Jump to content

Somebody Actually Teaches This?


Yvonne
 Share

Recommended Posts

A friend and I were discussing bible inerrancy - we don't believe it. ;) We were talking about the contradictions and ambiguity in the telling of the Easter story just in the 3 synoptic gospels alone. We were discussing the fact that there's no reasonable way to talk to someone who's mind is made up. That's background info.

 

Tonight while doing a completely unrelated search, I stumbled across this:

 

http://www.nacministers.info/biblehascontradictions.htm

 

...and in the words of Forest Gump "that's all I have to say about that"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might work with people who are just mouthing what they have heard - like many Biblically illiterate liberals. I don't think it is sufficient to know that there are contradictions. Good defense is to know what you believe and why. I think inerrancy is a silly question unless one has a relationship with the individual. Why is it so important that the Bible be inerrant to them? One friend felt that he couldn't believe in Jesus if it weren't. If everyone is on their own path ...

 

Probably taking this too seriously.

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm re-reading Borg's 'Heart of Christianity' and he has some wonderful things about taking the bible as literal fact. He gives the example of a preacher who said he "walks with Jesus" and Borg asked: "So if I were to take a video of you walking down the street some day, i was would see Jesus, too?" He wasn't being unkind, he was just pointing out the difference between literal-factual "truth"' and metaphorical "truth". He has a nice chapter on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm re-reading Borg's 'Heart of Christianity' and he has some wonderful things about taking the bible as literal fact. He gives the example of a preacher who said he "walks with Jesus" and Borg asked: "So if I were to take a video of you walking down the street some day, i was would see Jesus, too?" He wasn't being unkind, he was just pointing out the difference between literal-factual "truth"' and metaphorical "truth". He has a nice chapter on this.

I believe Borg also points out in the book that the cult of inerrancy developed itself very recently in Christian history. It was a reaction to the enlightenment tradition which placed absolute value in scientism. Believers became obsessed with defining themselves in reaction to scientism. I also like Borg's treatise on the power of metaphorical truth. In my humble opinion, metaphorical truth in a religious context is much more vital than literal truth. For example, in the Gospels, is it more crucial that the temple veil to the Holy of Holies was literally torn in two, or is it more crucial that we retain the belief that men/women are not separated from God? I do not care much about the factual event. I am agnostic on the issue. I was not around for the event and will refrain from commenting on its factuality. What matters for my life, is that I believe I have communion with God. Edited by John Ryan
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service