The Argument from the Bible (1996) by Theodore Drange
Almost all evangelical Christians believe that the
writing of the Bible was divinely inspired. They also believe that the
Bible contains special features which constitute evidence of its divine
inspiration. This would be a use of the Bible to prove God's existence
within natural theology rather than within revealed theology, since the
book's features are supposed to be evident even to (open-minded)
skeptics. This is an argument that is for the most part ignored by
professional philosophers of religion. One explanation for such neglect
is that the argument can be easily refuted. In this essay/outline, the
author tries to sketch how such a refutation might be formulated.
Ted Drange develops two arguments for the nonexistence
of the God of evangelical Christianity, an all-powerful and loving being
greatly concerned about the fate of human beings and desiring a
personal relationship with them. According to his argument from
confusion (AC), widespread confusion between Christians over matters of
ultimate importance entails that the God of evangelical Christianity
probably does not exist. In particular, the rampant diversification of
Christian sects on such matters entails that, even if any one of those
sects is correct, large numbers of Christians must hold false beliefs
about issues of ultimate importance--contrary to what one would predict
if the God of evangelical Christianity existed. The argument from
biblical defects (ABD) contends that if the God of evangelical
Christianity existed, then the Bible would probably be perfectly clear
and authoritative and without marks of solely human authorship; but
since the Bible does not meet either of these criteria, the God of
evangelical Christianity probably does not exist.
Best-Selling Errancy (1996) by Mark Ball
This essay seeks to challenge a particular mindset in
the Christian community, one that is not universal among professing
Christians, but a mindset nonetheless widespread in the public arena.
For many Christians, the Bible is the infallible and internally
consistent revealed Word of God. Every word therein, though penned by a
man, God himself inspired. Every verse not only harmonizes with every
other but also accords with the laws of Nature. One should not doubt the
Bible, but endeavor to understand it to glean the Truth from its pages.
Any perceived errors or inconsistencies in the Bible are problems not
with the book, but with the interpretation of the person reading it. The
author argues, however, that many "perceived" contradictions are true
ones, and efforts to reconcile disparate verses often involve
contortions of reasoning, amounting to what one might euphemistically
call "creative interpretation."
Biblical Problems (1992-2011) by Donald Morgan [ Index]
The Date of the Nativity in Luke, 6th edition (2011) by Richard Carrier
It is indisputable that Luke dates the birth of Jesus to
6 A.D. It is also indisputable that Matthew dates the birth of Jesus
before 4 B.C., perhaps around 6 B.C. This is an irreconcilable
contradiction.
This essay investigates the often-made claim from
Christians that the Bible is the inspired word of god, a corollary of
which is that it is perfectly without error. It will be argued that this
view--which will be referred to as Fundamentalism--is the only possible
logical view of the Bible for a Christian, but that it is incorrect
and, therefore, that the Christian god does not exist.
The prophecies of the book of Daniel have fascinated
readers and created controversy for the past two thousand years.
Evangelical Christians believe that the prophet Daniel, an official in
the courts of Near-Eastern emperors in the sixth century BC, foretold
the future of the world from his own time to the end of the age.
Actually, the book was written in Palestine in the mid-second century BC
by an author who expected God to set up his everlasting kingdom in his
own near future. The failure of his prediction refutes evangelical
claims that the Bible is inerrant and prophecy proves its divine
inspiration.
The Five-Fold Challenge (1995) by Robby Berry
The challenge is this: Pick any one of the five miracles
listed and provide one piece of documentary evidence that confirms this
miracle.
He Commends Me--He Commends Me Not (2001) by Tim Simmons
Faults are found in Glen Miller's attempt to reconcile
an apparent contradiction between God's commending of Jehu for the
killings at Jezreel (2 Kings 10:30) and condemning his actions one
hundred years later via the prophet Hosea (Hosea 1:4).
In 2 Kings 10:30 God commends Jehu for his destruction of the house of Ahab, while in Hosea 1:4 he apparently condemns him for it. This contradiction results from taking the phrase "the blood of Jezreel" in the latter passage as a reference to Jehu's massacre of some members of the house of Ahab in Jezreel. Jayawardena argues against this construction, interpreting "the blood of Jezreel" as a reference to the blood of the Israelites shed by enemy nations during the Jehu dynasty as a result of divine judgment against the idolatry of the nation, which Hosea declares is going to be avenged upon the house of Jehu. In addition to a commendation of Jehu, 2 Kings 10:30 contains an implied judgment of his house in the fourth generation for his idolatry.What was "the Blood of Jezreel"? (2008) by Farrell TillIn his 2006 "Solution to the Jehu Problem," Leonard Jayawardena published a "solution" to the inconsistency in 2 Kings 10:30, which praised Jehu for having massacred the royal family of Israel at Jezreel, and Hosea 1:4, which pronounced a judgment of condemnation on the house of Jehu for "the blood of Jezreel." In 2004 Jayawardena was singing the praises of an entirely different "solution" to this discrepancy. This was the beginning of a debate between Jayawardena and myself on the Jehu "solution," in which Jayawardena was then hawking that he had figured out why there was no discrepancy in the views of Hosea and the author of 2 Kings on Jehu's massacre at Jezreel. His 2006 position is very different from his former one, but no less flawed than his original position.Reply to Farrell Till's Rebuttal of "Solution to the Jehu Problem" by Leonard Jayawardena (2008) (Off Site)Leonard Jayawardena's reply to Farrell Till's rebuttal of "Solution to the Jehu Problem."Leonard Jayawardena's Continuing Defense of His Second "Solution" to the Jehu Problem by Farrell Till (2008) (Off Site)Farrell Till's response to Leonard Jayawardena's continuing defense of his second "solution" to the Jehu Problem.
How to Handle Bibliolaters (1989) by Delos McKown
"Over the years I have been confronted by numerous
bibliolaters: people who take the Bible to be inerrant and, thus, put it
beyond intelligent criticism. Since theirs is a particularly pernicious
religion (absurdly claiming that certain antique documents are divinely
inspired), it has seemed important to me to develop strategies for
dealing with such manifest foolishness."
This essay was written to be delivered as a lecture and
is worded accordingly. It was part of a two day debate with a
Fundamentalist minister. For each evening there are two parts, one of
thirty minutes and a conclusion of ten minutes. This essay takes the
negative position.
A List of Biblical Contradictions (1992) by Jim Meritt
New Testament Contradictions (1995) by Paul Carlson
If bibliolaters would just once in their lives put aside
all of their pet theories and take an objective look at the Bible, they
would begin to see that the men who wrote the Old Testament were just
ordinary religious zealots who thought that they and their people had
been specifically chosen of God. The fanaticism with which they believed
this led them to proclaim absurdly ethnocentric prophecies that history
has proven wrong, much to the embarrassment of Bible fundamentalists
who desperately want to believe that the Bible is the verbally inspired,
inerrant word of God. They have no substantive proof on their side. All
the proof declares very definitively to anyone who really wants to know
the truth that the Bible is a veritable maze of nonsense and
contradictions.
The Skeptical Review edited by Farrell Till
Spelling Mistakes in the Bible (n.d.) (Off Site) by Steven Carr
Why I Am Not a Christian (2000) by Keith Parsons
In this explanation of why he is not a Christian, Keith
Parsons discusses the role that Christianity has played in perpetuating
suffering throughout human history, the bizarre doctrine of inflicting
eternal punishment on persons for having the wrong beliefs, the
composition, inconsistencies, and absurdities of the New Testament
Gospels, William Lane Craig's flawed case for the resurrection of Jesus,
the role of legendary development and hallucinations in early
Christianity, and C.S. Lewis' weak justifications for the Christian
prohibition on premarital sex.
Sorce from : http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html
No comments:
Post a Comment