Bible Mistakes

[liamconnor]

Popular attacks against the Bible point out discrepancies among the details.

But then, there are discrepancies in detail among other ancient historians: Plutarch, Josephus, Livy etc. etc.

Historians continue to use these works in order to reconstruct the history of Greece and Rome; and it seems that most members here trust those reconstructions.


But when a single discrepancy is found in the Bible, it is regarded as earth-shattering.

Should the contents of the bible be treated differently from the contents of any other ancient document? Should it be held to a higher standard for historical reliability?

Why? Why not apply the same methods of historical inquiry to it as to any other historical source?

[Justin108]

But then, there are discrepancies in detail among other ancient historians: Plutarch, Josephus, Livy etc. etc.

Plutarch, Josephus, Livy etc. were not supposedly inspired by God. Their writings aren't considered God's word. If an almighty deity communicated an ever-important message to humanity, I would expect the means of communicating this message to be flawless and without mistake. The very fact that God chose a book to communicate his message is strange enough, but for this book to be flawed as well? God can create the universe, but he can't inspire man to write a book that does not contain historic inaccuracies?

If God did speak to man as the Bible claims, and if he did inspire the words of the Bible, and if he did deem this message to be important, the least I would expect is for God to whisper in the author's ears "hey guy, that's not accurate. Don't write that"

[JehovahsWitness]

Popular attacks against the Bible point out discrepancies among the details.
Why? Why not apply the same methods of historical inquiry to it as to any other historical source?

I think it's called "special pleading", critics of the bible generally claim that the same standards that apply to other historical documents must not be applied to the bible and present their personal beliefs as justification for this position, it's usually worded something alone the lines of "yeah but this is God so the same rules don't apply": like I said, that probably fits the definition of "special pleading".

[Justin108]

I think it's called "special pleading", critics of the bible generally claim that the same standards that apply to other historical documents must not be applied to the bible and present their personal beliefs as justification for this position, it's usually worded something alone the lines of "yeah but this is God so the same rules don't apply": like I said, that probably fits the definition of "special pleading".

This is a strawman if I ever saw one. The argument isn't limited to "yeah but this is God". The argument extends to
- God has limitless resources.
- God is perfect
- God can create a perfect text whereas other historians cannot
- God makes extraordinary claims that other historians do not

Funny you would call this a "historical document", yet whenever a questionable claim is made, theists usually excuse it with "but it's a metaphor". Is this not special pleading? What if a historic text makes a claim that I would rather not be true? Can I call it a metaphor suddenly?

More on the hypocrisy of calling this special pleading - if a man claims he saw an alien, I doubt you would believe him. Yet when the Bible claims that Jesus walked on water, you believe the Bible on faith? Why don't you believe the man who saw an alien on faith? Saying "have faith" in regards to any doubtful claim in the Bible is special pleading as you seem to restrict this method of believing extraordinary claims to Biblical claims only.

Furthermore, you regularly use special pleading in your other posts to redefine terms at your leisure. "The Bible defines perfection differently. The Bible defines belief differently."

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 4 by Justin108]

So in short you are saying those standards that apply in general doesnt apply to a book of God... sounds like special pleading to me... but okay, I admit it doesn't sound like special pleading to you.


JW

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 6 by JehovahsWitness]

Refer to post 5. Did I provide justification for the exceptions?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 7 by Justin108]

Most people believe they have justification for exceptions, whether they are legitimate is what is debatable.

I've seen such questionable justifications for special pleading a million times, the bottom line is if God kills somone it is not murder even if some call that "special pleading" because all life belongs to him and if the bible has errors it cannot be viewed as history because when God does something its not an error.

There my justification tops your justification. Anyway, let's agree to disagree on that.


Have a great day,

JW

[Justin108]

Most people believe they have justification for exceptions, whether they are legitimate is what is debatable.

Yes, it is debatable. So let's debate it. What about my exception is illegitimate?
- God is able to produce a perfect and error-free text with no effort on his behalf as he is flawless, omniscient and has limitless resources
- Plutarch, Josephus, Livy etc. were not able to produce error-free text as they are flawed, non-omniscient and have limited resources

How is this exception illegitimate?

the bottom line is if God kills somone it is not murder even if some call that "special pleading" because all life belongs to him

In that case, if I were a slave-owner, I would be justified in killing my slaves as they belong to me. If I were a parent, I would be justified in killing my children as they belong to me. I made them

There my justification tops your justification.

Actually, as I was able to form a rebuttal to your justification, it does not "top" mine as all you've done to argue against my justification is call it special pleading whereas I gave you an explanation for why your justification fails. So why does my justification fail?

[marco]

Actually, as I was able to form a rebuttal to your justification, it does not "top" mine as all you've done to argue against my justification is call it special pleading whereas I gave you an explanation for why your justification fails. So why does my justification fail?

Your justification is perfectly acceptable. There is an expectation of errors in the works of Livy or Suetonius or Tacitus and we find them. One would not expect errors in a divinely inspired book.

Nonetheless the Bible has its historical uses; for example it might allow us to trace the origins of ancient myths or check geographical names.

When the NT tries to furnish historical details about the main actor we descend into myth about angels chanting over Middle Eastern skies. There is hardly any need to ask why we should raise an eyebrow at such information. The intention of the authors was to forward a moral message not to write history.