The Bible is not inerrant

[micatala]

Again, because of repeated assertions made in other threads that the Bible is inerrant, and because these assertions are not on topic within the threads in which they are being made, I am creating yet another Biblical contradiction thread but focused on just one contradiction.

For now, I will refer to it as an alleged contradiction, giving inerrantists a shot at addressing it.

Yes, there are other contradiction threads, and the issue has been long debated with many alleged contradictions being offered. There is disagreement on whether they have all been addressed adequately or not. While I have not gone through all the other threads to see if this one has been addressed, I think it is worth debating on its own (possibly again).

Question for debate:

Do the various passages within the Bible on divorce and remarriage constitute a self-contradiction, thereby showing the Bible is not inerrant?

Matthew in chapter 5 wrote:
31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[f] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Deuteronomy chapter 24 wrote:
1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Note that "indecent" in the passage above cannot mean the same as adulterous, otherwise the appropriate course of action would be to stone the woman.

Furthermore, in Matthew chapter 19 we have.

Quote:
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Deuteronomy allows divorce and remarriage for reasons other than infidelity. So does Leviticus.

Chapter 21 wrote:
7 " 'They must not marry women defiled by prostitution or divorced from their husbands, because priests are holy to their God. 8 Regard them as holy, because they offer up the food of your God. Consider them holy, because I the LORD am holy—I who make you holy.

Priests cannot marry a divorced woman, but this is special for priests. Obviously it is OK for other men to marry a divorced woman.


Jesus says a man who divorces, except for infideltiy, cannot remarry without committing adultery. He also says a man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


How is this not a contradictory teaching?





Also, the passage in Matthew chapter 19 is often cited as teaching that the only allowable marriage is between one man and one woman. This is often used against gay marriage, but it also implies polygamy is not allowed.

However, polygamy clearly is allowed in other passages.

Paul in I Timothy Ch. 3 wrote:
2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,


Overseers should only have one wife. Clearly it is OK for others who are not overseers to have more than one wife.

If this is not a contradiction within the Bible, it is at least a contradiction in interpretation among those who say "one man - one woman" is the only allowable marriage based on Matthew.

Please restrict comments to the particular areas of divorce and remarriage. Other alleged contradictions should be dealt with in existing threads, or other new threads.

[Young McGrath]

I really don't see how a group of independently written documents bound together in one book by biased authorities, and passed down over centuries can be inerrant.
O, and it's full of obvious contradictions.

I mean I love the Bible and all, but come on people, use some common sense.

[Easyrider]

I really don't see how a group of independently written documents bound together in one book by biased authorities, and passed down over centuries can be inerrant.

Is reporting the truth being "biased"?

I base things on the preponderance of the evidence.

O, and it's full of obvious contradictions.

Pick out your bese one (1 - ONE for time's sake) from say, the New Testament, and let's see if it flys.

I mean I love the Bible and all, but come on people, use some common sense.

You're still "Young," McGrath. We'll pray for spiritual revelation for you.

[Young McGrath]

I really don't see how a group of independently written documents bound together in one book by biased authorities, and passed down over centuries can be inerrant.

Is reporting the truth being "biased"?

I base things on the preponderance of the evidence.

I really don't think corrupt authorities are going to pass on the entire "truth" they will at least tweak it a little to fit their own agenda. I'd think you'd notice that given the obvious misuse of scripture in today's society. If a simple preacher can tweak scripture to fit what he believes, why can't a great authority figure?

O, and it's full of obvious contradictions.

Pick out your bese one (1 - ONE for time's sake) from say, the New Testament, and let's see if it flys.

Google "contradictions in the Bible" you'll find many.

I mean I love the Bible and all, but come on people, use some common sense.

You're still "Young," McGrath. We'll pray for spiritual revelation for you.

I'm 18; and the "McGrath" bit is the name of a Christian apologetic (Alister McGrath) whom I admire.

[Easyrider]

I really don't see how a group of independently written documents bound together in one book by biased authorities, and passed down over centuries can be inerrant.

Is reporting the truth being "biased"?

I base things on the preponderance of the evidence.

I really don't think corrupt authorities are going to pass on the entire "truth" they will at least tweak it a little to fit their own agenda. I'd think you'd notice that given the obvious misuse of scripture in today's society. If a simple preacher can tweak scripture to fit what he believes, why can't a great authority figure?

Sure, but I think you have to document that that's what actually occurred in the New Testament. You've basically presented a theory with no evidence to back it up.

Google "contradictions in the Bible" you'll find many.

Google "Bible contradictions answered" and you'll find as many rebuttals as there are alleged contradictions. But if you have one you feel is iron-clad, let's see it.

Cheers...

[Young McGrath]

Here:

1KI 22:42-43 Jehoshaphat did not remove the high places.
2CH 17:5-6 He did remove them.

I got that from a former Christian.

[Cathar1950]

I really don't see how a group of independently written documents bound together in one book by biased authorities, and passed down over centuries can be inerrant.

Is reporting the truth being "biased"?

I base things on the preponderance of the evidence.

O, and it's full of obvious contradictions.

Pick out your bese one (1 - ONE for time's sake) from say, the New Testament, and let's see if it flys.

I mean I love the Bible and all, but come on people, use some common sense.

You're still "Young," McGrath. We'll pray for spiritual revelation for you.

In your case if your are reporting the truth, you are biased and indoctrinated.
Easyrider you have yet to show us any credible evidence that alone a preponderance.

Pick out your bese one (1 - ONE for time's sake) from say, the New Testament, and let's see if it flys.

How many times have you made that boast?
How many threads have you started to avoid answering when you are caught making unsupported claims?
I guess giving it your "bese one" is better then your usually vain "give it your best shot". I should do a search and find out how many times you have repeated that challenge and how many still open threads you have bored with your repetitive dogma.

Welcome to the forum Young McGrath and I see you have meet Easyrider.

[Easyrider]

Here:

1KI 22:42-43 Jehoshaphat did not remove the high places.
2CH 17:5-6 He did remove them.

I got that from a former Christian.

He should have read it more in depth.

And his heart took delight in the ways of the LORD; moreover he removed the high places and wooden images from Judah" (II Chronicles 17:6). The next verse tells us that this occurred during his third year as king. "Also in the third year of his reign he sent his leaders, Ben-Hail, Obadiah, Zechariah, Nethanel, and Michaiah, to teach in the cities of Judah" (II Chronicles 17:7).

The account in I Kings 22:43 is not truly a parallel account, but a summary of Jehoshaphat's reign. "Jehoshaphat was thirty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned twenty-five years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Azubah the daughter of Shilhi. And he walked in all the ways of his father Asa. He did not turn aside from them, doing what was right in the eyes of the LORD. Nevertheless the high places were not taken away, for the people offered sacrifices and burned incense on the high places" (I Kings 22:42-43). The actual parallel to this account is found in II Chronicles 20:31-33: "So Jehoshaphat was king over Judah. He was thirty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned twenty-five years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Azubah the daughter of Shilhi. And he walked in the way of his father Asa, and did not turn aside from it, doing what was right in the sight of the LORD. Nevertheless the high places were not taken away, for as yet the people had not directed their hearts to the God of their fathers." Thus the accounts in I Kings 22 and II Chronicles 20 agree.


(lavistachurchofchrist.org)

In otherwords, considering the time frame of 2CH 17:5-6 (the third year of his reign), Jehosaphat had indeed removed the high places, but later on the stiff-necked crowd rebuilt them, which is the time period in which they weren't removed (again). Thus, there is no real contradiction.

[Young McGrath]

Hmm... what about these?

2KI 9:27 Jehu shot Ahaziah near Ibleam. Ahaziah fled to Meggido and died there.
2CH 22:9 Ahaziah was found hiding in Samaria, brought to Jehu, and put to death.

2KI 16:5 The King of Syria and the son of the King of Israel did not conquer Ahaz.
2CH 28:5-6 They did conquer Ahaz.

2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin (Jehoiakim) was eighteen years old when he began to reign.
2CH 36:9 He was eight.
(Note: This discrepancy has been "corrected" in some versions.)

2KI 24:17 Jehoiachin (Jehoaikim) was succeeded by his uncle.
2CH 36:10 He was succeeded by his brother.

1CH 3:11-13 The lineage is: Joram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Azariah, Jotham.
MT 1:8-9 It is: Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, etc.

EZRA 2:3-64 Gives the whole congregation as 42,360 while the actual sum of the numbers is about 30,000.

JB 2:3-6, 21:7-13, 2TI 3:12 The godly are persecuted and chastised but the wicked grow old, wealthy, and powerful, unchastised by God.
PS 55:23, 92:12-14, PR 10:2-3, 27-31, 12:2, 21 The lives of the wicked are cut short. The righteous flourish and obtain favor from the Lord.

PS 78:69, EC 1:4, 3:14 The earth was established forever.
PS 102:25-26, MT 24:35, MK 13:31, LK 21:33, HE 1:10-11, 2PE 3:10 The earth will someday perish.

[Easyrider]

Hmm... what about these?

2KI 9:27 Jehu shot Ahaziah near Ibleam. Ahaziah fled to Meggido and died there.
2CH 22:9 Ahaziah was found hiding in Samaria, brought to Jehu, and put to death.

2KI 16:5 The King of Syria and the son of the King of Israel did not conquer Ahaz.
2CH 28:5-6 They did conquer Ahaz.

2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin (Jehoiakim) was eighteen years old when he began to reign.
2CH 36:9 He was eight.
(Note: This discrepancy has been "corrected" in some versions.)

2KI 24:17 Jehoiachin (Jehoaikim) was succeeded by his uncle.
2CH 36:10 He was succeeded by his brother.

1CH 3:11-13 The lineage is: Joram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Azariah, Jotham.
MT 1:8-9 It is: Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, etc.

EZRA 2:3-64 Gives the whole congregation as 42,360 while the actual sum of the numbers is about 30,000.

JB 2:3-6, 21:7-13, 2TI 3:12 The godly are persecuted and chastised but the wicked grow old, wealthy, and powerful, unchastised by God.
PS 55:23, 92:12-14, PR 10:2-3, 27-31, 12:2, 21 The lives of the wicked are cut short. The righteous flourish and obtain favor from the Lord.

PS 78:69, EC 1:4, 3:14 The earth was established forever.
PS 102:25-26, MT 24:35, MK 13:31, LK 21:33, HE 1:10-11, 2PE 3:10 The earth will someday perish.

I asked for your best ONE (1), remember? But let me pick our just 1 more for good measure and then you can go surf some apologetics sites that answer the others.

EZRA 2:3-64 Gives the whole congregation as 42,360 while the actual sum of the numbers is about 30,000.

First of all, when we look at the names, we find that certain names are mentioned in alternate forms. Among the Jews of that time a person had a name, title, and surname. Thus, the children of Hariph (Nehemiah 7:24) are the children of Jorah (Ezra 2:18) both of whom number 112. The children of Sia (Nehemiah 7:47) are also the children of Siaha (Ezra 2:44).

Some names are but a minor variation of another - "the CHILDREN of Azmaveth, forty and two" in Ezra 2:24 are the same as "the MEN of Beth-azmaveth forty and two" in Nehemiah 7:28.

The most important thing in how I think this apparent contradiction can be explained is to notice who exactly is being counted in these two different lists. It is the MEN and not the women who are being counted, unless the women are specifically mentioned as they are in only one verse in both Ezra 2:65 and Nehemiah 7:67.

Only in this one verse in both accounts do we read: "The whole congregation together was 42,360, Beside their servants AND THEIR MAIDS, of whom there were 7,337..."

I think the difference in numbers can be accounted for by looking at the context. The difference in Ezra, the true account, is 12,542 persons. In both lists the MEN who constitute the different groups of singers, porters, Nethinims, priests and Levites totals about 30000. The total number of "the whole congregation" of 42,360 refers to the 29,818 found in Ezra, plus the additional number of 12,542 MALE CHILDREN who would eventually grow up to take their part in each of the groups of the ADULT MEN already listed. (AV1611.com)

[Young McGrath]

Ok, this isn't going anywhere.

Edit: here's a proposal: the Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts, but not in the current translations. How about that?