Just how much of the bible is infallible to fundies?

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2005-05-07 03:53pm

Alright, here's the question put a little more completly:
Many parts of the bible are clearly not written or inspired by god, so which parts of the bible are considered to be infallible, and which parts are not?

The Spartan · Post by **The Spartan** » 2005-05-07 03:55pm

It depends on which fundy you're asking. Some will admit, if only tacitly, that certain parts are incorrect or are superceded by other parts.

But most of the ones I've met will throw up a massive WOI whenever you point out inconsistancies or outright contradictions. Usually making up some sort of excuse for it such as, "well, you're taking that out of context...." etc.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-05-07 04:03pm

Don't forget the "translation error" argument.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-05-07 04:06pm

for the hardcore fundies, they'll say the entire thing is infallible, and any inconsistency you point out to them can be rationalized, regardless of how much bullshit they happen to be spewing. it all depends on the individual fundie really.

Quadlok · Post by **Quadlok** » 2005-05-07 04:18pm

Well, probably not Song of Solomon, as it would be sort of hard for them to be anti-pornography otherwise.

Post by **Dalton** » 2005-05-07 04:23pm

Quadlok wrote:Well, probably not Song of Solomon, as it would be sort of hard for them to be anti-pornography otherwise.

Depends on whether or not you view it as pornography.

Post by **Edi** » 2005-05-07 04:44pm

Which parts? Why, the ones that happen to be the most convenient at the moment, everything else is either disregarded, considered allegorical or the translation error argument is invoked if all else fails.

Edi

Quadlok · Post by **Quadlok** » 2005-05-07 04:58pm

Dalton wrote:
Quadlok wrote:Well, probably not Song of Solomon, as it would be sort of hard for them to be anti-pornography otherwise.
Depends on whether or not you view it as pornography.

Its still useless. Who decided that what the Bible really needed was ten pages of semi-erotic poetry? I demand to speak to the editor!

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-05-07 05:01pm

Quadlok wrote:
Dalton wrote:
Quadlok wrote:Well, probably not Song of Solomon, as it would be sort of hard for them to be anti-pornography otherwise.
Depends on whether or not you view it as pornography.
Its still useless. Who decided that what the Bible really needed was ten pages of semi-erotic poetry? I demand to speak to the editor!

Editor? What editor?

The Church Councils were nothing as much as free for alls. There never was any editor.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2005-05-07 05:08pm

Question kinda on topic. What's with the various 'Editions' of the Bible? Like the King James edition? I have absolutely no idea what that means.
Is that like.. The Ultimate Book Mark II?

Well, you can gauge fundyness by how much they think the bible is infallable. Crazies think it's all totally written word for word from god and can do no wrong. Less crazies that still are beyond hope conveniently forget parts and interperet others. Tolerable christians might believe in the more fantastic elements and say it's just a belief, but don't cite it as the end-all owner's manual for life.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2005-05-07 05:09pm

A bit of insight into the eternally flexible yet rigid mind of the fundamentalist. My grandmother asked a minister about Paul's admonition vis a vis hair, y'know, long hair unseemly on a man, yadda yadda. Specifically that was in reference to the interpetation that some sects take that women shouldn't cut their hair at all.

Well obviously a great many women dislike that particular notion, understandably so, and my grandmother wasn't keen on it herself. His response? "Oh, that's just old Paul talkin'. You can ignore that.

So whenever necessary, err on the side of convenience.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-05-07 05:29pm

Nephtys wrote:Question kinda on topic. What's with the various 'Editions' of the Bible? Like the King James edition? I have absolutely no idea what that means.
Is that like.. The Ultimate Book Mark II?

Different translations for different denominations. For example, Catholickers have their own version and their own translation; Protestants have theirs. The KJV is considered the translation by many Protestants, for example, and they consider the Catholic Churche's "addition" of extra books to be heretical.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-05-07 05:30pm

Nephtys wrote:Question kinda on topic. What's with the various 'Editions' of the Bible? Like the King James edition? I have absolutely no idea what that means.
Is that like.. The Ultimate Book Mark II?

More like the Ultimate Book Mark XIV at least.

Basically, the various editions represent the various translations of the books of the Bible into whatever lingo was used at a given time and/or with emphasis on particular aspects of the books that whoever was responsible for the given translation wanted. These editions are all more or less retranslated by people with a theological axe to grind. Some are translations of translations of translations, and not all translators were equally skilled.

Quadlok · Post by **Quadlok** » 2005-05-07 05:47pm

Also, at least on translation has been made to remove those parts deamed innapropriate for children. All they really did was obfuscate the mentions of sex.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2005-05-07 05:49pm

Lord Zentei wrote:
Nephtys wrote:Question kinda on topic. What's with the various 'Editions' of the Bible? Like the King James edition? I have absolutely no idea what that means.
Is that like.. The Ultimate Book Mark II?
More like the Ultimate Book Mark XIV at least.

Basically, the various editions represent the various translations of the books of the Bible into whatever lingo was used at a given time and/or with emphasis on particular aspects of the books that whoever was responsible for the given translation wanted. These editions are all more or less retranslated by people with a theological axe to grind. Some are translations of translations of translations, and not all translators were equally skilled.

Also, as the Skeptic's Annoted Bible shows in several areas, it will occasionally be expurgated depending on the current values they wish to inscribe onto the minds of their minions (aka the removal of a reference to kissing between two men in one of the more recent... Evangelical, I believe... bible versions.)

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2005-05-07 06:21pm

Straha wrote:Alright, here's the question put a little more completly:
Many parts of the bible are clearly not written or inspired by god, so which parts of the bible are considered to be infallible, and which parts are not?

Well 'god hates fags' is obviously infallible, though 'god hates lobster' is an obvious translation error.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2005-05-07 06:47pm

Ah, that clears things up about the various Editions of the book. So really, best case scenario.. God sat down, fired up his computer, and began distributing PDFs of Bible Mark I, and then we've been playing 'Telephone' with it for the last 50 editions?

Wonderful!

Knife wrote: Well 'god hates fags' is obviously infallible, though 'god hates lobster' is an obvious translation error.

That reminds me of the Family guy episode with the pope. A bunch of cardinals are lounging around a room. One looks to another. "Hey. Guys, em... here on this page.. it says Jebus. You think that's a typo? Uh. I think it's supposed to say Jesus."

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-05-07 07:58pm

My experience is that no matter how Fundie they are, they'll scream to the heavens Job is allegorical.

Must be that bit with the easy checklist for self-salvation...

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2005-05-07 10:45pm

Quadlok wrote:Well, probably not Song of Solomon, as it would be sort of hard for them to be anti-pornography otherwise.

I have heard someone at that place I used to live in (rural Georgia, and it may have been one of those preachers writing his weekly article in the local paper) talk about the Song of Solomon as describing the love men should have towards God. And what's crazy is that even though they can see pornography in EVERYTHING, their sexual alarms don't go off at that at all.

You know, it's hard trying to think about being irrational when you're rational, because it's rational to not think irrationally. I just don't understand them at all.

Quadlok · Post by **Quadlok** » 2005-05-07 10:49pm

Mayabird wrote:
Quadlok wrote:Well, probably not Song of Solomon, as it would be sort of hard for them to be anti-pornography otherwise.
I have heard someone at that place I used to live in (rural Georgia, and it may have been one of those preachers writing his weekly article in the local paper) talk about the Song of Solomon as describing the love men should have towards God.

I wasn't aware that God had tits...

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2005-05-07 10:57pm

Quadlok wrote: I wasn't aware that God had tits...

Ya learn something every day.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2005-05-07 10:57pm

Quadlok wrote:I wasn't aware that God had tits...

He can if He wants to.

Sean Howard · Post by **Sean Howard** » 2005-05-08 12:22am

I remember back in fundie high school, my Bible class teacher claiming that every word of every book of the Bible was present in heaven before the earth was even created!

But the guy rejected Calvinism. Gotta love it.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-05-08 12:30am

Quadlok wrote:Well, probably not Song of Solomon, as it would be sort of hard for them to be anti-pornography otherwise.

You will show me the Song of Solomon now. You will do it now.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-05-08 01:23am

Quadlok wrote:
Mayabird wrote:
Quadlok wrote:Well, probably not Song of Solomon, as it would be sort of hard for them to be anti-pornography otherwise.
I have heard someone at that place I used to live in (rural Georgia, and it may have been one of those preachers writing his weekly article in the local paper) talk about the Song of Solomon as describing the love men should have towards God.
I wasn't aware that God had tits...

Haven't you ever seen Dali paintings? Jesus was androgynous.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Just how much of the bible is infallible to fundies?

Just how much of the bible is infallible to fundies?

Re: Just how much of the bible is infallible to fundies?

Re: Just how much of the bible is infallible to fundies?