Hi all.
Am an utter newbie in philosophical arguments. Anyway I have constructed a few rather crude premises and conclusions about the Bible.
The Holy Bible is the absolute authority to Christianity.
In order to be the absolute authority, there must be no room for ambiguity.
BUT since the Bible is riddled with ambiguities( which even Christians violently disagree with), the Holy Bible cannot act as the absolute authority.
Humans are fallible.
Humans may err in their use of sight, speech, writings,thoughts and imaginations.
The Bible is a consolidation of human sight, speech, writings, thoughts and imagination.
THEREFORE the Bible may be a consolidation of human errors.
Are there any logical errors to my arguments and conclusions about the bible?
I’m not an authority on the Bible, or even a Christian, but I’d say that your arguments will not convince anyone who believes in the Bible.
Yes. But there is ambiguity because the Bible was written by Man (albeit with input from above); Man being fallible (see your second point), this introduced imprecisions.
Yes. This does not affect any theoretical perfection of the Bible.
It depends on how you view the purpose of the Bible. If it is to control man as he is, then I would agree. If, however, its purpose is to help in man’s awakening, intentional ambiguity must be included to bypass the limiting effects of man’s sleep induced “reason”.
Quite true, but the value of sacred texts like the Bible is in their ability to allow the deeper sides of the human psych to experience the “errors” in the context of a higher perspective artificially created by the style of the texts. It allows one open enough to temporarily to get out of their own way long enough so as to begin to smell the coffee.
Welcome to the party. Don’t worry about being a newbie to philosophical argument. There are many here who have argued for years and still have crude premises and conclusions about the bible.
You’ve stepped on the big one. Is the bible to be read literally? Or, is it to be seen as allegory? Uh, we haven’t managed to find any consensus yet. It might take a little longer…
we’re supposed to take it as the literal allegorical metaphor of the absolute truth of godhood.
I think you can’t take a book as comprehensive as the bible and composed of so many different books and writing styles and lump it all as “literal” or “allegory”.
I think the book starts out with allegorical tales of real people. Adama was the first god-king of the Sumer people and lead them out of Edin.
Gilgamesh-Noah was the leader who survived the great flood.
there is some truth in the fiction but much of it is hidden behind allegory.
