next. doesn't sound like that good of a wager now. this just went from a game of blackjack to a roulette wheel where you can only pick 1 number. good luck.
so the fact that there are changes isn't a problem? were the original scrolls the word of God or was a version written over 1000 years later the right one?
and no matter how you look at it, if there is a single difference between versions of the Bible then there are errors. I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.
The King James was written to be a thing of beauty and in verse.
Before this continues, you need to do some research.
This explains the difference between versions of the Bible. Of interest to this debate, the King James Bible is 98.33 percent accurate to the scrolls. That is impressive for a book this old and this often translated and copied. The problem is that it is not 100 percent. That means the Bible is not inerrant.
You are now moving the goalposts, showing that you are aware you lost the original debate.
The topic states that the Bible is inerrant, meaning has no errors. If there is a single spelling mistake in a single edition of a single version of the Bible, that is not true. Beyond that, you should be aware that there are multiple versions of the Bible. That means they are not exactly the same, so which has no errors, and which contains some?
Now that hopefully you remember what is being debated, are you willing to claim that all Bibles are identical, word for word, letter for letter, or will you concede that some must contain errors if they are not?
yes it is translated. though we do have translators do we not? I'm simply asking to see a mistake that actually changes the entire meaning. instead of just the book. so instead. of just saying theirs thousands show me one.
your ignorance makes this debate extremely difficult neveralone. prior to the invention of the printing press there were countless thousands of slightly different versions of the Bible. how exactly do you think I can provide you with a 1000 year old manuscript written in a language neither of us can read?
you have never even seen a Bible that hasn't been translated, and retranslated over and over. copied over and over again until any errors made have been there for longer than anyone can remember.
he did. so if he has proof I would like to see it.
k. then I apologize.
I was limiting to 2 out of simplicity. if we considered every religion out their we would get nothing done.
our praise will never get us into heaven only accepting Jesus will we get into heaven.
if u are getting angry I would prefer to debate with u later if u arnt then I request u to stop cussing. our praise won't get us in heaven. sucking up to somone is fruitless
I never specifically said there are errors in a bible. I said a perfect translation is impossible, and a book as complex as the bible with fables and direct commandments will be extra impossible to translate properly, therefore it is unlikely to be perfect, but never claimed to know contradictory passages.
the only other time I chimed in was to point out your ludicrous assertion that not speaking means he spoke.... and stayed out of the rest of the discussion. I don't like to speak out of ignorance, and in this field I am ignorant.
and no we are not considering just 2. we are considering reality, you are limiting to just 2 out of convenience for your own point. you claimed that we have more to lose because we sacrifice any claim to a peaceful afterlife, one must consider that there are many many many, often contradictory claims to the afterlife.
you also refuse to consider that constant praising may not be the instant ticket into heaven and anyone can qualify even without devoting their life to a possibly imaginary being, or even a real but more hands off being who doesn't really care for your pandering and a** kissing.
seriously though both of you have said their is ton of errors in the bible but when I ask for a spec example u suddenly can't find any.
we were considering just two at this point. unless u want to consider more. I would not do all or we won't get any further than a single post in our lives.
ah pascal's wager. again.
your assuming it's religion vs lack of religion and eternity is at risk. your forgetting the numerous other religions. you may very well be sacrificing this life and the next. at least we are guaranteed that this life will be our own.
your also assuming a prick of a God who will banish you to suffering for the sole sin of disbelief instead of moral action. I can live my life as I want and still make it to heaven under numerous belief systems.
once again, neveralone, you fail to consider all the variables. hint: there's usually A LOT more than just 1.
u have much more to lose.
again give a specific e ample instead of saying theirs mystical issues in the bible.try opening one urself instead of going off the words of others.
i didn't say I pity you. I said it was sad. you have a great deal to lose by wasting your life worshipping a cult. but that isn't really my point. my point was that your blind faith forces you to make excuses for its faults.
there were countless errors in countless copies of the Bible. yet despite this undisputable fact, you continue to argue the Bible is perfect. the fact that you are willing to completely ignore reality to protect your faith is extremely sad.
Why do you pity us? What do we have to lose?
bad English. why does a single word that doesn't change the meaning suddenly matter?
what other version? please be more specific than saying another version
The king james was written in verse.
Second, Ehrman also votes for authenticity when "some things make more sense in Aramaic than in Greek." The muddled passage where Jesus says, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath" (Mark 2:27-28) is obscure in Greek. "What is the 'therefore' there for?"
the link I provided had specific errors. Mark 1:40-41 recounts the healing of a leper. The King James account says: "And Jesus, moved with compassion," healed him. In alternative versions, however, the text claims "and Jesus got angry
wow look at that u have gone down to insulting us. bravo to that u really brought something to the debate. when u tell me where exactly this is in the bible then will talk. or actually put something useful to the debate.
lol you guys are really sad. bordering on delusional. it is beyond argument that there are errors in the Bible, and your mythology forces you to fight on.
That's why I dont like the argument. We believe it out of faith.
no what I'm saying is u will never understand the Bible if u just read a sentence. like I said for all I know this could be made up. he only gives the books. and if it is it could be 2 diff. scenarios. all were going by is his word.
so your argument is that the authors of the Bible didn't write what they actually meant? you are interpreting what is there in a way that makes no sense based on what they wrote. if that is the case then we shouldn't take anything in the Bible serious because they could have meant anything. if he didn't speak means he actually did speak. then Jesus is the son of God could mean he is actually the devil.
he did not speak can mean many things. like I said seeing the scripture as a whole instead of a price is always best. the example given could be two diff. scenarios or dif. time in the conversation. or nonexistent. idk he only gives the book which could be anywhere.
I'm not trying to interject into the discussion over all, but I made an entire post about the complete nonsense of #2.
please explain why you take "he did not speak" to mean "he did not speak in between speaking". where in the text did it even hint at that highly specific distinction.
1) that is part of the process a transgender goes through. I would prefer the movie analogy instead.
2) one said he didn't say anything at that moment. when u give a speech do u talk the whole time or give pauses to let ur words sink in? also if he provided exactly where I would search for it but he just says which book it's in.
3) so if a event like Jesus's crucifixion happened and it happened like the Bible said do u think people would try to buyer up the story? also their is a whole book about lineage which tells u who is who. not much of a good oral story and doesn't spice things up.
4) I'm saying they could of originated from the apostles.
1) we aren't talking about transgender. a cross dresser is one gender dressed as the other. if you mistake them for the other gender then you are wrong. I don't know why you are still trying to argue that.
2) one author said he didn't say anything. the other author said he did. how are you not getting this? they are mutually exclusive.
3) if it is oral is it almost guaranteed to be inaccurate. oral stories change based on who is telling it and who the audience is.
4) pretty well everyone now agrees they were not written by the apostles. it's well established.
1) then are u agaisnt transgender? because that is their defense.
2)so u can't talk then be silent?
3) I meant more oral than anything else. then later on written.
4) who says the ones who told it weren't the apostles?
5) again the movie example would be better.
there are many perceptions, but there is only 1 reality. just cause you perceive something doesn't make it true.
it may SEEM true to you, but that doesn't affect the OBJECTIVE reality. the only time 2 things can be equally true is if it is SUBJECTIVE, like a joke can be both funny and not, or a picture can be pretty or not. those are opinions. whether someone is a man or a woman, silent or talking, either is or isnt. not up to interpretation.
and btw. OBVIOUSLY NOONE TALKS COMPLETELY NON STOP... when someone says they were silent without specifics, they were silent THE ENTIRE TIME. I really hate it when people twist words beyond logic to support a point because they refuse to accept any other possibility besides the one they started with.
I'll try to break this down.
1. if you say a man dressed as a woman is a woman, then you are wrong. that is an error. just because you perceived it that way does not make it correct.
2. they are both describing the exact same event. in one version he speaks to people in one he says nothing. those two are mutually exclusive. you cannot speak and be silent. one or both of those accounts are wrong.
3. people most certainly did not write everything down back then. I don't know why you would think that. the ability to write was rare. the paper they are writing on was very expensive. very few things got written down. and when they were written it is because someone paid to have it written.
4. the church generally tried to convince people that those books of the Bible were written by the apostles they claim to be written by. that simply isn't true. someone wrote these things and pretended it came from an apostle to try to lend it some legitimacy. odds are it was a monk writing decades later who had never even met an eye witness.
if u want to pursue it fine but the movie one would be better to understand. ok so when u see the cross (crossdresser abbreviation) you will see a woman and in ur reality that is correct.no matter what is said you will see a woman. now are u wrong? then when I see the cross I would see a man. no matter what is said and n my reality it's man. is my reality wrong? in this scenario ur pitting realities agaisnt each other. their both simply correct. in the movie example u might say some events that caught ur eye and I would say some. more than likely we will have different opinions. so when we describe it we would diff. like how you and I describe Christianity. are either wrong to us?
or he spoke then didn't. I mean do u talk in the whole conversation u have or do u sometimes listen? why do both have to happen at the exact same time?
people wrote everything down back then so I would argue it is likely from a first hand account.it just wasn't put together until later
cross dresser works for this point. a cross dresser has one gender. if two different people report it differently then one of them is wrong.
the example they gave between mark and luke. in one author's account he speaks and is in control. in the other's he is completely silent. those are not descriptive differences. either he spoke or he didn't (or the story was made up and neither are true). one of the MUST be incorrect. he cannot have spoken and remained silent. they are mutually exclusive.
also keep in mind that no one knows who wrote the gospel of mark or Luke. chances are very good they were not written by an eye witness to the events they describe. this is likely why they disagree.
who is to say he is a man or he's a women? that's for a diff. debate but if I remember correctly crossdresser isn't confused on sex unless were talking about transgender related. also a better example would be a movie. there will be details I omit that u include and vise versa.
using your example, one of us says the crossdresser is a man, the other says it's a woman. One of us is wrong.
an incorrect perception does not change the fact that they are incorrect. when two people describe an event in two different ways, one or both of them are wrong. they cannot both be correct.
it's perception. I could see a cross dresser and feel shocked and when I tell it later I would describe it in detail. u could see the same person and don't care and if (I'm guessing) ur wife ask about ur day u would say nothing or very little. now with ur little info vs my detailed which is right? both would be. u could describe an event as being exciting I could describe it as boring. who's right? both.
you're right, people describe events differently because they are remembering incorrectly. therefore they are wrong. the fact that they are describing events differently means that one, or both of them are wrong. they cannot both be correct. therefore the Bible difinitively, undeniably has errors in it.
ask any police officer. people can describe the same event differently. it is part of perspective. that's how they catch people who practice a story.
so something can't be perfect if it is added to?
No, it isn't. Perspective on colour is one thing, wording and events are another. If you and I both quote someone, but use different words, one of us is wrong. It may not change the message, and it may not be a substantial change, but one of us made an error when recounting the story.
Having also read the linked article, I'm not sure how you don't see where he is coming from. Entire verses and stories are not found in earlier copies of the Bible, then suddenly appear. Comments that do not make logical sense in Aramaic, but do in Greek, would not be from the original stories since those double meanings aren't there in other languages. The article explains that not only is there logical reason to expect the Bible has been altered, there is actually records showing some of those changes. That alone proves that it has been changed. We can look at old versions and see the changes!
it is how people describe. if u describe a rose u could say it's red. if I described the same one I could say it is a sunrise. who is right? the answer is both.
the topic says the bible is interrent. it has no errors. it has multiple descriptions of the same event that do not agree. obviously at least one has to be wrong, ie in error.
ok read ur thing. he never showed the contradictions besides when Jesus was talking again and in that it says Jesus rebuked him which he did. he doesn't show anything about the book of mark. also because the disciples talk about the same event but describes it differently is perfectly fine. that is how people write. I'm sure if u and I both wrote a page right now on Jesus's birth then showed them to each other it would be diff.
here is a link to a news story about an author who has written on the subject. it had several examples.
do u have a specific example?
it isnt just that they swap thou for you. they frequently missed words or sentences. or added words or sentences. or messed up the letters, ex Jesus ate fish could become Jesus hates fish. obviously the scriptures were not written in English so that is just made up.
could u give me a site to read I would be interested.
or it simply gains. people need different things at different times. why shouldn't it? sure it might say thou instead of u but does that really matter?
there is evidence that in the copying process I described earlier, some of the scribes made intentional changes to the text to suit their own interpretation of what Christianity should be. for example there is evidence that the importance of women was largely removed fron the texts to reinforce the patriarchal style that Christianity eventually adopted.
since these alterations to the text were then copied and recopied there is no way to know what the original text was for certain.
the whole thing! a perfect translation is impossible, especially a book as complex as the bible with fables side by side with instructions, and numerous metaphors. every translation looses something.
no I mean what mistranslations do u believe there to be?
the Bible predates Christianity.
just google translation difficulty if you don't see why it would be a problem, not something I can explain here.
what edits? if ur talking about that meeting as history has pointed out the Bible wasn't made yet
yes, we will agree on the topic overall tho.
I wonder if the poster truly believes the earth was created prior to the stars.
I would not group typos and misstranslations together.
typos are accidents that change a letter or omit a word. they are often obvious, or less often, turn the text into gibberish. very rarely will it actually modify the message.
a translation can properly translate every word, but lose the meaning or mean something completely different. it is extremely difficult to properly translate text into another language and keep the message the same.
I would argue mistranslations would fall under errors. so it is largely the same argument I was making.
and these errors compound over time. when it is a copy of a copy of a copy of copy etc, the entire message could be different. there is no way to know what the original message was.
since he is trying to say the Bible is inerrent and it is established fact that errors were made, the topic of this debate can't even be debated. there were lots of errors made in the Bible. that is just a fact.
I would think misstranslations and intentional edits would be more damaging then typos.
so the Bible can't be trusted because one said them and another said they?
theirs multiple theories about everything so which one of those are right?
when the books of the Bible were first written there was no photo copier. they had to be copied out by hand. errors happened extremely frequently. studies of what manuscripts that remain in extistence show that a great many errors were made. many of these errors were them copied into later versions. there is no way to know if the versions of the Bible that exist today are anything like what early Christians actually wrote.
you say the Bible can't be wrong. I would say what version of it is isn't wrong?
those were the punishment of that time. obviously we would be in trouble if any of that still held such punishment. or it being a crime in itself. on the flood it depends does history outside the Bible actually say when this happened?
yes yes u r.haha. will get into detail later
I would likely be one of those two.
There is too much internal inconsistencies for the Bible to be inerrant. Too many crimes that warrant death, like sowing two crops in one field or disobeying your parents that don't make sense. Too much scientifically impossible stories (world ending flood) .
good day redeem welcome here and be prepared for two guys to jump on this soon.