The Bible is not inerrant

[micatala]

[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?