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.

[Easyrider]

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?

Possible. How does that ever get proven or disproven, though, without the original manuscripts?

Like I said, I prefer to base my beliefs on the preponderance of the evidence. All four Gospels confirm the resurrection of Christ. None deny it, nor do any of the other NT works.

[Goat]

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?

Possible. How does that ever get proven or disproven, though, without the original manuscripts?

Like I said, I prefer to base my beliefs on the preponderance of the evidence. All four Gospels confirm the resurrection of Christ. None deny it, nor do any of the other NT works.

That is because the dozens upon dozens of Gospels that did not refer to it got rejected by the Council of Nicea, and were called 'heresy' It is known as 'an after the fact editing job'.

A pretty bad one too.. none of the stories agree on the details.

[Easyrider]

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?

Possible. How does that ever get proven or disproven, though, without the original manuscripts?

Like I said, I prefer to base my beliefs on the preponderance of the evidence. All four Gospels confirm the resurrection of Christ. None deny it, nor do any of the other NT works.

That is because the dozens upon dozens of Gospels that did not refer to it got rejected by the Council of Nicea, and were called 'heresy' It is known as 'an after the fact editing job'.

Yeah, throw out the garbage (the 2nd century rubbish) and keep the 1st century historical accounts. To do otherwise would be akin to letting the Iranian President revise Holocaust history for you.

. none of the stories agree on the details.

Translation: Goat argues that the Gospels cannot possibly be complimentary. They're "either / or." Of course, Goat has yet to establish his "either / or" position with anything credible.

[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?

Possible. How does that ever get proven or disproven, though, without the original manuscripts?

Like I said, I prefer to base my beliefs on the preponderance of the evidence. All four Gospels confirm the resurrection of Christ. None deny it, nor do any of the other NT works.

Then you accept my point, then, the Bible is not inerrant (at least not the one we're reading now).

[Easyrider]

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?

Possible. How does that ever get proven or disproven, though, without the original manuscripts?

Like I said, I prefer to base my beliefs on the preponderance of the evidence. All four Gospels confirm the resurrection of Christ. None deny it, nor do any of the other NT works.

Then you accept my point, then, the Bible is not inerrant (at least not the one we're reading now).

That's fine. Now you have to consider the preponderance of the evidence, as in Christ's resurrection. How do you propose dealing with that?

[Goat]

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?

Possible. How does that ever get proven or disproven, though, without the original manuscripts?

Like I said, I prefer to base my beliefs on the preponderance of the evidence. All four Gospels confirm the resurrection of Christ. None deny it, nor do any of the other NT works.

Then you accept my point, then, the Bible is not inerrant (at least not the one we're reading now).

That's fine. Now you have to consider the preponderance of the evidence, as in Christ's resurrection. How do you propose dealing with that?

How is 4 books, 3 of which used the first one as a resource, and hardly independent of each other, or verifiable in any way shape or form 'preponderance of evidence'.


Please, make your case on how the Gospel stories are 'preponderance of evidence'.

[Easyrider]

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?

Possible. How does that ever get proven or disproven, though, without the original manuscripts?

Like I said, I prefer to base my beliefs on the preponderance of the evidence. All four Gospels confirm the resurrection of Christ. None deny it, nor do any of the other NT works.

Then you accept my point, then, the Bible is not inerrant (at least not the one we're reading now).

That's fine. Now you have to consider the preponderance of the evidence, as in Christ's resurrection. How do you propose dealing with that?

How is 4 books, 3 of which used the first one as a resource, and hardly independent of each other, or verifiable in any way shape or form 'preponderance of evidence'.

Please, make your case on how the Gospel stories are 'preponderance of evidence'.

I don't feel a need to stroke your disbelief. It's all there. You deal with it.

[Cathar1950]

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?

Possible. How does that ever get proven or disproven, though, without the original manuscripts?

Like I said, I prefer to base my beliefs on the preponderance of the evidence. All four Gospels confirm the resurrection of Christ. None deny it, nor do any of the other NT works.

Then you accept my point, then, the Bible is not inerrant (at least not the one we're reading now).

That's fine. Now you have to consider the preponderance of the evidence, as in Christ's resurrection. How do you propose dealing with that?

How is 4 books, 3 of which used the first one as a resource, and hardly independent of each other, or verifiable in any way shape or form 'preponderance of evidence'.


Please, make your case on how the Gospel stories are 'preponderance of evidence'.

He can't. He just read that phrase 'preponderance of evidence' in some apology book or on some site and thought it sounded cool.
Mark, the source of two gospel meant to replace it didn't mention the resserection in the early manuscripts. Also you have no copies of copies the predate the second century and the Magdalen Papyrus doesn't count as you have the opinion of one crackpot that is not only suspect but questionable as it is on codex.
Even if they all agree on a resurrection or the details (which they don't) it is still an orthodox selection and given the fact they destroyed any unacceptable writings in the 4th century, by law, it is hardly unbiased or independent.
I think we have heard enough of your nonsense. Are you sure you know what 'preponderance' means? It seems you are using it like it means any thing that could possible agree with your unsupportable or as you say, "How does that ever get proven or disproven".
I think the only thing getting stroked around here is on your part and so far your opinion seems not only irrelevent but akin to nonsense.

[micatala]

I am very glad to see some participation in this thread.

I would be even happier if people were addressing the OP.

I started this thread partly to avoid having huge numbers of alleged contradictions being thrown out and then having most of them ignored or getting dealt with in a cursory manner.

Therefore, let's stick with the contadiction presented by the divorce and remarriage laws. If we dispense with this one, or exhaust the possible arguments on both sides, then we can drop this thread and start others on different topics.

Thanks.

[Easyrider]

Please, make your case on how the Gospel stories are 'preponderance of evidence'.

He can't. He just read that phrase 'preponderance of evidence' in some apology book or on some site and thought it sounded cool.

That's pretty comical coming from someone who comes up with a wild new theory on Biblical events almost every night.

Mark, the source of two gospel meant to replace it didn't mention the resserection in the early manuscripts.

There it is - the latest unsupported theory / claim.

"He is risen!" - Mark 16:6 - as found in the earliest manuscripts. It's Mark 16:9-20 that isn't in the earliest manuscripts.

Also you have no copies of copies the predate the second century and the Magdalen Papyrus doesn't count as you have the opinion of one crackpot that is not only suspect but questionable as it is on codex.

Scholars date the New Testament

http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT.htm

Even if they all agree on a resurrection or the details (which they don't) it is still an orthodox selection....

Harmony of the Gospel Accounts

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/ ... onize.html

An "orthodox selection?" As opposed to a gaggle of "historical revisionists" selection"?

I think we have heard enough of your nonsense.

You're the one going down in flames here, Cathar, not me.

I think the only thing getting stroked around here is on your part and so far your opinion seems not only irrelevent but akin to nonsense.

Nonsense. Try again?