All it takes is one error.....right?

[MyReality]

Hello all i am new to this site and new to debating online in general. I joined this site because i was impressed at the civility of these online discussions.

Now lets get to the topic at hand. I am pretty sure this topic has been exhausted to no end but i have yet to hear a good enough answer.

My question is for those who follow the bible and believe that it is a divine and inerrant work of god to spread his message to his followers.

So if there was one, and i mean only one error in the entire bible that can without a doubt prove it wrong, shouldn't that negate the entire divine and inerrant properties of this book?

If this book is not divine and inerrant, then doesn't that prove that the entire religion this book has supported over the millenia's wrong as well?

Can't a person come to the conclusion that a book that holds such flaws be the word of men, and to the purpose of those men?

If this is the case then those who follow and preach the bible is actually following the word of man and not a divine and inerrant being. Am i wrong?

Using King James version.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death"

2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? (Job 37:18)

This presumes the sky is glass...If its a metaphor then i'm at a loss as for what it is suppose to be for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he has set the world upon them. (1 Sam. 2:8)

Although the bible does not state it directly, people presume the bible paints the earth as flat through statements like this among others.

[God] shakes the earth out of her place, and its pillars tremble. (Job 9:6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read all these page by page making sure i wasn't taking them out of context which i'm sure everyone here can understand how frustrating that is. These contradictions are only a few out of the many, only one of them can be correct which would mean the other one is wrong, which means that there is an error in a divine and supposedly inerrant book.

My next question is to those that don't believe the bible to be the word of god and still follow and pray according to the teachings of the bible......why?

Please excuse me for not answering back in a short amount of time to anyone's replies.

[wonderer]

MyReality, I can't fault your logic here! I'm darned if I can think of any reasonable answer to deny the logic of it. And there are 'worse' flaws than those you mention, in my opinion, like: God is love, God is cruel; God created animals, then humans, God created Adam, then saw that he needed a companion and created animals, then Eve; we can never be lost or separated from God (once saved), we can lose our salvation; the punishment for sin is eternal torment in hell, it is annihilation.

Some say that any errors really don't boil down to much, and are 'merely' scribal errors, but really there are huge contradictions, especially in doctrine. Otherwise we wouldn't have denominations teaching completely opposite doctrines. Otherwise we wouldn't need so much commentary to make any sense of the Bible. Someone could read it from cover to cover and know exactly what to do in order to be 'right with God'. It has to be left to theologians and biblical scholars to attempt to make sense of it and harmonize the whole hotchpotch.

If its admitted there are errors in the Bible, how could one ever know which parts of the Bible could be considered infallible words from God? If there are errors, why would God allow them, if the book was 'written' by him? It takes a huge amount of denial to stick to the conviction that there are no errors in the Bible.
Those who say the Bible 'contain's the Word of God', but not 'the Bible IS the Word of God' should be able to show how they work out which is which, but even if they could, which they haven't, it still seems senseless that God would allow just some 'truth' to appear in a book along with 'error'. Whatever way you look at it, there's no sense in basing a religion on a book that contains errors. Religion is about the claim for truth, isn't it?

[cnorman18]

No argument here either. In my opinion, the Bible is not the word of God, but the words of humans thinking about God. On the other hand, the fact that it contains errors of historical or scientific fact does not mean that the Bible ought to be discarded as a worthless pile of nonsense; as the first, or among the first, books of moral and religious reflections of humans, it has value in what it actually is, if not in what some claim it to be.

Aristotle's books are among the first records of the reflections of humans on matters of science and classification. They are full of errors too, but we still study them and learn from them. No one reads them as if Aristotle were God -- and that, of course, is as it should be. When we read the Bible for what it is, it has a value of its own.

Reading the Bible as the words of men is not atheism; indeed, it has nothing whatever to do with atheism. I worship God, but I do not worship the Bible.

[fredonly]

So if there was one, and i mean only one error in the entire bible that can without a doubt prove it wrong, shouldn't that negate the entire divine and inerrant properties of this book?

It's never that simple.

Christian non-literalists have no problem with the presence of errors - human elements abound in the bible.

Christian literalists fall back on the notion that only the original versions of the Bible are inerrant. By definition, if you find an actual error (good luck on that, by the way), it's due to an error of translation or transcription.

[Noodles]

Hello all i am new to this site and new to debating online in general. I joined this site because i was impressed at the civility of these online discussions.

First of all, Welcome!

Now lets get to the topic at hand. I am pretty sure this topic has been exhausted to no end but i have yet to hear a good enough answer.

My question is for those who follow the bible and believe that it is a divine and inerrant work of god to spread his message to his followers.

So if there was one, and i mean only one error in the entire bible that can without a doubt prove it wrong, shouldn't that negate the entire divine and inerrant properties of this book?

If this book is not divine and inerrant, then doesn't that prove that the entire religion this book has supported over the millenia's wrong as well?

Can't a person come to the conclusion that a book that holds such flaws be the word of men, and to the purpose of those men?

If this is the case then those who follow and preach the bible is actually following the word of man and not a divine and inerrant being. Am i wrong?

Using King James version.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is one of the most interesting "contradictions." From the reading I have done regarding this passage the answer to it seems to be the similarity between the Hebrew characters for the two numbers(they have an odd system of writing numbers). I don't think scribal errors prove the message of the bible to be errant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death"

2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again this is a good point, depending on the text the name is switched between Sauls two daughters(in verse 21:8). Scribal errors are definitely in the bible, does that mean it is false? Using that logic anything with a scribal error would be false. Do we treat modern texts with the same scrutiny?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Each of the gospels comes from a slightly different perspective. Luke doesn't mention the "It is finished." Matthew says that he cried out again, presumably saying "It is finished." Mark follows a similar story to that of Matthew. Lastly, as you said, John specifically mentions the words of that final cry.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? (Job 37:18)

This presumes the sky is glass...If its a metaphor then i'm at a loss as for what it is suppose to be for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haven't encountered this one before. It seems to be a simile, describing what the sky looks like. In Job 37-38 Jobs friend Elihu is speaking about God, in this particular spot about Creation. The location of such a simile makes sense.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he has set the world upon them. (1 Sam. 2:8)

Although the bible does not state it directly, people presume the bible paints the earth as flat through statements like this among others.

[God] shakes the earth out of her place, and its pillars tremble. (Job 9:6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hold Up! You could certainly set a sphere on pillars though couldn't you?

Jests aside, Both of those examples would be considered metaphors. Circular images are also used poetically to describe a vision. In one of Isaiahs visions(ch.40) he describes God enthroned above the circle of the earth. This is more poetic language, describing God in Heaven(Heaven being incorporeal) above the circle of the earth.

I read all these page by page making sure i wasn't taking them out of context which i'm sure everyone here can understand how frustrating that is. These contradictions are only a few out of the many, only one of them can be correct which would mean the other one is wrong, which means that there is an error in a divine and supposedly inerrant book.

My next question is to those that don't believe the bible to be the word of god and still follow and pray according to the teachings of the bible......why?

Please excuse me for not answering back in a short amount of time to anyone's replies.

I would encourage you to make sure that you read both in context of the chapter, book, and the entire bible, you brought up some fun points for discussion though.

Oh, and that last one doesn't apply to me.

[Shermana]

We don't have the original Copies, at best we have the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, and we don't even know when the Septuagint was exactly translated.

However, what we have is a complete culture and philosophy maintained and told through a series of Scrolls that have been traditionally agreed upon. There may be scribal issues such as 700 vs 7000 horsemen. Those who maintain that the current form of the Bible is error free are mostly of the King-James-only camp, and treat the TRANSLATION of the Scripture as the same Holy Writ as say the original copies would be.

As for the "original Copies" we have the Dead Sea Scrolls, and we don't even know completely what's in them....there's some stuff in there that had to be fought for to get (they were afraid it would rock the boat like a hurricane and tried to stay quiet, even the israeli antiquity authorities), we can only assume they are the closest to the real thing. They were even mentioned in a letter by a Syriac Monk (I think named Timothy) in the 9th century as an amazing find to fill in the gaps of the NT/OT connection.

Most Jews believe the current text as preserved by the Masoretes is the same as the old, but even this may be in question as more Dead Sea Scroll scholarship comes to surface.

There are differences between the Masoretic and the Septuagint.

Nonetheless, the Masoretic is likely 99.9% right, but with enough .1% to warrant critical doctrinal differences, as in the New Testament as well. The way one assumes 1 John 5:7 by their version makes a HUGE difference even though it's just one little verse.

The differences in the thousands of NT manuscripts themselves are said to be greater than the number of words themselves.

There are texts mentioned and referred to that simply aren't in the current versions and seem to be lost. Like Iddo the Seer and the Wars of the Lord.

And then we have stuff like Jude mentioning and quoting Enoch 1:9 word for word as "prophetic".

But...if the argument is that all it takes one error to prove a cherished VERSION wrong (such as ahem...King James version), then you have a wrecking ball once you kick down the first door.

[JehovahsWitness]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#Was Ahaziah 22 or 42 when he began reigning?

Some bible translations render the following verses:

2 Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

2 Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."


The discrepency in ages is due to a copyist error. We can see that the difference in ages is 20 years. The system of number notation used by the Jews at the time of Ezra consisted of horizontal hooks that represented decades. would equal the number 14 where would be 24. If one or both of the hooks were smudged or flaked off of a papyri, then the dates would be off by ten years or a factor of ten.

Wesley's Notes

22:2 Forty two years - Some acknowledge an error in the transcribers of the present Hebrew copies, in which language the numeral letters for 22 and 42 are so like, that they might easily be mistaken. For that it was read 22 here, as it is in the book of Kings [...].

Source
http://www.christiancourier.com/article ... aziahs-age
http://bible.cc/2_chronicles/22-2.htm

2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death"

2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The account at 2 Samuel 21:8 speaks of the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul whom she bore to Adriel, these being among the members of Sauls household whom David gave to the Gibeonites in atonement for Sauls attempt to annihilate them. (2Sa 21:1-10) The apparent conflict between 2 Samuel 21:8 and 2 Samuel 6:23, which shows that Michal died childless, may be resolved by the view taken by some commentators, namely, that these children were the five sons of Michals sister Merab and that Michal raised them following the early death of their mother Merab.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT WERE JESUS' LAST WORDS?

Neither Luke nor John specifically say Jesus neither said or did anything else after what they report. The scriptures simply state the order of the events the speak about.

Luke did not say he did NOT drink any wine and John did not say he did NOT address his father. All they report is that closely after the specific events they chose to report Jesus died.

To illustrate:

Two different friends are reporting someone's behaviour at a party.

• (A) says she drank three gallons of beer and a bottle of whiskey said "I feel faint" and passed out.
  (B) says she drank 12 glasses of champaign, slept with the bartender said "Man I'm drunk" and passed out.
  
  We can only conclude she drank three gallons of beer a bottle of whiskey 12 glasses of champaign, slept with the bartender and either said "I feel faint" ... "man I'm drunk" and then... passed out. OR
  
  or that she...
  
  drank three gallons of beer a bottle of whiskey 12 glasses of champaign, slept with the bartender and either said ... "man I'm drunk" and THEN..."I feel faint" and passed out.

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? (Job 37:18)

This presumes the sky is glass...If its a metaphor then i'm at a loss as for what it is suppose to be for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he has set the world upon them. (1 Sam. 2:8)

Although the bible does not state it directly, people presume the bible paints the earth as flat through statements like this among others.

[God] shakes the earth out of her place, and its pillars tremble. (Job 9:6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whether you understand WHAT something is a metaphor FOR is entirely and utterly irrelevant; not understanding a metaphor does not mean it cannot BE one. This is like saying "I don't know what a sausage is so this must be a carrot."

If, for example, your being unable to understand Robert Byrns saying his love is a "red red rose" does not stop it from being poetry or cancel any possibility he was using a metaphor, it only means you have a limited grasp of how language works and may need to take some classes in creative writing.

What you "presume" something is saying and what it in fact IS saying may indeed be two seperate things and your private and personal criteria for the rejection of metaphor, similie or symbolism is utterly irrelevant to anyone but yourself and possibly someone you may chose to write poetry for. If you would like to present a stronger rationale for why the above verses CANNOT be metaphor above and beyond "I just don't get it..." then I'd be happy to consider what you have to say.

Respect,
JW

[McCulloch]

JehovahsWitness, your friend needs serious help.

Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

Is there any way to read this and reasonably insert missing speech between "It is finished!" and the giving up of the spirit?

And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit." Having said this, He breathed His last.

Now we have a serious problem. This really does read as if these were his last words.

And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.
And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

Not so much of a problem. Matthew and Mark only add that whatever he said last, he said it loudly. It does seem odd if the last words, said loudly apparently, were in any way profound, as the other gospel writers assert, that Mark and Matthew would neglect to quote them.

Two possible mashups:

1. Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And then Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit." And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.
2. And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit." And then when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!". And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

If either of these mashups were what actually happened, would Luke's or John's retelling really make sense?

[motivationalstories]

Wow, this is an excellent thread. As one that does rely upon the Bible - I do understand that translations and copies made by hand over years of time leave room for errors and miscues.

You have all brought out some good thoughts.

[wonderer]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#Was Ahaziah 22 or 42 when he began reigning?

Some bible translations render the following verses:

2 Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

2 Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."


The discrepency in ages is due to a copyist error. We can see that the difference in ages is 20 years. The system of number notation used by the Jews at the time of Ezra consisted of horizontal hooks that represented decades. would equal the number 14 where would be 24. If one or both of the hooks were smudged or flaked off of a papyri, then the dates would be off by ten years or a factor of ten.

Wesley's Notes

22:2 Forty two years - Some acknowledge an error in the transcribers of the present Hebrew copies, in which language the numeral letters for 22 and 42 are so like, that they might easily be mistaken. For that it was read 22 here, as it is in the book of Kings [...].

Source
http://www.christiancourier.com/article ... aziahs-age
http://bible.cc/2_chronicles/22-2.htm

2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death"

2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The account at 2 Samuel 21:8 speaks of the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul whom she bore to Adriel, these being among the members of Sauls household whom David gave to the Gibeonites in atonement for Sauls attempt to annihilate them. (2Sa 21:1-10) The apparent conflict between 2 Samuel 21:8 and 2 Samuel 6:23, which shows that Michal died childless, may be resolved by the view taken by some commentators, namely, that these children were the five sons of Michals sister Merab and that Michal raised them following the early death of their mother Merab.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT WERE JESUS' LAST WORDS?

Neither Luke nor John specifically say Jesus neither said or did anything else after what they report. The scriptures simply state the order of the events the speak about.

Luke did not say he did NOT drink any wine and John did not say he did NOT address his father. All they report is that closely after the specific events they chose to report Jesus died.

To illustrate:

Two different friends are reporting someone's behaviour at a party.

• (A) says she drank three gallons of beer and a bottle of whiskey said "I feel faint" and passed out.
  (B) says she drank 12 glasses of champaign, slept with the bartender said "Man I'm drunk" and passed out.
  
  We can only conclude she drank three gallons of beer a bottle of whiskey 12 glasses of champaign, slept with the bartender and either said "I feel faint" ... "man I'm drunk" and then... passed out. OR
  
  or that she...
  
  drank three gallons of beer a bottle of whiskey 12 glasses of champaign, slept with the bartender and either said ... "man I'm drunk" and THEN..."I feel faint" and passed out.

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? (Job 37:18)

This presumes the sky is glass...If its a metaphor then i'm at a loss as for what it is suppose to be for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he has set the world upon them. (1 Sam. 2:8)

Although the bible does not state it directly, people presume the bible paints the earth as flat through statements like this among others.

[God] shakes the earth out of her place, and its pillars tremble. (Job 9:6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whether you understand WHAT something is a metaphor FOR is entirely and utterly irrelevant; not understanding a metaphor does not mean it cannot BE one. This is like saying "I don't know what a sausage is so this must be a carrot."

If, for example, your being unable to understand Robert Byrns saying his love is a "red red rose" does not stop it from being poetry or cancel any possibility he was using a metaphor, it only means you have a limited grasp of how language works and may need to take some classes in creative writing.

What you "presume" something is saying and what it in fact IS saying may indeed be two seperate things and your private and personal criteria for the rejection of metaphor, similie or symbolism is utterly irrelevant to anyone but yourself and possibly someone you may chose to write poetry for. If you would like to present a stronger rationale for why the above verses CANNOT be metaphor above and beyond "I just don't get it..." then I'd be happy to consider what you have to say.

Respect,
JW

Re the 'pillars of the earth', I agree with you that such verses could well be metaphoric. Even though I no longer consider the Bible to be infallible, I think it's unfair for people to pick on the Bible for 'getting it wrong' in things which could be written poetically. A lot of the Bible is poetry. Similarly, I've heard of the Bible being criticized as inaccurate for saying the sun moves across the sky, as if that proves the Bible to be not the word of God. Even though I don't consider the Bible to be the word of God, that verse doesn't prove it. Even meterologists in the newspapers say the sun will 'rise' at whatever time!