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.

[realthinker]

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!

The problem is that there are people who are claim that they and they alone are qualified to judge what is poetic and what must be taken with grave seriousness. When a non-believer holds Christians accountable to their book they choose to acknowledge the human factor. When the Christians choose to judge they use anything they wish to justify their condemnation of others. Credibility is established by behaving consistently, predictably, and with integrity. The bible does little to make Christianity credible.

[MyReality]

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.

Actually it can be very simple, if the bible was researched and looked upon as that of a doctor taking care of a patient then errors can be found and reported. It is only those trying to find deeper meanings in a puddle that make it difficult. (to clarify i use the doctor analogy because doctors are suppose to be indifferent and non-judgmental towards patients.)

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.

That may be the case, and cant fault this logic as i have never spoken with anyone who has read the original bible, i can only imagine the few that could. My problem is that with such an important and divine book, God should'v foreseen such a problem.

[MyReality]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[/quote]
From my understanding with the wording sphere (during the time/place it was used) was used to describe a flat circular object, like that of wax to seal a message of importance. One can easily place a flat sphere on pillars.

The problem with metaphors and or poetry is that each and every single person can see it in a different light, some slight others so large that blood was spilt over its meanings. Depending where one came from and how one was raised even single words can hold different weight and importance.

Would this not also be a way of disproving that a book that was suppose to save the souls of mankind.....all of mankind be written in such a way that those from all walks of life would be able to ascertain the meaning of such a book?

Again sorry for the delay of my replies.

[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.

Actually it can be very simple, if the bible was researched and looked upon as that of a doctor taking care of a patient then errors can be found and reported. It is only those trying to find deeper meanings in a puddle that make it difficult. (to clarify i use the doctor analogy because doctors are suppose to be indifferent and non-judgmental towards patients.)

Don't try to make it simple by creating an analogy and insisting the Bible must be the same. No one suggests the bible was given the sort of care a doctor would give.

It wasn't humanly practical at the time because there wasn't a single master copy that could be treated in this way. There were probably multiple copies made of the first one, then multiple copies made from most of those, and copies became geographically dispersed. It would be impossible for humans to control it. (in my response below to your next issue, I cover the idea of God's ability to control the Bible - and offer reasons why he didn't).

Regarding your comment about "research" - I don't see the relevance. If you treat the autographs as inerrent, then that implies sufficient research was done. If you think there's a human element, you simply must live with what we have, and assume it is adequate - even if it COULD have been better. (e.g. golden tablets, a la Book of Mormon, would have been nice).

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.

That may be the case, and cant fault this logic as i have never spoken with anyone who has read the original bible, i can only imagine the few that could. My problem is that with such an important and divine book, God should'v foreseen such a problem.

Of course, anything should have been possible for God. There are two lines of apologetic retort to this: 1) he entrusted it to us; so woe is man if he screwed it up; 2) the important points survived intact; anything that was screwed up is non-essential.

I'd argue that either of these views imply the Bible that is in our hands today should not be treated as 100% literal truth, even if the original autographs were. They are subject to error, so there is no line of scripture that should be thoroughly trusted.

[MyReality]

Actually it can be very simple, if the bible was researched and looked upon as that of a doctor taking care of a patient then errors can be found and reported. It is only those trying to find deeper meanings in a puddle that make it difficult. (to clarify i use the doctor analogy because doctors are suppose to be indifferent and non-judgmental towards patients.)

[/quote]Don't try to make it simple by creating an analogy and insisting the Bible must be the same. No one suggests the bible was given the sort of care a doctor would give.
[/quote]

I did not imply that it was given the same care as an impartial doctor. I was implying that it should be researched with a type of impartiality that rivals that of doctors to gain the most accurate knowledge and without prejudice.(at least what doctors should be.)

It wasn't humanly practical at the time because there wasn't a single master copy that could be treated in this way. There were probably multiple copies made of the first one, then multiple copies made from most of those, and copies became geographically dispersed. It would be impossible for humans to control it. (in my response below to your next issue, I cover the idea of God's ability to control the Bible - and offer reasons why he didn't).

Regarding your comment about "research" - I don't see the relevance. If you treat the autographs as inerrent, then that implies sufficient research was done. If you think there's a human element, you simply must live with what we have, and assume it is adequate - even if it COULD have been better. (e.g. golden tablets, a la Book

Don't you think that a book with such importance to the world would have been given some type of care so it may spread to the world unaltered? This reasoning "impossible for humans to control it" is an excuse to put the blame on the imperfect and sinful humans, a 3rd grader could see the fault of this logic when explained to them. Does this not show that the deity of this book dropped the ball and the result was a slow spread across the world with scores of rewrites and errors upon this holy book.

To those that got the wrong word of God and or gained a book with enough errors that prayer was meaningless, then according to this book unspeakable torment for all eternity was given unto those for not following the true version and teachings of the only true book.... does this not reek of carelessness? Or an shortsighted and faulty individual?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, anything should have been possible for God. There are two lines of apologetic retort to this: 1) he entrusted it to us; so woe is man if he screwed it up; 2) the important points survived intact; anything that was screwed up is non-essential.

I'd argue that either of these views imply the Bible that is in our hands today should not be treated as 100% literal truth, even if the original autographs were. They are subject to error, so there is no line of scripture that should be thoroughly trusted.

The fault with this logic is that man was intended to be saved through the word of god, and yet the word of God that was intended to save us is not the word of God but the word of an error ridden due to translation (or otherwise) error book that could very well be an altered word of God with a different message then was intended.

You say that the important points survived intact....How can you know this if the original was not read? Even the entirety of the dead sea scrolls cant be viewed by the public and is under lock and key. Those important points? How do we know those aren't errors unto themselves from the original. Again i will ask, should this unto itself prove that the bible, its history, and the religion it supports is just another false concept like the many religions before it?

I ask none to hide behind the word (Faith) and think upon my question.

[Cathar1950]

Despite error the believer can always hidden meanings or secrete traditions handed down. How much of the Bible was meant for unbelieving eyes? I suspect much of the OT history were written for courtly amusement as well as praise and propaganda.

[JehovahsWitness]

You say that the important points survived intact....How can you know this if the original was not read?

IS THE BIBLE "ERROR RIDDEN"?

The existence of thousands of manuscripts allow us to verify and remove any mistakes or changes that might have crept into copies. While there have been attempts to corrupt the integrity of the sacred text, thanks to these early manuscripts, we can verify (and remove) all spurious texts so that modern translations can be trusted to be correct representations of what the writters penned.

Scribal errors. A small number of what is believed to be scribal errors can be identify in the bible but the fact that we know where they are bears testimony to the value of a wide variety of manuscripts. The bible's inclusion of 'parelle passages' enable not only these errors to be identified but in most cases corrected.

Further reading (academic - non-witness)
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html
http://www.tdgnews.it/en/?p=862

Short film
http://www.4shared.com/video/zbGp5X5C/T ... _Book.html




THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES

Although none of the original writings of the Hebrew Bible are existant today, there are possibly 6,000 handwritten copies containing all or part of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of about 900 documents, including texts from the Hebrew Bible, discovered between 1947 and 1956 in Israel. They date from between 200 BCE to about 70 CE. The texts are of great religious and historical significance, as they include the oldest known surviving copies of Biblical and extra-biblical documents (the First Isaiah scroll dates from the end of the 2nd Century BCE). The DSS prove that in around 1000 years of copying, no major changes or faults were made in the biblical text.

The transmission of the text of the Hebrew Bible is of extraordinary exactitude, without parallel in Greek and Latin classical literature. -- Professor Julio Trebolle Barrera, a member of the team of experts charged with studying and publishing the ancient manuscripts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls


The Masoretes produced what is known as the Masoretic text, on which our present-day copies of the Hebrew Scriptures are based. The oldest of these goes back to A. D. 916, and is known as the Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus.

Further reading
http://pastorrussell.blogspot.com/2009/ ... rolls.html



THE CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES

While it is true there are some very famous leather codices dating from the 4th century, with nearly all of the bible books bound in a single volume, this is not to say they are the "earlierst bibles": The Christian Greek Scriptures is a collection of 27 individual books and there are literally thousands of early manuscripts of all or parts of these books for example The Chester Beatty 2 collection contains 9 of Paul's letters (he wrote 13) and they date to approx 200 CE and the Bodmer 14, 15(P75) dated contails most of the gospel of Luke & John and dates to the 3rd Century.

BUT COULDN'T CHANGES & CORRUPTION HAVE CREPT IN BY THE THIRD CENTURY?

Copyists certainly did make errors when writing. What enables us to have confidence in the CGS however is the shear volume of manuscripts (or copies) that were made and survive to this day.

According to one calculation there are over 5000 manuscripts in the original Greek, in addition there are 8000 in various other languages of the 27 books in the Greek canon, totalling over 13,000 dating from the 2nd Century to the 16th. The oldest fragment is P/25 in the John Rylands Library Manchester England) a fragment of Gospel of John dated to approximately 125CE (about 25 years after the original).

IDENTIFYING ERRORS

If only one copy was made of an original, and that copy had an error then all subsequent copies that exist would contain that error and furthermore, there would be no way to identify and it. Fortunately this is not how the bible came down to us. Many hundreds of copies were made during the same period from alternative first souces. According to Professor James L. Kugel many, many times even within the biblical period itself. This means we have copies today which can be compared to identify (and remove) errors. To illustrate

A boss give a letter to his secretary. She makes 10 copies and hands them over to ten different departments in the Company. Each Department Head makes dozens of copies for each team in his department and the team leader makes copies for all his staff.

If the secretary spilt coffee on one of her 10 copies - rendering a line illegible for one of the department heads, he has only to consult another department head. If he doesn't notice it and the coffee stain is passed on to his department and subsequently to his team does that mean everyone in the company has a copy of the "stain"? The existence of 9 other departments/teams and hundreds of other staff copies ensures that even without seeing the original we can spot the mistake.

ACADEMIC CONCLUSIONS

Commenting on the history of the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures and the results of modern textual research, Professor Kurt Aland wrote:

• **It can be determined, on the basis of 40 years of experience and with the results which have come to light in examining . . . manuscripts at 1,200 test places: The text of the New Testament has been excellently transmitted, better than any other writing from ancient times; the possibility that manuscripts might yet be found that would change its text decisively is zero."Das Neue Testament"zuverlssig berliefert (The New Testament"Reliably Transmitted), Stuttgart, 1986, pp. 27, 28.
  
  **The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning [...] If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. -- Respected Bible scholar F. F. Bruce
  

Textual variants
http://fosterheologicalreflections.blog ... -word.html
http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm


RELATED POSTS

What does the term "the bible" refer to?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p986513

Are there errors in the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 27#p356827

Can you trust the bible?
viewtopic.php?p=1059125#p1059125

Should the term "inerrancy" be replaced?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 12#p985512

Has the integrity of the bible been corrupted by copies errors?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 65#p985365

If bible translations are not inspired, how can they be trusted?
viewtopic.php?p=986376#p986376

Should figurative or poetic language in scripture be classified as "biblical errors"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 43#p985543

Did Jesus suggest copies and translations of holy scripture were erronious?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p986513

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL INERRANCY , , AUTHORSHIP/TRANSMISSION and ... RISK OF CORRUPTION

[Noodles]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

From my understanding with the wording sphere (during the time/place it was used) was used to describe a flat circular object, like that of wax to seal a message of importance. One can easily place a flat sphere on pillars.

The problem with metaphors and or poetry is that each and every single person can see it in a different light, some slight others so large that blood was spilt over its meanings. Depending where one came from and how one was raised even single words can hold different weight and importance.

Would this not also be a way of disproving that a book that was suppose to save the souls of mankind.....all of mankind be written in such a way that those from all walks of life would be able to ascertain the meaning of such a book?

Again sorry for the delay of my replies.

No problem,

That is an interesting argument. Not sure how far you would be able to take it though. Metaphors and similes disproving the bible....couldn't you just learn the context in the original language, that would solve that problem wouldn't it?

[Shermana]

example The Chester Beatty 2 collection contains 9 of Paul's letters (he wrote 13)

We don't know how many he actually wrote. Some say he wrote about half of them, some even say he wrote less than 6, if any.

And there's plenty of proof that even the Epistles have had little additions and insertions like the Gospels and John's Epistles. (i.e. 1 John 5:7, John 7:58-8:11, John 21, and 20:10+ is disputed too, Mark 16:9, Luke 24:52 western non interpolations, etc.)

We don't know what exactly the originals said. The Egerton Fragments might have once been part of the gospel too and were cut out. The "Gospel of the Hebrews" is confirmed by the Church Fathers and exists in their quotations.

The Pastorals (1, 2, Tim and Titus) are considered Pseudipigrapha pretty much universally. So that's 10.

At least you don't include Hebrews, that's at least accurate.

Ephesians no one's sure about, Colossians has its disputers, so does Philemon and even 2 Corinthians. Many have made the claim that Romans and both Corinthians are simply too long to be an Epistle and show some possible signs of development over the years.

Even those that are in unanimous consent are starting to be questioned like Galatians .

[JehovahsWitness]

example The Chester Beatty 2 collection contains 9 of Paul's letters (he wrote 13)

The Pastorals (1, 2, Tim and Titus) are considered Pseudipigrapha pretty much universally. So that's 10.
...

Colossians has its disputers, so does Philemon and even 2 Corinthians. Many have made the claim that Romans and both Corinthians are simply too long to be an Epistle and show some possible signs of development over the years.

Even those that are in unanimous consent are starting to be questioned like Galatians .

If you present any evidence whatsoever (outside "somebody said...." ) to back any of these claims above I'd be happy to at least look at it. I would point out that "evidence" and "opinion" are two very different things, eg. saying a letter is "too long" therefore an individual couldn't have written it, is like saying Obama is "too tall" and therefore can't be President. Evidence would be some kind of written proof that he had an impediment and could only physically write for 2 or 3 minutes at a time and then he fainted - an ancient docters certificate of the above will do.... (and of course could not return to the topic or get a secretary), or some ancient piece of pottery inscribed with a verifiable vow on his part that he would never write more than 3 pages... any kind of physical verifiable evidence to back up this claims would be appreciated.