The Inerrancy Delusion

[WWFStern]

This article, which I wrote, originally was published Here (http://mycaseagainstgod.blogspot.com/).

Anybody who knows me will attest to the following: Never has skepticism had a more faithful follower. Quite literally, I’m skeptical about everything. In fact, I’m even skeptical of a notion such as “Murder is immoral.” After all, I can conceive of no laboratory test that could be conducted which would demonstrate the immorality of murder (morality cannot be quantified, measured, gauged or tested via scientific instrumentation). With such a high degree of skepticism, naturally I look upon extraordinary, supernatural claims with a great deal of suspicion. And, as any individual familiar with the Bible will agree, that particular tome is chock-full of extraordinary, supernatural assertions (for example, the Jesus resurrection tale and the Lazarus corpse-to-companion tale). Considering that the events of the Bible happened millennia in the past, how possibly could they be substantiated now? Theists have the answer.

Christians claim that the Bible is inerrant. By virtue of its inerrancy—indeed, by definition—all the fantastic stories in the Bible must be true, resurrections included. The presence of the stories in an inerrant book is sufficient to substantiate them. This answer is satisfactory for about 12 seconds. Thereafter, one recalls the gross inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, scientific impossibilities and internal incoherence contained within “the truest book ever composed.” A book containing grotesquely egregious inconsistencies, by definition, cannot be inerrant. Inerrancy also eludes any tome that has its historical facts wrong, or its scientific principles scrambled. Indeed, I intend to demonstrate here that the Bible is so unreliable on even the most mundane of matters that it surely cannot be trusted with respect to extraordinary, supernatural claims.

Prior to pontificating any further, I turn the stage over to Tom Flynn, writing in the December 2004 / January 2005 issue of Free Inquiry. In the following passage, Flynn explains some of the basic inconsistencies in the much-cherished Christmas story. It seems that Matthew and Luke simply can’t agree on anything.

The popular image of shepherds and wise men side by side before the cradle? Matthew says wise men. Luke says shepherds. Neither says both. The star in the East? Only in Matthew. “Hark, the herald angels sing” ... but only in Luke. Matthew never heard of them.

But then, only Matthew heard of Herod’s slaughter of the innocents ... That’s right, the indiscriminate killing of every male baby in Judea — with one significant exception — did not merit Luke’s attention. On the other hand, no Roman historian chronicles this atrocity either, not even Flavius Josephus. Josephus reviled Herod and took care to lay at his feet every crime for which even a shred of evidence existed. Had Herod really slaughtered those innocents, it is almost unimaginable that Josephus would have failed to chronicle it.

Matthew says Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem, moving to Nazareth after their flight into Egypt ... But Luke says Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth all along; Jesus was born in Bethlehem only because Joseph and Mary had traveled there to enroll in the census... Roman records mention no such census; in fact, Roman history records no census in which each man was required to return to the city where his ancestral line originated. That’s not how the Romans did things.

Unfortunately for biblical literalists, the Bible’s indisputable fallibility does not end there. We are provided with conflicting genealogies tracing the ancestral lineage between David and Joseph. In the genealogy according to Matthew, there are fewer than 30 generations separating David and Joseph. In the genealogy according to Luke, there are more than 40 generations. According to Matthew, the relevant son of David is Solomon. According to Luke, the relevant son of David is Nathan. According to Matthew, Joseph’s father is Jacob. According to Luke, Joseph’s father is Heli. The lists have little crossover. Again, these are the mundane, little details that the Bible has all fouled up. One also must wonder why the scribes bothered to list Joseph’s two ancestral histories. After all, Jesus was born to a virgin. As Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, rightly points out, “… if Jesus really was born of a virgin, Joseph’s ancestry is irrelevant and cannot be used to fulfill, on Jesus’ behalf, the Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah should be descended from David.”

I submit that, considering the Bible’s gross inconsistencies on mundane, ordinary details, Jesus’ alleged life must also be treated with extreme skepticism. Although I believe it’s probable that Jesus, as a man, actually existed, I doubt very much the narrative commonly accepted among Christians. It’s notable that Jesus’ alleged life has nearly all the hallmarks of the classic hero myth, on which many religious characters were modeled. In The God Delusion, Dawkins writes, “… all the essential features of the Jesus legend, including the star in the east, the virgin birth, the veneration of the baby by kings, the miracles, the execution, the resurrection and the ascension are borrowed – every last one of them – from other religions already in existence in the Mediterranean and Near East region.” In trying to adapt Jesus’ life to conflicting mythologies, the aforementioned contradictions were created. Dawkins continues, “… Matthew’s desire to fulfill messianic prophecies (descent from David, birth in Bethlehem) for the benefit of Jewish readers came into headlong collision with Luke’s desire to adapt Christianity for the Gentiles, and hence to press the familiar hot buttons of pagan Hellenistic religions (virgin birth, worship by kings, etc.).”

One of the most convincing bits of evidence demonstrating that the Jesus life with which we are familiar might be fabricated comes from Saint Paul. One of the earliest associates of the Christian church wrote voluminously about Christianity … but didn’t seem to know one thing about Jesus’ life as we know it. The enlightening film The God Who Wasn’t There broke down Jesus’ crucial life events and then showed just how many Saint Paul apparently never had heard of. Even the things Paul did know about, such as the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension, didn’t happen in the real world, but rather in a realm of myth. There’s very little evidence that Paul ever seriously considered the notion that Jesus walked the same ground as he did. Another meaningful bit of evidence relates to secular historians. No such historians, who lived at the same time as Jesus did, ever made mention of the man. Yes, secular historians did mention Jesus after he was dead. However, none mentions him while he was alive and, allegedly, working amazing miracles.

With respect to Jesus, my conclusion is as follows: Jesus probably lived, but his life was nothing like what is portrayed in any of the Gospels. His life, as recounted differently in each Gospel, was a construction to fulfill the scribes' varied agendas. His life simply was wedged into the writer’s mythology of choice.

And finally, to biblical veracity. Letting my arguments speak for themselves, I will close with a question to which I hope I’ve given readers the answer. If the Gospels are demonstrably contradictory, historically inaccurate, and fallible on the most mundane and ordinary of details, why should one believe them when it comes to their most incredible, extraordinary claims? In the final analysis, it seems inerrancy has come up bankrupt.

[Joan of Bark]

Also, if the Bible was consistent, we wouldn't have 1000+ Christian denominations all claiming to be following it religiously whilst disagreeing with each other on what it really says.

[The Bishop]

I'm not sure what your grounds for accepting Jesus's existence, if you accept the "crucifixion in mythic realm" argument. Since Paul was the earliest Christian writer, and as you say the only details of Jesus's life that he wrote about were the crucifixion and resurrection, and consequently the other accounts of his life (which as you pointed out are highly doubtful) came after this and could have been derived from this, then all reasons for believing in Jesus's existence simply fade away, don't they?

I myself, however, do not accept that Paul was writing about any kind of mythic realm when he wrote about Jesus's death and resurrection, and the simple fact that he doesn't write about other details of Jesus's life is not sufficient reason for claiming that he doesn't know at least some of them (Jesus being a Galilean who went to Jerusalem, Jesus's mother being Mary etc). He was writing pastoral letters, not a Gospel. I think the very fact that the nativity stories take two different approaches to shoehorning a rural Galilean fishing community carpenter into a Royal descent and birth in Bethlehem, is compelling evidence that Jesus was a Galilean and consequently a real person.

I don't myself have any real Inerrancy quarrels that derive from the New Testament. My Inerrancy quarrels derive entirely from inerrancy leading to Young Earth Creationism - a position which, if I were a theist, I would regard as denigrating God - as if God could not Himself create a Universe and then have the patience of waiting 13 billion years for its fruition in sapient life. And Creationism itself, which denigrates humanity's supreme gift of having been able to find out its own origins - a privilege granted to few organisms in the whole Universe, surely?

[EarlOfLade]

I don't myself have any real Inerrancy quarrels that derive from the New Testament. My Inerrancy quarrels derive entirely from inerrancy leading to Young Earth Creationism - a position which, if I were a theist, I would regard as denigrating God - as if God could not Himself create a Universe and then have the patience of waiting 13 billion years for its fruition in sapient life. And Creationism itself, which denigrates humanity's supreme gift of having been able to find out its own origins - a privilege granted to few organisms in the whole Universe, surely?

HUH?

Did you just call the NT inerrant but not the OT?

[The Bishop]

Er, no. I didn't say the NT was inerrant, what I said was I don't really have any arguments with "The NT is inerrant" people, since their views are not particularly threatening the education of children and the advancement of science and humanity. Half the time, the NT definition of "inerrant" completely knocks the supports from the YECs in any case.

[EarlOfLade]

Er, no. I didn't say the NT was inerrant, what I said was I don't really have any arguments with "The NT is inerrant" people, since their views are not particularly threatening the education of children and the advancement of science and humanity. Half the time, the NT definition of "inerrant" completely knocks the supports from the YECs in any case.
But that is the same as saying that the NT is inerrant.

If you have no problems with people claiming the NT is inerrant, you are supporting their notion.

[The Bishop]

As George W. Bush might argue!!

[WWFStern]

I'm not sure what your grounds for accepting Jesus's existence, if you accept the "crucifixion in mythic realm" argument. Since Paul was the earliest Christian writer, and as you say the only details of Jesus's life that he wrote about were the crucifixion and resurrection, and consequently the other accounts of his life (which as you pointed out are highly doubtful) came after this and could have been derived from this, then all reasons for believing in Jesus's existence simply fade away, don't they?

I myself, however, do not accept that Paul was writing about any kind of mythic realm when he wrote about Jesus's death and resurrection, and the simple fact that he doesn't write about other details of Jesus's life is not sufficient reason for claiming that he doesn't know at least some of them (Jesus being a Galilean who went to Jerusalem, Jesus's mother being Mary etc). He was writing pastoral letters, not a Gospel. I think the very fact that the nativity stories take two different approaches to shoehorning a rural Galilean fishing community carpenter into a Royal descent and birth in Bethlehem, is compelling evidence that Jesus was a Galilean and consequently a real person.

I don't myself have any real Inerrancy quarrels that derive from the New Testament. My Inerrancy quarrels derive entirely from inerrancy leading to Young Earth Creationism - a position which, if I were a theist, I would regard as denigrating God - as if God could not Himself create a Universe and then have the patience of waiting 13 billion years for its fruition in sapient life. And Creationism itself, which denigrates humanity's supreme gift of having been able to find out its own origins - a privilege granted to few organisms in the whole Universe, surely?

Inerrancy with respect to either Testament is untenable. As I wrote, the Christmas stories presented do not complement each other; rather, they conflict and contradict. Joseph's genealogy is hopelessly scrambled between Luke and Matthew. John doesn't agree with Matthew and Luke with respect to Jesus' place of birth. When accounts flatly contradict, they cannot both be correct. Either one is right and the other is wrong, or both are wrong. Both cannot be right. Hence, the bankruptcy of inerrancy.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Inerrancy with respect to either Testament is untenable. As I wrote, the Christmas stories presented do not complement each other; rather, they conflict and contradict. Joseph's genealogy is hopelessly scrambled between Luke and Matthew. John doesn't agree with Matthew and Luke with respect to Jesus' place of birth. When accounts flatly contradict, they cannot both be correct. Either one is right and the other is wrong, or both are wrong. Both cannot be right. Hence, the bankruptcy of inerrancy.

Inerrancy is no doubt a fraud, but regarding the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, James Holding and Glenn Miller have come up with explanations that saitisfy their fans. Holding's web site is at tektonics.org. If I recall correctly, he says that sometimes writers skipped some names when they wrote about genealogies. Farrell Till is an excellent source for discrediting Biblical inerrancy. I would like to know what good either genealogy is since there is no evidence that either genaology is true.

[Bob K]

Having seen them but not remembering all their details, there are genealogies in the OT, and these conflict with the NT genealogies as well as with themselves.

Perhaps someone herein can provide details and/or links inre the OT genealogies.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, ...

... ("Meanwhile, back at the ____, ..." is a figure of speech that usually leads to a humorous saying, such as, making fun of the "Lone Ranger" radio/tv series, in which to catch Big Baddie and his backup group, the Not Nice Persons, the Lone Ranger usually--John Kerry-like--says, "I have a plan," and the 'plan' usually involves a disguise and some problem that results in the forewarning by an announcer announcing, "Meanwhile, back at the _____, Tonto/the Lone Ranger, ...", and so, as the parodies go, "Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Tonto, not knowing his great friend the Lone Ranger was disguised as a door/pitchfork, shot him in the knob/stepped on his prong!"), ...

... perhaps The Bible ought to be renamed The Bable.

[WWFStern]

Inerrancy is no doubt a fraud, but regarding the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, James Holding and Glenn Miller have come up with explanations that saitisfy their fans. Holding's web site is at tektonics.org. If I recall correctly, he says that sometimes writers skipped some names when they wrote about genealogies. Farrell Till is an excellent source for discrediting Biblical inerrancy. I would like to know what good either genealogy is since there is no evidence that either genaology is true.

I've heard some Christians argue that one genealogy is actually that of Mary. However, they simply assert this, citing no textual evidence whatsoever.

The genealogies really are problematic for Christians, in large measure because they have very little crossover. One cannot simply say "A few generations were skipped," because the crossover is nearly nonexistent.

They are irreconcilable, as far as I see. Thus, errance is proved.

[mens_sana]

I would like to know what good either genealogy is since there is no evidence that either genaology is true.

Both genealogies provided an important "connection" for the infant messiah. It had nothing to do with whether they were true or not. They provided "proof" for the believer of the special status of Christ. There isn't that much difference between them and the two routes Moses took from Kadesh to Heshbon. One of the routes had unknown stops, the other more Eastern route had well known stops. Strangely, the well known stops were those of a trade route, well traveled in a later day. The genealogies and the trade route offer an anchor of what we might call verisimilitude for the reader.

[Jaecp]

Also, if the Bible was consistent, we wouldn't have 1000+ Christian denominations all claiming to be following it religiously whilst disagreeing with each other on what it really says.

Closer to 35000 actually.

[Bob K]

Closer to 35000 actually.

35,000 distinct Xn denominations?

What source(s) do you have which support this number?

Educated guesses are not helpful herein.

[WWFStern]

More solid evidence for biblical errance: http://www.passionoftheatheist.com/Default.aspx?tabid=277

I didn't even exploit these examples!

[Wolfie]

When I was a postgrad student in London in the 1970s I encountered a fellow postgrad who was 2 years ahead of me. Now this fellow, nice enough but decidedly strange, did his very best to 'live his life through the Bible'. This meant that he more or less ignored everything in modern life that was not mentioned in the Bible...

He walked to the campus as there was no mention of public transport. He used no electricity in his house... You get the idea- so I won't labour the point ad nauseam.

OK - I had a weird sort of respect for this person. What I failed to understand is why he was carrying out postgraduate research into autoxidation reactions - I'm sure they never featured in the good book. He didn't have any objection to using the various electrically powered pieces of laboratory equipment... How coud he have managed the undergraduate course? When questioned as to this apparent anomaly, his answer was that it was the will of God.

Yeah, right.

He unerringly accepted the Bible as being an absolute truth. His repsonse, when challenged with the obvious inconsistencies, was merely to say that both arguments/descriptions were correct because they were in the Bible and therefore, by definition, true.

[WWFStern]

This does not necessarily have to do with Biblical inerrancy, but I think it's a worthy--if tangential--question to ask:

If Christianity is the one true faith, and God wants everybody to go to Heaven by accepting it, then why did it take our species (which is about 195,000 years old) approximately 190,000 years to discover it (while in the meantime worshipping all manner of "false" gods and following scores of "fake" religions)?

It doesn't really make sense, does it?

[Craigart14]

As I'm sure everyone here already knows, both genealogies are nonsense because they pass through Joseph, who was not Jesus' father. As for the "Mary" line, it states clearly that it is the genealogy of Jesus.

Regarding the mythic Jesus vs. HJ, I don't think his existence as a real person is all that unlikely. It's pretty unlikely that he performed any miracles, though. Paul said something a bit odd in First Corinthians 15 when he recounts Jesus' various post-resurrection appearances, stating that Jesus appeared to Cephas, the apostles, to five hundred brethren, to James, to "all the apostles," and "last of all . . . he appeared also to me." Did he appear in the same way to all? Paul says elsewhere that he never knew Jesus in the flesh, but only through his "vision" on the road to Damascus. Were all of his post-resurrection appearances "visions"?

Craig

[Bob K]

Anybody who knows me will attest to the following: Never has skepticism had a more faithful follower. Quite literally, I’m skeptical about everything. In fact, I’m even skeptical of a notion such as “Murder is immoral.” After all, I can conceive of no laboratory test that could be conducted which would demonstrate the immorality of murder (morality cannot be quantified, measured, gauged or tested via scientific instrumentation). ...

The immorality of murder can be measured by what would happen to the human species if murderers were not prevented from murdering--the human species could be endangered, and, therefore, the innocent individual (who does not intend to injure--threaten to cause or actually cause a loss of life/limb/liberty/property/family--another innocent individual who does not intend to injure any other innocent individual, etc.) and his family are to be protected.

Although this measurement is not strictly scientific, because lab experiments inre unchecked murderers are not likely to happen inre humans (perhaps experiments with animals could be conducted), a thought experiment--legitimate in science provided that there is a physical basis for the premises--suggests that an unchecked murderer, particularly a psycho who is unable to reason that killing all other humans might jeopardize his own existence, would threaten innocent individuals and their families and ultimately threaten the existence of the human species.

A natural morality exists--no gods needed: http://www.bobkwebsite.com/naturalmorality.html

The ultimate standards of natural morality--the justifications for following natural morality--are (1) the survival of the innocent individual and his family and (2) the survival of the human species.

By applying these ultimate realistic physical standards we can establish a set of guidelines for human behavior.

[Bob K]

In The God Delusion, Dawkins writes, “… all the essential features of the Jesus legend, including the star in the east, the virgin birth, the veneration of the baby by kings, the miracles, the execution, the resurrection and the ascension are borrowed – every last one of them – from other religions already in existence in the Mediterranean and Near East region.”

See http://www.bobkwebsite.com/belmythvjesusmyth.html for comparisons of Assyrian/Babylonian/Egyptian myths and the Jesus myth for pre-existing mythological parallels which reveal the Bable's NT J-myth to be fabricated.

[WishboneDawn]

Christians claim that the Bible is inerrant.

Some do, some don't. I put up with some generalities about christians but that one is a pet peeve.

If you didn't mean to be general, please use better language.

If you honestly think that's the case, please prove it.

[Roger Pearse]

Christians claim that the Bible is inerrant. By virtue of its inerrancy—indeed, by definition—all the fantastic stories in the Bible must be true, resurrections included. The presence of the stories in an inerrant book is sufficient to substantiate them. This answer is satisfactory for about 12 seconds. Thereafter, one recalls the gross inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, scientific impossibilities and internal incoherence contained within “the truest book ever composed.” A book containing grotesquely egregious inconsistencies, by definition, cannot be inerrant. Inerrancy also eludes any tome that has its historical facts wrong, or its scientific principles scrambled.


Until you have a definition of "inerrant", and clear evidence as to who holds it and whether the definition is accurate and critical, won't these comments be a petitio principi?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[WishboneDawn]

A good point. Inerrancy often gets mixed up with literalism and they aren't the same thing. I think that may be part of the case here.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Until you have a definition of "inerrant", and clear evidence as to who holds it and whether the definition is accurate and critical, won't these comments be a petitio principi?

A web definition for Biblical inerrancy is "Biblical inerrancy is the view that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is in every detail infallible and without error. This view was ably expressed in 1978 in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, an interdenominational statement of evangelical scholars and leaders to defend Biblical inerrancy against the trend toward liberal and neo-orthodox conceptions of scripture."

Now obviously that does not include copying errors.

Roger, do you believe that Adam and Eve were real people, and that committed the first sins? Do you believe that a great fish swallowed Jonah, that a donkey talked, and that there was a global flood? Regarding homosexuality, do you believe that there is a reasonable possibility that the writers were speaking for themselves and not for God?

[Roger Pearse]

A good point. Inerrancy often gets mixed up with literalism and they aren't the same thing. I think that may be part of the case here.

I don't know what "literalism" might mean either.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[WishboneDawn]

A web definition for Biblical inerrancy is "Biblical inerrancy is the view that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is in every detail infallible and without error. This view was ably expressed in 1978 in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, an interdenominational statement of evangelical scholars and leaders to defend Biblical inerrancy against the trend toward liberal and neo-orthodox conceptions of scripture."

Now obviously that does not include copying errors.

Roger, do you believe that Adam and Eve were real people, and that committed the first sins? Do you believe that a great fish swallowed Jonah, that a donkey talked, and that there was a global flood? Regarding homosexuality, do you believe that there is a reasonable possibility that the writers were speaking for themselves and not for God?

There are some people who believe the bible is inerrant but not historically factual or literal.

[Roger Pearse]

There are some people who believe the bible is inerrant but not historically factual or literal.

Unless we presume that Jesus, in his parables, intended to convey information about various individuals, rather than tell parables, we must presume that at least some parts of the bible are narrative fiction, told because human beings find educational fiction useful. This point of view is expressly stated by Eusebius of Caesarea in the Praeparatio Evangelica book 12, chapter 31.

I know that some less educated atheists profess to be unable to understand the difference between a fiction and a forgery, not least with reference to this very text. But in my slightly silly way, this leads me naturally to the question of whether there are atheist books of children's stories, and if so, how those atheists read them.

I don't believe that the bible itself, or Jesus, or the fathers make any determination on such matters, myself. That being the case, the whole basis for the initial post would seem to be very shaky.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[WWFStern]

Unless we presume that Jesus, in his parables, intended to convey information about various individuals, rather than tell parables, we must presume that at least some parts of the bible are narrative fiction, told because human beings find educational fiction useful. This point of view is expressly stated by Eusebius of Caesarea in the Praeparatio Evangelica book 12, chapter 31.

I know that some less educated atheists profess to be unable to understand the difference between a fiction and a forgery, not least with reference to this very text. But in my slightly silly way, this leads me naturally to the question of whether there are atheist books of children's stories, and if so, how those atheists read them.

I don't believe that the bible itself, or Jesus, or the fathers make any determination on such matters, myself. That being the case, the whole basis for the initial post would seem to be very shaky.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Are the scientifically impossible Jesus resurrection and Lazarus resurrection tales also to be taken metaphorically or allegorically? Because, clearly, brain death is irreversible and thus those tales could not scientifically have happened.

[Roger Pearse]

Are the scientifically impossible Jesus resurrection and Lazarus resurrection tales also to be taken metaphorically or allegorically? Because, clearly, brain death is irreversible and thus those tales could not scientifically have happened.

I do not see how this connects to my comment -- sorry.

Incidentally you might wish to know that scientists as a rule laugh at rationalists. Your post presumes silently that rationalism is true, which makes it somewhat meaningless.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Von Smith]

I don't think it is really necessary to pick at the contents of the Bible to demonstrate the folly of inerrancy; the proposition is implausible on its face. What is the prior probability of any given book being inerrant, especially one with the scope and patchwork history of the Bible? And where is the evidence that it is, in fact, inerrant?

These are the only two questions that a skeptic need demand of the proverbial chorus of crickets before rejecting the notion of inerrancy. Until somebody can make a strong, cogent case for such an extraordinary claim, picking at the details is secondary. Ironically, of course, most of the problems and contradictions in the Bible were spotted some time ago, precisely by those who thought it must be inerrant, and who inadvertently strengthened the evidence to the contrary in the course of trying to rationalize them away with interpretation.

[WWFStern]

I do not see how this connects to my comment -- sorry.

Incidentally you might wish to know that scientists as a rule laugh at rationalists. Your post presumes silently that rationalism is true, which makes it somewhat meaningless.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

You said some Bible absurdities and other impossibilities might be chaulked up to narrative fiction meant to tell a story and make a point.

The resurrection tales certainly qualify as absurd and scientifically impossible.

Thus, can they be taken as narrative fiction, or not?

[WishboneDawn]

You said some Bible absurdities and other impossibilities might be chaulked up to narrative fiction meant to tell a story and make a point.

The resurrection tales certainly qualify as absurd and scientifically impossible.

Thus, can they be taken as narrative fiction, or not?

Some christians do take them as narrative fiction.

[Julian]

Incidentally you might wish to know that scientists as a rule laugh at rationalists. Your post presumes silently that rationalism is true, which makes it somewhat meaningless.

While it is true that rationalism does not have a good track record historically in determining fact, it is not mutually exclusive with its counterpart, empiricism. However, it hardly matters since both rationalism and empiricism argue solidly against any miraculous event. You are simply equivocating, putting up a smokescreen, to avoid answering the obvious point in the post you quoted. While a forgery is always fiction, fiction is not always forgery. It is all in the presentation. Children's stories are not a problem, unless they are used by organizations to enforce laws and dictate behavior and claimed to be factual. Something which happens in this country on a continual basis.

As for the parables, they are clearly meant to educate, whether they are true or not is besides the point, but I suspect you agree with me on this.

As for the stories in the NT being factual or not, everyone makes a determination on that point, especially the church. Maybe I misunderstood what you are saying...

Julian

[WWFStern]

Some christians do take them as narrative fiction.


I've never heard of a Christian who thought Jesus' alleged resurrection only was metaphorical. To my knowledge, a bedrock Christian belief is that Jesus' brain death reversed itself and he came back to life after dozens of hours of being dead.

There really are "metaphorical resurrectionists"?

[WishboneDawn]

I've never heard of a Christian who thought Jesus' alleged resurrection only was metaphorical. To my knowledge, a bedrock Christian belief is that Jesus' brain death reversed itself and he came back to life after dozens of hours of being dead.

There really are "metaphorical resurrectionists"?

Yeah. I may be one myself. ReligiousTolerence.org has a page on the subject (http://www.religioustolerance.org/resur_lt.htm). John Spong, who's quite popular among some christians, has this to say,'"A deceased man did not walk out of his grave physically alive three days after his execution by crucifixion." {From, 'Ressurestion; Myth or Reality?').

They're out there. :)

[EarlOfLade]

Yeah. I may be one myself. ReligiousTolerence.org has a page on the subject (http://www.religioustolerance.org/resur_lt.htm). John Spong, who's quite popular among some christians, has this to say,'"A deceased man did not walk out of his grave physically alive three days after his execution by crucifixion." {From, 'Ressurestion; Myth or Reality?').

They're out there. :)

I have a feeling that most christians would consider people with that standpoint to be as christians as an atheist is.

[WishboneDawn]

I have a feeling that most christians would consider people with that standpoint to be as christians as an atheist is.

:huh: Oh well. Some think catholics aren't christian, unitarians aren't christian, christians who support gay rights aren't christian...The list goes on.

[EarlOfLade]

:huh: Oh well. Some think catholics aren't christian, unitarians aren't christian, christians who support gay rights aren't christian...The list goes on.

Exactly!

Most christians can't even tell you what a christian is or who are. Not to mention that thousands of christian sects all claim they have the undisputed truth.

Listening to a christian is like listening to a used car salesman.
The only difference is that I can verify using Kelly Bluebook :)

[WWFStern]

Yeah. I may be one myself. ReligiousTolerence.org has a page on the subject (http://www.religioustolerance.org/resur_lt.htm). John Spong, who's quite popular among some christians, has this to say,'"A deceased man did not walk out of his grave physically alive three days after his execution by crucifixion." {From, 'Ressurestion; Myth or Reality?').

They're out there. :)

Thanks for the clarification and link. The impossibility of Jesus' bodily resurrection always was an insurmountable sticking point for me. Brain death reversal simply isn't possible.

However, I still could not be a Christian due to my disbelief in an eternal essence, or soul. Certainly, all variants of Christianity must believe in a soul, right? Or are there soul-less variants, as well?

[WWFStern]

From your link and worthy of sharing...

Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible.

Finally, common sense!

[Roger Pearse]

You said some Bible absurdities and other impossibilities might be chaulked up to narrative fiction meant to tell a story and make a point.


Where?


The resurrection tales certainly qualify as absurd and scientifically impossible.


Petitio principi


Thus, can they be taken as narrative fiction, or not?

Your post consists of (1) a misstatement (2) a statement of an axiom that isn't one and (3) an inference from the first two which does not in fact follow.

You may not wish to argue like this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Jon Barleycorn]

Where?



Petitio principi



Your post consists of (1) a misstatement (2) a statement of an axiom that isn't one and (3) an inference from the first two which does not in fact follow.

You may not wish to argue like this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

This is called - avoiding giving a straight answer - plain & simple!

[WishboneDawn]

Thanks for the clarification and link. The impossibility of Jesus' bodily resurrection always was an insurmountable sticking point for me. Brain death reversal simply isn't possible.

However, I still could not be a Christian due to my disbelief in an eternal essence, or soul. Certainly, all variants of Christianity must believe in a soul, right? Or are there soul-less variants, as well?

I'm not sure...That's a good question.

[lpetrich]

On the resurrection stories being "narrative fiction" or allegories or spiritual events or whatever, that hypothesis would get around Dan Barker's Easter Challenge (http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php) very nicely.

In fact, I'm surprised that more Xian apologists are not calling JC's resurrection allegorical; why do they weight themselves down with literalism there?

[WWFStern]

Where?



Petitio principi



Your post consists of (1) a misstatement (2) a statement of an axiom that isn't one and (3) an inference from the first two which does not in fact follow.

You may not wish to argue like this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

One question demanding a simple answer: Could the resurrection stories (Lazarus and Jesus) be "narrative fiction" or allegories? They ARE scientifically impossible, as far as our current understanding of science takes us. Brain death is irreversible; it's right in the definition of the term.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Message to Roger Pearse: Are you an inerrantist or not? Do you believe that there was a global flood, that a donkey talked, that there were 10 plagues in Egypt, and most of all, that God is not willing that any should perish, reference 2 Peter 3:9? I assume that you will refuse to answer my questions.

You naively assume that if you can reasonably prove that Jesus rose from the dead, you have achieved a lot, when in fact if you have accomplished that you have achieved little. Assuming that the God of the Bible exists, THE fundamental issue is his character. I would sure like to see you defend God's character. Apologists are typically quite inept at debating philosophical issues. It is quite absurd for any Christian to get a degree in philosophy. Dr. Norman Geisler is proof enough of that.

[WishboneDawn]

On the resurrection stories being "narrative fiction" or allegories or spiritual events or whatever, that hypothesis would get around Dan Barker's Easter Challenge (http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php) very nicely.

In fact, I'm surprised that more Xian apologists are not calling JC's resurrection allegorical; why do they weight themselves down with literalism there?

To be fair I think it's as much a cultural thing as a religious thing. In general we have a big problem with myth and often equate fiction with lies. Look at much of the discussion here around the bible. It's often not about what the myths of the bible are about, what they communicated to the ancient hebrews or to us, it's about whether they're actual historical events. If they're not historical, they're often deemed irrelevant. Same story on many christian boards.

Heck, I used to work in a bookstore where some customers would demand only non-fiction reccomendations because they wanted to read only about 'true" things.

I think calling the ressurection a myth is a positive thing. But it demands people who can read myth and appreciate what fiction can tell us.