Does your faith in God depend upon

[Elijah John]

Does your faith in God depend upon a perfect, infallible Bible?

If so, why is a perfect Bible necessary for a basic saving faith in God?

If the Bible were shown to be imperfect, would your faith in God collapse?

And if that is the case, (with so much at stake), how can you be fair and objective on a debating site?

[William]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

The problem with this is that this concept of "God" is ill-defined and therefore basically meaningless, especially with respect to being anything that humans could discuss in any meaningful way.

The concept of GOD in a generally defined way is not ill defined.

The specifics to do with the general are what is ill defined, which itself is not a problem either, if specifics are brought into the definitions as necessary.
iow no 'problem'.

If we are each free to imagine our own idea of what a God "might be like", then the concept becomes nothing more than personal opinions. It certainly couldn't be discussed in any objective manner.

In reality, the concept of GOD in a generally defined way remains subjective, unless you can point to GOD and say 'There is GOD', in which case it would then be a case of being able to discuss in an objective manner.

The only thing that gives "objectivity" to the Biblical God is precisely because the Biblical God is describe by an "object", (i.e. the Holy Scriptures).

Not at all. It is still a case of subjectivity which is precisely WHY you contained the word objectivity in quote-marks.

The physical object of the Bible in all its various versions and interpretations - while to some is essentially 'GOD objectified' does not mean that we thus have an actual GOD as an actual object. Not that I am personally saying GOD is the Bible, but folk do, and the OP is questioning that anyway. You wanting to make it so, does not make it so. the bible is still only subjective opinion, and you haven't shown otherwise.

And even if there are debates about what should or should not be included in those "Holy Scriptures" that too can be made objective by discussing which other objective documents should be included, or rejected.

Even so, it is still only subjective opinion which is hardly something one would think one has to explain to you DI.

Documentation is no different just because it captures the acts of religious ritual and beliefs which existed prior to the written word. Making it 'writing' does not make it any less subjective opinion.

In other words, once a physical doctrine is embraced as the "Correct description of God", then we at least have an objective description that can be debated.

This 'objective description of God' is nonetheless the subjective opinions of individuals of a tribe which borrowed ideas from other individuals subjective opinions of GOD and those in turn were borrowed by other cultures and their subjective opinions of GOD added.

There is nothing at all untoward in an individual bringing into the argument things outside of 'what is written' in relation to ideas of GOD, just because those ideas are 'not what is written' in the opinion of those who would make that claim.

The bible does not say "Jesus was a Buddhist" or "Jesus was a Panentheist" but this in itself doesn't mean that someone cannot see in some of the things attributed to Jesus having said, are not recognizable as Buddhist or Panentheist in nature, or that the bible has other subjective opinions objectified re the GOD, which can be seen to be Panentheist in nature.

Without that it amounts to nothing more than people offering their own personal subjective opinions on what they would like for a God to be if one happened to exist. We may as well be talking about opinions on the Boogieman at that point.

I have yet to meet a truly sincerely happy individual who also proclaims "GOD DOES NOT EXIST" but whatever! That is not my circus! That battle of an interaction has been going on for thousands of years, and I am reminded of a 'merry-go-around" when I observe it from an outside-of-that-drama-perspective, only without all the 'bells and whistles' as the saying goes...almost a macabre spectacle...if it wasn't for the notion of humor.

By all means DI, bring on the usual clowns if that is your personal preference, but your complaint here is really quibbling rather than anything substantially relevant. It doesn't add to the discussion/debate to complain someone is breaking the rules by bending them, even that there are no actual rules in the first place...you are simply trying to make out that there are.



So we have each had our say now re this...leave it at that, won't you agree? I do.

[Divine Insight]

That depends on what is wrong. If the translation is wrong, I check the manuscript language as well as the historical and cultural context. If it is then in the Apostolic letters, I look to the Tanakh and the Apostolic biographical accounts. If it is in the biograghical accounts, I look to the Tanakh, If it is in the Haftorah(writings and prophets), I look to HaTorah. If it is in HaTorah, I examine other philosophical treatises. That is how I would handle errors, if I found them in the Scriptures.

And so how do you deal with the Biblical error posted just above your post?

Here's the King James Version:

Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

It clearly states EVERY herb bearing seed and tree on the face of the earth.

We know this isn't true. Some herbs are deadly poison.

So how do you apologize this away as not being errant?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 5 by 2timothy316]

I had a guy tell me one time that he talks to God by smoking weed.

Try eating it.

The Bible: Then God said: “Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you.

OOPS!

There we go, a clear fallacy in the Bible.

We know that there are many plants that are poisonous and will make a person deathly sick or kill them.

So there we have it. Proof positive that the Bible contains false statements.

So there can be no question that the Bible is not infallible.

The fallibility of the Bible is well-established beyond redemption.

Literary context. That was before the fall, in GenEden Gen. 1:29. Notice, (Gen. 3:17a-19, 23) “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return. . . So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken."

[Divine Insight]

So we have each had our say now re this...leave it at that, won't you agree? I do.

That's exactly my point.

We each have our own personal opinions on this concept of "God".

So where does that get us?

Absolutely NOWHERE.

Thanks for clarifying this.

[Divine Insight]

Accidental double post removed.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 5 by 2timothy316]

I had a guy tell me one time that he talks to God by smoking weed.

Try eating it.

The Bible: Then God said: “Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you.

OOPS!

There we go, a clear fallacy in the Bible.

We know that there are many plants that are poisonous and will make a person deathly sick or kill them.

So there we have it. Proof positive that the Bible contains false statements.

So there can be no question that the Bible is not infallible.

The fallibility of the Bible is well-established beyond redemption.

Literary context. That was before the fall, in GenEden Gen. 1:29. Notice, (Gen. 3:17a-19, 23) “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return. . . So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken."

It doesn't say anything there about God warning Adam and Eve that he will be placing poison in plants.

Not only this, but don't you think that would an extremely nasty dirty trick for a God to do without at least warning people?

Sorry, but the apologies for these fables are truly appalling.

The apologies basically require that this God character is one nasty demon.

So I don't see how they can be deemed as very helpful in a religion that wants to proclaim this God to be the epitome of LOVE, BENEVOLENCE, and TRUSTWORTHINESS.

How can a God be trusted who sneakily poisons plants without even telling people that he's going to do this?

These apologies might work for a God like Zeus who can do whatever he wants. But they don't work for a God who is supposed to be benevolent, loving, and trustworthy.

So no, your apology is not impressive.

[bluethread]

Literary context. That was before the fall, in GenEden Gen. 1:29. Notice, (Gen. 3:17a-19, 23) “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return. . . So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken."

It doesn't say anything there about God warning Adam and Eve that he will be placing poison in plants.

It doesn't say that one can not live on thorns and thistles. Also, eating the plants of the field and living by the sweat of one's brow could not mean that one could not just pick any plant and eat it, right? Come on.

Not only this, but don't you think that would an extremely nasty dirty trick for a God to do without at least warning people?

Sorry, but the apologies for these fables are truly appalling.

The apologies basically require that this God character is one nasty demon.

What does, "So there we have it." mean? Does that mean, if that doesn't work, I will throw other stuff against the wall to see if it sticks? Or does it mean, that is my complete argument? The advantages of work is another issue, which I believe I have address elsewhere. Simply piling on complaint after complaint, does not make the complaint under consideration valid. The issue at hand is something being incorrect, not personally offensive.

So I don't see how they can be deemed as very helpful in a religion that wants to proclaim this God to be the epitome of LOVE, BENEVOLENCE, and TRUSTWORTHINESS.

The question is what to do if some thing is incorrect, not contrary to someone's preferred view of a deity.

How can a God be trusted who sneakily poisons plants without even telling people that he's going to do this?

These apologies might work for a God like Zeus who can do whatever he wants. But they don't work for a God who is supposed to be benevolent, loving, and trustworthy.

So no, your apology is not impressive.

Those are not my apologies. Those are your strawman complaints. They have nothing to do with something being incorrect.

[Divine Insight]

The question is what to do if some thing is incorrect, not contrary to someone's preferred view of a deity.

But it's not anyone's "preferred view". Zeus-like excuses simply don't work for the Biblical God.

See, Zeus could do anything he feels like doing. No one ever said that Zeus is a loving, benevolent, all-righteous, and trustworthy God. Zeus could stab you in the back simply because he felt like doing it. Zeus did not need to represent the epitome of righteousness.

But this is not true of the Biblical God. The Biblical God is not permitted to do unrighteous, non-benevolent, or untrustworthy things. Yet, when it comes to these behaviors of this God, the only apology the Christian theists can come up with is that God may not be a nice as people would hope.

Sorry, but a God that I can't trust is not a trustworthy God.

Zeus was allowed to be untrustworthy.

Yahweh, not so.

So Yahweh not only needs to live up to my expectations of benevolence, but he must far exceed them. Otherwise how could it possibly be said that he's trustworthy?

I certainly can't trust a God who is going to poison plants and not tell me which plant's he's poisoned. Especially after he had just told me that all plants are for food.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 12 by Divine Insight]

QUESTION Does the fact that God granted Adam and Eve permission to eat from seed bearing plants mean that the bible teaches that poisonous plants do not exist?

GENESIS 1:29
God also said, "Look, I have given you every seed-bearing plant on the surface of the entire earth and every tree whose fruit contains seed. This food will be for you - Holman Christian Standard Bible

Some have reasoned upon reading Genesis 1:29 that we must conclude that by giving Adam and Eve permission to eat from any plant they wanted God was declaring ALL plants safe to eat. They thus conclude this to be a clear bible error, supposedly declaring that poisonous plants do not exist on earth. While there may well have been no poisonous plants in the garden of Eden [*][/u] (remember the garden was planted by God himself as a home for his human creation), giving someone permission to eat anything is not a command to eat everything. If some plants were not safe for consumption then we can conclude that the "every" plant was relative and not absolute. Thus "every" would not prohibit the use of discretion regarding existing plants or those that would come to exist in the future.

* NOTE: GENESIS 2:16
And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;

Those that are familiar with the bible narrative know that God's command regarding diet was repeated in Genesis 2:16 (see above). In this parallel passages God makes reference specifically to the garden . Thus permission was granted not only within the boundaries of the garden itself but to all vegetation outside ie beyond that which God himself had planted.

CONCLUSION There is no reason to conclude there must have been poisonous plants in Eden, and if there were permission to eat from every plant in existence should not be read as a mandate to do so without discretion. Thus Genesis 1:29 contains no implicit or explicit denial of the existence of poisonous plants.

RELATED POSTS

Did God plant poisonous plants in the garden of Eden?
viewtopic.php?p=1005027#p1005027

Does the fact that God granted Adam and Eve permission to eat from seed bearing plants mean that the bible teaches that poisonous plants do not exist?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 83#p929283

Did God create deadly germs and diseased to threaten the lives of Adam and Eve?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 19#p951119

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

FREE WILL, THE ORIGINAL SIN and ... THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND BAD

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 12 by Divine Insight]

QUESTION Does the fact that God granted Adam and Eve permission to eat from seed bearing plants mean that the bible teaches that poisonous plants do not exist?

GENESIS 1:29
God also said, "Look, I have given you every seed-bearing plant on the surface of the entire earth and every tree whose fruit contains seed. This food will be for you - Holman Christian Standard Bible

Some have reasoned upon reading Genesis 1:29 that we must conclude that by giving Adam and Eve permission to eat from any plant they wanted God was declaring ALL plants safe to eat. They thus conclude this to be a clear bible error, supposedly declaring that poisonous plants do not exist on earth. While there may well have been no poisonous plants in the garden of Eden (remember the garden was planted by God himself as a home for his human creation), giving someone permission to eat anything is not a command to eat everything. If some plants were not safe for consumption then we can conclude that the "every" plant was relative and not absolute. Thus "every" would not prohibit the use of discretion regarding existing plants or those that would come to exist in the future.

CONCLUSION There is no reason to conclude there must have been poisonous plants in Eden, and if there were permission to eat from every plant should not be read as a mandate to do so without discretion. Thus Genesis 1:29 contains no implicit or explicit denial of the existence of poisonous plants.

But what's this "Garden of Eden" nonsense?

The scripture clearly says:

Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

There's no reason to think that the Garden of Eden was anywhere but on the earth. And Genesis 1:29 doesn't say anything about restricting these fruits to just the garden of Eden.

So these apologies aren't making sense. They are clearly just attempts to try to justify obvious errors in these ancient stories.

We can't go back and rewrite these stories. They need to be addressed the way they were originally written.

Besides, we know today that plants that had thorns existed long before humans. As well as poisonous plants. Also, animals have been eating each other long before humans showed up on the planet.

What does it take for people to realize that humans cannot be blamed for these things.

The idea that the world was perfect until humans "fell from grace" is itself a clearly false idea. The mere fact that the Bible makes this claim exposes its fallacy right there.