What Could God do About Bible Errors?

[Purple Knight]

Hypothetically. I'm not saying the Bible has errors. I'm saying, what if people want to put lies in?

If I'm an unscrupulous monk, wanting to foist my own ideas on what I'm copying, and I just decide to lie like a dog and put down what I want to put down, what can God do about it? Can he act against me without violating my free will, which he has known compunctions against doing?

If I decide to burn originals and say I lost them, am I going to immediately suffer a heart attack or get struck by lightning before I destroy the precious scripture and corrupt it? Is my plan going to miraculously fail in some other way? Arguably the wind can blow everything away every time I try. Is that violating my free will? I mean, it's a bit like stopping the bullet every time somebody tries to shoot somebody else and it easily crosses into not allowing people the freedom to be bad, which may invalidate the choice to be good, to some degree.

Ultimately if I lie to gullible people, the only way to stop them being taken in, is by the use of force against me, right? And that's rather tactless and ham-handed; not something God would do.

But what if there's another way to stop people being taken in?

I could argue that just giving people Reason and permission to use it, is enough to defend against all possible lies. Now this is a really, really good argument, because all you people who have Reason are supposed to use it, and then you might see something wrong with people telling you to take things on faith. And you don't have to conclude that this means God doesn't exist. You are fully empowered to say it means God does exist: It means God does exist and he doesn't strike people dead who decide to lie to you, rather, he implores you to use this gift of Reason to see through it. So then, there's this one piece that doesn't fit and it's the necessity of faith.

So if you follow, then maybe anyone who has said not to use your Reason and just trust, is exactly such an unpunished liar and blasphemer God has allowed to do evil because he prefers not to interfere directly. And it's okay, because God gave you what you needed to see which puzzle piece doesn't fit.

God, yes. Faith, no.

[JehovahsWitness]

I'll stop you right there , why are you saying "additional" as if the one you are "evaluating" is somehow proven? My point is simple...

I wasn't suggesting there could only be one ultimate goal but that the secondary goal {snip : }

How can one have a "secondart goal" without proving a primary one? You still seem be under the illusion you have proven something. Please spare us both the tiresome pretence that the "ultimate goal" you presented has been proven because we both know it has not. Please read the following carefully.

You do not know , nor can you prove ( nor have you proven) that {quote} "an omnipotent and infallible god has the ultimate goal of communicating infallibly with every human being" This is unproven, unprovable speculation and has just as much value as your saying he also likes to danse around his living room to Bob Marley records.

Have I made myself clear? Is there anything in the above that you do not understand?



JW

[TRANSPONDER]

I'll stop you right there , why are you saying "additional" as if the one you are "evaluating" is somehow proven? My point is simple...

I wasn't suggesting there could only be one ultimate goal but that the secondary goal {snip : }

How can one have a "secondart goal" without proving a primary one? You still seem be under the illusion you have proven something. Please spare us both the tiresome pretence that the "ultimate goal" you presented has been proven because we both know it has not. Please read the following carefully.

You do not know , nor can you prove ( nor have you proven) that {quote} "an omnipotent and infallible god has the ultimate goal of communicating infallibly with every human being" This is unproven, unprovable speculation and has just as much value as your saying he also likes to danse around his living room to Bob Marley records.

Have I made myself clear? Is there anything in the above that you do not understand?



JW

You have made yourself very clear in personal attacks, demeaning sneering and insolence in addition to feeble excuses. You have damaged your already fragile cred somewhat by this,

YTour plying the less probable but undisprovable theory excuse of the Christian apologist. It makes sense that a god concerned with getting the message over to as many as possible would find the most holistic and persuaive method possible, not an olf book full of errors and contradictions. The familiar dismissal of sense or morals or anything else on the grounds that God might think differently actually damages your case rather than save it.

I don't know whether this will make you think or not (never mind straigten up your dubious posting -style - quoting your own dubious pots as though they were authoritative answers, or links to those mendacious elders and their glib apologetics.

And a happy new year.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #41]

In your response, you ignored where I made the following statement in my post:

This was not meant to imply that the primary goal was proven.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "proven" in your objection? After all, written language is an inherently fallible form of communication. I'll try again to offer a correction.

IF the primary goal of an infallible god is to communicate infallibly (note: I'm not claiming this has been proven to be the ultimate goal but that it is describing the first part of a conditional statement... e.g., If P), then there is no reasonable justification to infer that this god has the option to manifest a logical contradiction in the process of achieving the specified goal (note: This is the second part of a conditional statement... e.g., then Q).

Does that resolve your objection?

In any case, allow me to remind you that this line of reasoning began in response to the following claim:

My only comment then would be that by definition an omnipotent God could logically take an imperfect and inefficient method of communication and use it (should that so be his desire) to produce perfectly reliable, infallibility efficient results.

Do you want to retract or clarify the statement above given the fact that, with regard to written language, to claim this inherently fallible form of communication can be utilized by an omnipotent god to communicate infallibly is to describe a logical contradiction? I've attempted to decipher a more a more charitable interpretation of your statement that avoids the logical contradiction but am unable to find a credible solution. Maybe my mental gymnastics skills are not up to the task.

[JehovahsWitness]

IF the primary goal of an infallible god is to communicate infallibly (note: I'm not claiming this has been proven to be the ultimate goal but that it is describing the first part of a conditional statement... e.g., If P), then there is no reasonable justification to infer that this god has the option to manifest a logical contradiction in the process of achieving the specified goal

Well now you are in the totally fabricated world of your imagination, your point is as valid as pointing out that IF God wants only wants pancakes he cannot also only want porridge.

Since you know (or at least I hope you do) that he can want pancakes, porridge, bacon, cornflakes...etc pray tell what is the point in pursuing all the implications of a logical contradiction of the exclusive pancake theory? Especially as there is no logical basis to focus on pancakes over porridge, bacon or cornflakes!


The point is, we know in reality that with no more input than the presumption of a omnipotent God, we simply do not have enough information to presume written communication a "failure" because obviously, we can only do that if we know what the aim was.

Was he aiming for porridge or was he aiming for cornflakes?. You don't know. But if he was aiming for pancakes and got porridge then he failed or doesnt exist. Well that's getting low [hanging] fruit if ever there was some.

For those of us aiming a little higher than fabricating parameters to exclude any possibility of being challenged, I'm merely pointing out that anyone declaring using written communication a "failure" based on it being a "fallible" means of communication, does well to give the matter a tad more thought.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

In any case, allow me to remind you that this line of reasoning began in response to the following claim:

My only comment then would be that by definition an omnipotent God could logically take an imperfect and inefficient method of communication and use it (should that so be his desire) to produce perfectly reliable, infallibility efficient results.

Do you want to retract or clarify the statement above given the fact that, with regard to written language, to claim this inherently fallible form of communication can be utilized by an omnipotent god to communicate infallibly is to describe a logical contradiction?

Emphasis MINE

Firstly you might like to read what I actually wrote rather than what you imagine I wrote. If you look carefully I said nothing about "communicating infallibly" I said that an omnipotent God can use any method (including a faillible one, such as the written word) to get his desired RESULTS. For example if the desired RESULT is a bath full of water from the local stream, an omnipotent one can use a bucket with a big old hole in the middle and STILL fill the bath...IF the desired result is that some people understand what he expects of them, then he can use pigen English devoid of verbs and still get the desired result .... or do you need me to clarify what omnipotent means?

[bluegreenearth]

The point is, we know in reality that with no more input than the presumption of a omnipotent God, we simply do not have enough information to presume written communication a "failure" because obviously, we can only do that if we know what the aim was. Logically an infintite God can have an INFINTE number of aims. And an omniscient God might even have one or two even you havent thought of.


In short anyone declaring using written communication a failure based on it being an fallible means of communication does well to give the matter a tad more thought.

Of the infinite number of aims a god might have for using a fallible form of communication, we can rule out communicating infallibly as one of them. Therefore, no texts claiming to be the word of a god could have been written for the purpose of communicating infallibly. Accordingly, any written communication claimed to have been directly or indirectly authored by an omnipotent and infallible god CANNOT be justifiably received and interpreted as an infallible communication from that god. IF communication was intended by the text at all, however, then it could have only been for the purpose of communicating fallibly given the inherent fallibility of the written language used. Of course, in accordance with your explanation above, there simply isn't enough available information to even know IF the god's intended aim for the text was to communicate fallibly given the infinite number of other possibilities. I suppose one of the infinite aims a god could possibly have for using a fallible form of communication could be to test the gullibility of humanity. Is there a way to rule-out that possibility without appealing to a fallible written communication claiming to be the word of god?

[bluegreenearth]

Firstly you might like to read what I actually wrote rather than what you imagine I wrote. If you look carefully I said nothing about "communicating infallibly" I said that an omnipotent God can use any method (including a faillible one, such as the written word) to get his desired RESULTS. For example if the desired RESULT is a bath full of water from the local stream, an omnipotent one can use a bucket with a big old hole in the middle and STILL fill the bath...IF the desired result is that some people understand what he expects of them, then he can use pigen English devoid of verbs and still get the desired result .... or do you need me to clarify what omnipotent means?

In my defense, I edited the initial post to add the following statement before noticing that you had already submitted a response:

I've attempted to decipher a more a more charitable interpretation of your statement that avoids the logical contradiction but am unable to find a credible solution. Maybe my mental gymnastics skills are not up to the task.

"IF the desired result is that some people understand what he expects of them..."? What happened to the standard apologetic that the desired result is that every human being understands what the god expects of them? Of course, statistically, some few people will happen to interpret a written language devoid of verbs in a way that results in the desired outcome but without a way to conclusively verify it. However, this scenario is not analogous with the claim I'm evaluating. Furthermore, the people who fail to correctly interpret a written language devoid of verbs in the scenario you've constructed would have a reasonable justification for not properly understanding what the god expects of them and for doubting the divine origin of the text in the first place. So, unless the desired outcome is to unjustly deprive the majority of humanity from a fair opportunity to properly understand what is expected of them, then the reasonable expectation is that the god would choose NOT to communicate critical information through a written language devoid of verbs or a written language at all.

[JehovahsWitness]

"IF the desired result is that some people understand what he expects of them..."? What happened to the standard apologetic that the desired result is that every human being understands what the god expects of them?

What has that got to do with me or anything I have written? If you would like to debate with someone that holds "standard apologetic" may I suggest you find them. The only possible relevance your question might have to this discussion is to illustrate there are countless guesses as to what an infinite god might want , which is the very simple point I've been making from the beginning.

...this scenario is not analogous with the claim I'm evaluating.

I have already helped you with that ...

..., your point is as valid as pointing out that IF God wants only wants pancakes he cannot also only want porridge....But if he was aiming for pancakes and got porridge then he failed or doesnt exist. Well that's getting low [hanging] fruit if ever there was some.

And yet no "thank you".

[JehovahsWitness]

...the people who fail to correctly interpret a written language devoid of verbs in the scenario you've constructed would have a reasonable justification for not properly understanding what the god expects of them and for doubting the divine origin of the text in the first place.

So ? So what !? Even IF that were true , how do you know that having a "reasonable justification for not properly understanding what the god expects of them and for doubting the divine origin of the text in the first place" was not the ultimate goal? Thus producing a perfect result?

My hyperbole is I think justified because you just keep going around in circles evidently unable or unwilling to grasp the basic principle, you (one) cannot declare anything a "failure" or an oversight without knowing what the goal is. Why is this so hard for you to admit?


Logic

[JehovahsWitness]

Of the infinite number of aims a god might have for using a fallible form of communication, we can rule out communicating infallibly as one of them.

Possibly depending on what you mean by "communicating infallibly". Perhaps you can provide a definition with an example so I can give you some feedback.

For me communication is "the imparting or exchanging of information". infallibility for a god would then be "the imparting or exchanging of [infallible] information. Since it is not possible for a fallible human to send back infallible information in an "exchange".... we are left with : the imparting or the transmission/conveying/ giving out/beaming out / whatever ..... of infallible information.

How that information is receive, by whom, their reaction, whether it is understood, believed or even recorded or re-transmitted does not negate that the infallibile information has been has left the initiator and been sent out. The message was infallibile, omnipotence guarantees a desired result (whatever that result might be). Everything else is gravy.

This makes me think of the famous scene in the sci-fi movie "Close Encounters of the third kind" when the scientists are struggling to understand the code which eventually translates as 5 notes of music. They don't understand but they know they have recieved a message. The little French chap says of the members of the public that the experts were keeping out, those people haven't broken through to the secret base "they were invited". The communication was to invite and people were invited. Objective achieved.

Speilberg doesnt tell us but I suspect the whole thing was an experiment to see stupidity of human bureaucracy. How long it takes humans to figure out the basics of advanced technology or how many people would feel impelled to buck the system .... like I said, countless possibilities.