Friday, January 29, 2016

Three-In-One Again

From the Errancy Discussion List, 9-29-95:

nth
I am the father to my children, Brother to my siblings, child of my parents, lover to my spouse. How's that! Four in one.
Regards, nth

Till
But you are still just ONE person. In your capacity as father to your children, you know everything that you know in your capacity as brother to your siblings, and in this capacity you know everything that you know as child of your parents and lover of your spouse. It would be absurd to say that as father to your children, you know X , but as brother to your siblings you don't know X.

So what's my point? In Matthew 24:36, Jesus presumably said of his second coming, "But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the son,* but the Father only" (ASV). If Jesus and the Father are the same God but just different "persons" in the sense that you are father to your children, brother to your siblings, etc., how could it possibly be that God as the Father would know something that God as the son would not know?

This problem was obviously recognized fairly early in the church, because a footnote by this passage will say that "some ancient authorities omit the expression 'neither the son,'" and some translations (including even the KJV) leave it out too. More and more, that's becoming the way to solve textual and doctrinal problems in the Bible--just translate them out of existence. However, since the oldest manuscripts have the expression "neither the son" in them, a principle of lower criticism states that this is more likely to be a statement that was in the original. The RSV, NRSV, NASV, NIV, REB, NEB, NAB, JB, and others have retained the statement in apparent recognition of this principle. Besides, the parallel passage in Mark 13:32 contains the expression "neither the son" and was also retained in other "ancient manuscripts" of Mark, so nothing has been gained by trying to eliminate the statement from Matthew. Furthermore, most critics recognize that Matthew used Mark as his source, so the fact that the expression "neither the son" is generally found in the manuscripts of Mark and was in the earliest copies of Matthew is a pretty sound indication that it was very likely in the original text too.

So now trinity believers must explain how it would have been possible for the Father to know something that the son did not know if they were both one and the same God. I must also ask if inerrantists ever get tired and frustrated from trying to defend untenable positions.

Farrell Till

Monday, January 25, 2016

10 Characteristics Of Truth

1.  Truth is always narrow.

2.  Truth is always consistent.

3.  There is no safe substitute for truth.

4.  Truth is sometimes offensive.

5.  Truth is still the truth even when you stop believing it.

6.  Truth is not determined by who believes it.

7.  Truth is not determined by how many believe it.

8.  Truth is not determined by how much you want to believe something.

9.  Truth is not determined by how long you've believed something.

10.Truth is not determined by where you live.

Friday, January 15, 2016

When?

"...when does one's religious beliefs reach a point that they deserve scorn and contempt rather than 'respect'?" Clearly such a time is when Christians defend their god's command in Numbers 31:17-18, to kill all of the Midianite male little  ones, and kill all of the nonvirgin women, "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." To any Christians reading this, how can you possibly defend this order from your god?

From the Yahoo group, Alt.Bible.Errancy, 8-3-99:


Berne
Helpu, a woman taken as a war prize to be a wife is in reality a concubine. She is forced to marry that man against her will. I am sure that more than one would have preferred death rather than live like that. You are being real offensive in trying to defend that situation and call it just. I  would not want you to live next door to me, if you call things like that just.

TILL
Helpu is in my e-mail filter, so I didn't see the posting in which he apparently tried to defend the Israelite rape of the Midianite virgin girls. I have to agree with what Berne said about the offensiveness of someone who would even try to defend the killing and rape of children, and when I read this, I had to wonder what Holman thinks about this familiar biblicist tactic of arguing that if God did it or commanded it, then it had to have been right no matter how morally offensive it may be when just ordinary humans do the same thing. In this case, Helpu is defending the murder and rape of children. Do you understand what I am saying? Helpu is defending the murder and rape of children.

Number 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

I find attempts to defend such as this repugnant and see no reason why those who would defend such should not receive the scorn and ridicule of all rational people. Would this be a case, Holman, where one would be justified in calling Helpu ignorant? If not, what if he were defending the murder and rape of children in Kosovo? In other words, just when does one's religious beliefs reach a point that they deserve scorn and contempt rather than "respect"?

I say that Helpu is ignorant for defending such as this and see no reason why I should apologize for saying so.

Farrell Till