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.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, according to one of your fellow apologists, you can only guess at what an infinite god might want. So, I suppose your guess is as good any anyone else's.

Correct. Sort of. Your guess, my guess anyone else's guess. A guess is a guess. There are guesses and there are guesses. Ahem. Uh, BUT it isn't a pop quiz, and the Bible, being all we are afforded, is enough.

Right so far as it does, which isn't very far. the problem - the logical problem - is the default theory, burden of proof, and the agnostic logical mandate. The claimant has the burden of proof. The atheists does not because we are not claiming a god (name your own) doesn't exist, but takes the agnostic default, which is 'when we don't know whether a claim is true or not (agnosticism) , the default is to not believe it until we do know.

That's how it works and why the burden of proof is in on the theist, not the atheist. I know the theist thinks a god (usually a particular one) is the default, but it isn't. Natural forces (science -based mechanical materialism - metaphysical materialism is useless outside of philosophical game -play) is the default and the burden of proof is on the Faithful to make the case for God. Which we already knew, didn't we?

Cue the sliding scale of probability (which i prefer to Dawkins' scale of strong or weak atheism, but Dawkins, while a fine evolutionist, isn't too good at atheism - theory). It isn't 'believe - or not' (another theist fallacy) but evidence-(and logic) - based probability. And the evidence is on the side of unbelief and has been for quite a long time. The problem is, nobody seems to know it.

[Data]

Well, according to one of your fellow apologists, you can only guess at what an infinite god might want. So, I suppose your guess is as good any anyone else's.

Correct. Sort of. Your guess, my guess anyone else's guess. A guess is a guess. There are guesses and there are guesses. Ahem. Uh, BUT it isn't a pop quiz, and the Bible, being all we are afforded, is enough.

Right so far as it does, which isn't very far. the problem - the logical problem - is the default theory, burden of proof, and the agnostic logical mandate. The claimant has the burden of proof. The atheists does not because we are not claiming a god (name your own) doesn't exist, but takes the agnostic default, which is 'when we don't know whether a claim is true or not (agnosticism) , the default is to not believe it until we do know.

That's how it works and why the burden of proof is in on the theist, not the atheist. I know the theist thinks a god (usually a particular one) is the default, but it isn't. Natural forces (science -based mechanical materialism - metaphysical materialism is useless outside of philosophical game -play) is the default and the burden of proof is on the Faithful to make the case for God. Which we already knew, didn't we?

Cue the sliding scale of probability (which i prefer to Dawkins' scale of strong or weak atheism, but Dawkins, while a fine evolutionist, isn't too good at atheism - theory). It isn't 'believe - or not' (another theist fallacy) but evidence-(and logic) - based probability. And the evidence is on the side of unbelief and has been for quite a long time. The problem is, nobody seems to know it.

No. People may have used that in the past, but it's old school false alarm stuff these days. You can hardly be surprised. There's only so far you can go with crying wolf while having no substance to back it up - and anyway, it was pretty short sighted not to recognize that that sort of thing would spread like wildfire. Everyone has their own propaganda these days. The agnostic logical mandate [ha] isn't the only alternative anymore.

[Purple Knight]

There's 2 problem there - why does God allow the devil to pervert his book?

Well, you have to put yourself in God's shoes. If some nefarious people (not the devil directly) want to copy wrongly, and they happen to have the numbers on their side, what are you going to do, blow away all the leaves from their hands every time they try?

There are problems I have with the Bible but God wanting to allow free will is not one of them. Not letting people do a certain thing, makes the decision not to do it, not as valuable. And this is just my personal opinion but a large part of the human condition, as it pertains to evil, is picking the evil action sometimes and seeing how that feels - proving to yourself that you know, really really know, that this is wrong. Remorse is necessary to understanding evil. And understanding evil is necessary to understanding good. None of that happens if we're in a padded room where we're prevented from doing nasty things.

[Mae von H]

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?

There are already out there works wherein the author/translator changed the word to suit their theology. God didn’t not blast them.

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.

Would only be a local problem. His inspired works were spread around the world too quickly to be affected by local disaster.

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.

No, there is another way. That is God gives people discernment so they can distinguish lies from the truth.

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

There is, discernment.

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.

Some very intelligent and reasonable people have believed lies. Reason alone will not prevent us from being deceived although being mentally dull is a danger, I admit.

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.

Well, it is not automatic. Jesus said knowing the truth is conditional. We have to ourselves fulfill the conditions to know the truth. Being educated or just reading the Bible are not among them.

God, yes. Faith, no.

Not exactly. Those are not mutually exclusive.

[Mae von H]

Of those four things... the big truth is... we only actually need one.

No, if God exists then reason itself will not be sufficient to know Him. A real God would be different from humanity on a fundamental level. (Plato wrote a lot about that.)

If I could understand God by reason alone without God reveling Himself directly in some way then, I can be certain that I have I have not understood God at all. A genuine God would be different enough from humanity that He would have to reveal himself to some degree for us to understand Him.

A God I can understand through reason alone is no God at all. That would just be an image of myself made more powerful.

A question came to my mind. Doe’s reason alone enable us to understand another man? If you saw me boiling water and that’s all you saw, does reason alone tell you why? Don’t I have to reveal this to you? And I am not superior to you.

[boatsnguitars]

Apparently, you overlooked the implication of your own reasoning. Do you claim to know what the Christian god might want or what his ultimate goal was for using a fallible form of communication?

That's easy. For example, and operation of error. 2 Peter 2:6, 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12.

Ironically, both of those books are considered pseudonymous - actually written by liars who also, within those very books, "warn(s) its readers to avoid books falsely written in the name of Jesus' apostles!"
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... nians.html
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

If someone wrote this in a movie, everyone would think it's so contrived!

Which of the 66 books in the Christian canon do you think are not pseudonymous?

I have faith they are all pseudographs.

But that's not the question you want to ask, is it?

How about:

Based on the scholarly consensus, for each of the 39 books in the Old Testament and the 27 books in the New Testament, can you provide a confidence level for each author attributed to the book?

Now, I'm sure you might feel different, but like my opinion, it doesn't matter to the facts, or the scholarly consensus.

Old Testament (39 Books):
Genesis:
Attributed to Moses with low confidence; pseudonymous elements.
Exodus:
Attributed to Moses with low confidence; pseudonymous elements.
Leviticus:
Attributed to Moses with low confidence; pseudonymous elements.
Numbers:
Attributed to Moses with low confidence; pseudonymous elements.
Deuteronomy:
Attributed to Moses with low confidence; pseudonymous elements.
Joshua:
Traditionally attributed to Joshua; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Judges:
Traditionally attributed to Samuel; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Ruth:
No specific attribution; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
1 Samuel:
Traditionally attributed to Samuel; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
2 Samuel:
Traditionally attributed to Samuel; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
1 Kings:
Traditionally attributed to Jeremiah; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
2 Kings:
Traditionally attributed to Jeremiah; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
1 Chronicles:
Traditionally attributed to Ezra; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
2 Chronicles:
Traditionally attributed to Ezra; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Ezra:
Traditionally attributed to Ezra; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Nehemiah:
Traditionally attributed to Nehemiah; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Esther:
No specific attribution; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Job:
No specific attribution; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Psalms:
Various authors; traditionally Davidic; pseudonymous elements in many psalms.
Proverbs:
Traditionally attributed to Solomon; low confidence; some sections may be pseudonymous.
Ecclesiastes:
Traditionally attributed to Solomon; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Song of Solomon:
Traditionally attributed to Solomon; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Isaiah:
Traditionally attributed to Isaiah; low to medium confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Jeremiah:
Traditionally attributed to Jeremiah; low confidence; some sections may be pseudonymous.
Lamentations:
Traditionally attributed to Jeremiah; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Ezekiel:
Traditionally attributed to Ezekiel; low to medium confidence; some sections may be pseudonymous.
Daniel:
Traditionally attributed to Daniel; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Hosea:
Traditionally attributed to Hosea; low to medium confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Joel:
Traditionally attributed to Joel; low to medium confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Amos:
Traditionally attributed to Amos; low to medium confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Obadiah:
Traditionally attributed to Obadiah; low to medium confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Jonah:
Traditionally attributed to Jonah; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Micah:
Traditionally attributed to Micah; low to medium confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Nahum:
Traditionally attributed to Nahum; low to medium confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Habakkuk:
Traditionally attributed to Habakkuk; low to medium confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Zephaniah:
Traditionally attributed to Zephaniah; low to medium confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Haggai:
Traditionally attributed to Haggai; low to medium confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Zechariah:
Traditionally attributed to Zechariah; low to medium confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Malachi:
Traditionally attributed to Malachi; low to medium confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.

New Testament (27 Books):
Matthew:
Traditionally attributed to the Apostle Matthew; low confidence; some elements may be pseudonymous.
Mark:
Traditionally attributed to John Mark; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Luke:
Traditionally attributed to Luke, a companion of Paul; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
John:
Traditionally attributed to the Apostle John; low confidence; some elements may be pseudonymous.
Acts:
Traditionally attributed to Luke, a companion of Paul; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
Romans:
Attributed to the Apostle Paul; medium confidence; some disputed as pseudonymous.
1 Corinthians:
Attributed to the Apostle Paul; medium confidence; some disputed as pseudonymous.
2 Corinthians:
Attributed to the Apostle Paul; medium confidence; some disputed as pseudonymous.
Galatians:
Attributed to the Apostle Paul; medium confidence; some disputed as pseudonymous.
Ephesians:
Attributed to the Apostle Paul; medium confidence; some disputed as pseudonymous.
Philippians:
Attributed to the Apostle Paul; medium confidence; some disputed as pseudonymous.
Colossians:
Attributed to the Apostle Paul; medium confidence; some disputed as pseudonymous.
1 Thessalonians:
Attributed to the Apostle Paul; medium confidence; some disputed as pseudonymous.
2 Thessalonians:
Attributed to the Apostle Paul; medium confidence; some disputed as pseudonymous.
1 Timothy:
Attributed to the Apostle Paul; low confidence; widely disputed as pseudonymous.
2 Timothy:
Attributed to the Apostle Paul; low confidence; widely disputed as pseudonymous.
Titus:
Attributed to the Apostle Paul; low confidence; widely disputed as pseudonymous.
Philemon:
Attributed to the Apostle Paul; medium confidence; some disputed as pseudonymous.
Hebrews:
No specific attribution; traditionally associated with Paul; low confidence; potential pseudonymous elements.
James:
Attributed to James, the brother of Jesus; medium confidence; some disputed as pseudonymous.
1 Peter:
Attributed to the Apostle Peter; medium confidence; some disputed as pseudonymous.
2 Peter:
Attributed to Peter; low confidence; widely disputed as pseudonymous.
1 John:
Attributed to the Apostle John; medium confidence; some disputed as pseudonymous.
2 John:
Traditionally attributed to the Apostle John; medium confidence; some disputed as pseudonymous.
3 John:
Traditionally attributed to the Apostle John; medium confidence; some disputed as pseudonymous.
Jude:
Attributed to Jude, the brother of James; medium confidence; some disputed as pseudonymous.
Revelation:
Traditionally attributed to the Apostle John; medium confidence; some disputed as pseudonymous.



As you can see, you can't know - at any point - if you are reading a sentence from one of the alleged authors or reading an interpolation from some unscrupulous heretic. You have faith that God is somehow speaking through the text, but so do Hindus, Muslims, etc. with their holy texts. But I suppose your faith is superior to theirs?

[TRANSPONDER]

Very good. I'd actually give medium confidence to Romans to about Ephesians. Little confidence to ANY of the others. I have NO confidence in Acts, which shows clear signs of being a biographical novelette of how the Mission passed to Paul, loosely based on his letters and using bits of Josephus.

[Data]

I have faith they are all pseudographs.

But that's not the question you want to ask, is it?

Yes, it is. It matters little to me that you say the two verses in question are pseudographs if you think they all are. To me it doesn't matter much who wrote them, few of them actually think it important enough to mention it themselves. It's just another lame argument.

How about:

Based on the scholarly consensus, for each of the 39 books in the Old Testament and the 27 books in the New Testament, can you provide a confidence level for each author attributed to the book?

Now, I'm sure you might feel different, but like my opinion, it doesn't matter to the facts, or the scholarly consensus.

Scholarly consensus means less to me than authorship. I care less about what a scholar says about the work than what the author, whoever that may be, actually says in the work. I especially don't have much interest in what someone who in all likelihood hasn't looked at the scholarly consensus says about what the scholars say about the work because it happens to agree with their own unfounded ideology. Again, obvious confirmation bias.

Old Testament (39 Books):

Old Testament? Is that the term your scholarly consensus use? Look and see what the Watchtower Library, with its wealth of valuable information gathered over the last 100 years or so by a volunteer army of unscholarly researchers present - the scholarly consensus is more closely examined as it should be.

Concerning the meaning of the Latin word testamentum (genitive, testamenti), Edwin Hatch, in his work Essays in Biblical Greek, Oxford, 1889, p. 48, states that “in ignorance of the philology of later and vulgar Latin, it was formerly supposed that ‘testamentum,’ by which the word [di·a·theʹke] is rendered in the early Latin versions as well as in the Vulgate, meant ‘testament’ or ‘will,’ whereas in fact it meant also, if not exclusively, ‘covenant.’” Likewise, in A Bible Commentary for English Readers by Various Writers, edited by Charles Ellicott, New York, Vol. VIII, p. 309, W. F. Moulton wrote that “in the old Latin translation of the Scriptures testamentum became the common rendering of the word [di·a·theʹke]. As, however, this rendering is very often found where it is impossible to think of such a meaning as will (for example, in Ps. lxxxiii, 5, where no one will suppose the Psalmist to say that the enemies of God ‘have arranged a testament against Him’), it is plain that the Latin testamentum was used with an extended meaning, answering to the wide application of the Greek word.”—See Ps 25:10 and Ps 83:5 ftns.

The first reference you can read free online, here by scrolling down to page 48.

Genesis:
Attributed to Moses with low confidence; pseudonymous elements.

I don't have time to go through all of these, of course you knew that when you copy and pasted them. So, let's just go with the first one like we did above with the Watchtower reference. I'm afraid I'm going to have to take the usual bullyish position I often take with atheists who are stuck in an argument they have no real understanding of or willingness to learn, by asking you simple questions. Why is Moses attributed to having written Genesis with low confidence and what exactly are the alleged pseudonymous elements?

As you can see, you can't know - at any point - if you are reading a sentence from one of the alleged authors or reading an interpolation from some unscrupulous heretic.

Really? First of all, if I can't then neither can you or your scholars. Secondly, it doesn't really make any difference, does it? Either it fits or it doesn't. I can look at John 1:1 and examine the blatant mistranslation to support the trinity, or the interpolation of 1 John 5:7. NOW. But could they do that in the past? To some extent they were able to do that, but what if people couldn't? I'm sure there are places where that information isn't readily available. My goodness! you must be thinking. How could they "win" an argument on a forum with an atheist ideologue?! Simple. Common sense. It's fun to watch such an exchange, here's an example from the political realm, but it's the same. BS is easy to see.

You have faith that God is somehow speaking through the text, but so do Hindus, Muslims, etc. with their holy texts. But I suppose your faith is superior to theirs?

And all inferior to yours, right? Faith is always the same. Faith isn't about science or religion, scholars, you, me, Hindu or Muslim, etc. It's about where you put it and what it's based upon.

[boatsnguitars]

And all inferior to yours, right?

Right.

[Data]

And all inferior to yours, right?

Right.

Exactly. Don't let anyone tell you different because they don't know. AND you don't need to be a theist to do that. You do it every day. We all do. So, you see humans being. Like this.



Then we can get to the real argument.