[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 5 KB, 255x197, download.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13562336 No.13562336 [Reply] [Original]

>Dude your divinely inspired book claims bats are fowls and that locusts crawl on 4 legs
>Oh that's just God pretending to be retarded so that the high-minded believe not
>Isn't that just a little dishonest?
>Let every man be a liar and the Lord be true

>> No.13562340

>>13562336
>divinely inspired means free of error

>> No.13562383

In Orthodox theology the prophets write the books, not God, he only inspires them, which can be feelings, intuitions, visions, and rarely word to word.

>> No.13562433

Christianity =/= Islam

The Bible, while divinely inspired, is considered man-made and thus it is accepted to be full of error (In Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Proties aren't Christians so their view of the Bible doesn't count).
The Quran is considered the word of God himself and is supposed to be perfect and error-free.

You're looking at the Bible as if it was the Quran because you get your understanding of holy texts from the media which are all about Islam nowadays.

>> No.13562441

>>13562433
No, I even accept the post just above yours as having some reason to it. I am mostly speaking against the very common belief that the Bible is free of any errors of what sort soever.

>> No.13562452

>>13562336
wow a guy 4000 years ago did not have perfect scientific knowledge, what a surprise.
That is why no one follows sola scriptura.

>> No.13562461
File: 44 KB, 640x478, 1547941266087.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13562461

>>13562433
I'm not sure which is worse, using the excuse of man-made errors to write off any inconsistencies one might point towards, or using the argument that god-given words allow no flaws to suppress any valid criticism one might come up with

>> No.13562465

>>13562336
>Debating the scientific merit of works written thousands of years ago

wow youre smart

>> No.13562479

>>13562441
It's only a common belief because Europeans have mostly done away with the religion of their ancestors and are only confronted with Islam daily. Their view of Christianity is through the lens of Islam. Older generations went through catechism and are well aware that the Bible is man-made. I'm not talking of Americans due to the influence of protestant fundamentalism which gave them an Islam-like understanding of the Bible.

>> No.13562486

>>13562465
the works written thousands of years ago that people still believe. it is relevant to criticize it.

>> No.13562495

>>13562441
>I am mostly speaking against the very common belief that the Bible is free of any errors of what sort soever.
that's protestantism

>> No.13562512

>>13562340
>>13562383
>>13562433
>>13562452
>>13562465
>God inspires people to write books about him
>decides scientific and historical accuracies aren't aren't important enough to be left out
>doesn't care to inspire translations to avoid more errors
ummmmm wtf??

>> No.13562520

>>13562512
*inaccuracies

>> No.13562533

>>13562495
And I would think, particularly to a member of an Apostolic faith that Protestantism ought to be called the most common of all things.

>> No.13562539

The NT openly states that Peter, Christ foremost disciple, disavowed Christ at some point. If even he is untrustworthy then no one expects the various parts of the Gospels written by lesser disciples to be entirely trustworthy. As for the OT it's basically just a historical chronicle written by priests, petty prophets and a few greater ones. Its religious value is rather limited and when the early Bible was compiled there were serious discussions about not including the OT.

>> No.13562540

>>13562486
Only if they believe the SCIENTIFIC claims in it, if the belief in the non-scientific parts of the Bible is independent of these scientific claims it is just missing the point.

>> No.13562551

>>13562512
>aren't important enough to be left out
How much damage has the belief that bats are fowls done to Christians?
It seems entirely irrelevant, I have to say.

>> No.13562554

>>13562512
Your an idiot haha

>> No.13562557

>>13562512
>Today, locusts are considered migratory grasshoppers. They all have two large hind legs, quite different in appearance, size, and function from the front four legs. Their front legs are used for "crawling, clinging, and climbing," while their back legs rest "above" their front legs and feet, and are used for "jumping." Furthermore, the Hebrew word translated "beetle" actually comes from the verb "to leap," implying a similar leaping insect, not our modern beetle. Thus, the Biblical description of grasshoppers turns out to be exactly anatomically correct.
And concerning "fowls" the hebrew birds just implies "flying creatures", and the book is written to average people, the point is to convey an image in the mind not to reveal biology.

>> No.13562561

>>13562557
based

>> No.13562564

>>13562486
>they believe it specifically for the scientific merit

kek

>> No.13562575

>>13562551
I'm wondering why God would allow false things to be sprinkled in the writings he inspired even if they aren't that bad.

>> No.13562579

>>13562557
Why wouldn't God stop the translators from fucking up

>> No.13562581

>>13562557
then why wouldn't locusts be covered under "fowls"? Locusts mostly FLY

>> No.13562586

>>13562554
No u

>> No.13562591

>>13562579
because the protestants are heretics
>>13562581
because people clearly understand the difference between insects and not, while I doubt it's even common knowledge today that bats don't lay eggs

>> No.13562594

>divinely inspired book copies the term Logos from Greek philosophers

>> No.13562606

>>13562557
>the book is written to average people
Average people don't read the bible. The people who actually read and study it I don't think would need it dumbed down.
>>13562591
Why does God let people who want to know him fall into false sects, still believing they're in the right?

>> No.13562618

>>13562591
A bat and a hawk are about as different as a locust and a hummingbird by outward appearance.

>> No.13562634

The bible is free of *moral* error. It contains the story of the redemption of a race and the extension of salvation to all peoples. Even the Fathers understood it isn't literal, read Origen.

>> No.13562638

>>13562634
>read Origen

He's been excised from Christian history as an heretic of universalism.

>> No.13562647

>>13562634
So it's still fallible? Cool

>> No.13562650

>>13562634
The Quran is free of moral AND all other error.

>> No.13562662
File: 12 KB, 211x239, download (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13562662

>>13562650
>The Quran is free

I'll take 10

>> No.13562673

>>13562647
correct it contains infallible moral teaching. read Divine Afflante Spiritu and Dei Verbum.

>>13562650
this is your brain on Wahhabism.

>> No.13562681

>>13562673
So it's still fallible?

>> No.13562706

>>13562681
>Dei Verbum
> However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion,[5] the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words. To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms" ... in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.[6] For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.[7] But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written,[8] no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature.[9]

You are free to believe whatever you want factually about the Bible so long as it doesn't contradict doctrine. The Church does not teach the bible is factually inerrant.