Biblical errors.

[Elijah John]

someone recently said:

there are no biblical errors

For debate, perhaps we can list a few. And having done so, will the supporters of the quoted statement above revise the statement? Will they admit that the Bible is, in fact, not perfect?

Or will they maintain their claim of Biblical perfection in spite of evidence to the contrary?

I'll start with a few general assertions to the contrary,

a) The Bible has internal contradictions, some important, some minor.
b) The Bible sometimes contradicts what we know about science.

And finally, if the Bible is less than perfect, does that mean it is useless as a source of life-guidance or as a source of Spiritual inspiration?

Or to put it another way, why defend the supposed perfection of the Bible in light of contrary evidence?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 10 by bjs]

If I might butt in for a moment, modern biblical scholarship recognizes around 100 well-documented major contradictions in Scripture. As I say, these are not very minor, niggling points. For example, 2 Sam. 21:19, in the original Hebrew, states that Elhanan killed Goliath of Gath. Most scholars assume this is a scribal error, but ever so, it is a major one. Genesis gives two highly contradictory accounts of creation. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together. in Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. Of course, you can find online any one of a number of sites run by self-styled apologists who quickly try and sweep all these contradictions away, but solutions all prove bogus in the end. If you want to talk more about genesis or the other contradictions, let me know.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 11 by hoghead1]

Genesis gives two highly contradictory accounts of creation. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together. in Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. Of course, you can find online any one of a number of sites run by self-styled apologists who quickly try and sweep all these contradictions away, but solutions all prove bogus in the end.

Clearly the theology of the Hebrew imagination was not to be constrained by such trifling details as the order of creation. I'm certainly not bothered and see no need to explain the differences away. The two stories are simply different. Equally revealing of God; mutually informative.

I'm with JBS. Is this really a make or break issue?!

There's also four gospels. Do I really care if Jesus said x in one and x' in another? What you need to show is that these difference are differences that matter.

Why should I care that the animals came before humankind in Genesis 1 but not in Genesis 2? ...

[benchwarmer]

a) The Bible has internal contradictions, some important, some minor.
b) The Bible sometimes contradicts what we know about science.

I would like to see real examples of a and b cases.

a) Two differing creation stories.
b) The earth is spherical.

I'm sure you folks know your bible well enough to know which passages I'm referring to (they've been mentioned multiple times recently in other threads).

I've researched that and they're fine. Just google and answers are there. What else? I doubt even you consider them as strong arguments?

I'm not trying to make a 'strong argument' for anything other than answering 1213's call for examples. I gave two, there are many more.

I'm not sure what you mean by the examples I gave as 'fine'. Do you mean you agree or disagree? Simply googling gets one both sides of the argument (and many more examples). If we are going to argue via google we'll get even less far that we usually do in these discussions.

Maybe another way to look at this is why are there even apparent contradictions (if one does not believe they are outright contradictions) in the word of God? Wouldn't one assume that the word of God would be clear and concise? If one is to blame the scribes here instead of God, then one is still agreeing that what is written has issues. If what is written has issues, how are we supposed to know what to believe? How do we figure out what is from God and what is 'scribal/translation/copying/etc error' ?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 12 by theophile]

Yes, these contradictions are make-or-break issues. They address the inerrancy theory of Scripture and seriously challenge it. Why should you care about the order of creation in Genesis? Because that is a major part of the story line. Furthermore, the fact we are dealing with two very different stories, form two different scribes, at different times, tells us much about the authorship composition of Scripture. For example, it seriously challenges the long-held dogma of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 14 by hoghead1]

They address the inerrancy theory of Scripture and seriously challenge it.

That's something I would challenge myself. Scripture is an artifact. Like any artifact, there is no way it could perfectly capture or convey truth. Or be without error. Or be impossible to improve upon.

If we ascribe irerrancy to the bible we might as well practice idolatry. We'd practically be there.

Why should you care about the order of creation in Genesis? Because that is a major part of the story line.

That's not telling me why this is a difference that matters. Does it somehow change biblical teaching on God? Or our role or place as human beings? Or the nature of good and evil? ... These would be differences that matter.

Furthermore, the fact we are dealing with two very different stories, form two different scribes, at different times, tells us much about the authorship composition of Scripture. For example, it seriously challenges the long-held dogma of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

Again, something I would challenge myself and not something that compromises biblical teaching so far as I can tell. This "dogma" is not expressed in the bible is it? I could be wrong but I don't think it is... Thus I fail to see how this fact compromises the bible.

I fully accept that scripture had multiple human authors, was written over a broad timeline, redacted, modified, iterated on, etc, etc.

I don't see how this complex human origin of scripture somehow means that the God revealed by the bible is any less belief-worthy. Or how it compromises our role and place as human beings. Or how it means anything else of significance other than what we've already accepted: it is a human artifact. It likely has errors. We need to approach it carefully, and with discerning minds.

Yes, these contradictions are make-or-break issues.

I'm still not seeing any differences that matter.

Tell me what the order of creation really changes from Gen 1 to Gen 2 other than the story line, which doesn't really tell me anything (unless I think the bible is relating history, which I don't think it is - it is more a treatise on philosophy, economics, politics, morality, etc, etc., and uses story or pseudo-history as its main device).

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 11 by hoghead1]

Genesis gives two highly contradictory accounts of creation. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together. in Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. Of course, you can find online any one of a number of sites run by self-styled apologists who quickly try and sweep all these contradictions away, but solutions all prove bogus in the end.

Clearly the theology of the Hebrew imagination was not to be constrained by such trifling details as the order of creation. I'm certainly not bothered and see no need to explain the differences away. The two stories are simply different. Equally revealing of God; mutually informative.

So you agree there are different creation stories that have details in a different order. We call this a contradiction. We were asked if there are any contradictions. An example was given.

I'm not sure how two obviously different stories about how God created the world are 'equally revealing'. Do you mean God is supposed to be confusing or unclear? That's what these stories are.

How are they 'mutually informative'? What information can we take away? That neither scribe really knows what happened? One of them was wrong? Both of them were maybe wrong if one of them was?

At best it seems we can only glean what ancient cultures thought about the beginning of the universe. Clearly it's not what God may have actually done or the stories would line up.

I'm with JBS. Is this really a make or break issue?!

Make or break for what? For Biblical inerrancy? Most definitely a deal breaker for that. For learning about ancient cultures? No, not a deal breaker for that. It's a great snap shot in time of what these people thought.

There's also four gospels. Do I really care if Jesus said x in one and x' in another? What you need to show is that these difference are differences that matter.

Well, different things matter to different people. If we are told the Bible is infallible/inerrant/the word of God/etc then we expect everything to line up. When we see things that reveal these properties of the Bible to not be the case, it all falls apart.

Does that mean we toss the Bible out completely? Of course not. It's a great anthology of religious material that is useful for understanding our ancestor's cultures.

Why should I care that the animals came before humankind in Genesis 1 but not in Genesis 2? ...

If you don't subscribe to Biblical innerrancy then you shouldn't care. If you don't believe either story then it doesn't matter. However, some on this forum believe these stories are 100% true and exact descriptions of what happened. Those are the people we are trying to address with these examples. They think everything lines up and there are no issues. We point out the issues and they dance around them.

[Cephus]

YES I make claims I can't prove but I believe in dialectical conversation as being more useful than debate stifled by the rules of debate which are so obviously weighted in favour of secular materialism - which are also ignored by the secular side who make claims about GOD which can't be proven.

But you still have to follow the rules or leave. Those are your choices. And since the rules were set up by the religious owner of the site, I don't think your arguments make any sense.

I have experienced the GOD who wrote the bible and I'm faithful in relaying what He told me it meant to HIM. If HE is false GOD, so be it.

You believe you have. You have no evidence that you have. You have no rational reason to think that you have. But apparently, wishful thinking means more to you than reality.

And I don't care if this is not demonstrable to you - I live by faith, not by sight/proof. Now if you want to demonstrate that the Bible is not the word of GOD then I will listen but your unwillingness to demonstrate this is not meaningful to me except as a debate tactic.

And this is why debating theists is pointless, because their irrational wishful thinking means more to them than demonstrable reality.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 16 by benchwarmer]

Make or break for what? For Biblical inerrancy? Most definitely a deal breaker for that. For learning about ancient cultures? No, not a deal breaker for that. It's a great snap shot in time of what these people thought.

I am responding most to this ask of the OP:

"And finally, if the Bible is less than perfect, does that mean it is useless as a source of life-guidance or as a source of Spiritual inspiration?"

I'm trying to determine how these things, which we agree on, make a difference that really matters in regards to this.

I'm not sure how two obviously different stories about how God created the world are 'equally revealing'. Do you mean God is supposed to be confusing or unclear? That's what these stories are.

I think they are equally revealing of God. "Equal" might be too strong a word, granted.

How are they 'mutually informative'? What information can we take away? That neither scribe really knows what happened? One of them was wrong? Both of them were maybe wrong if one of them was?

For one, they mutually inform us on the nature of the Godhead. And on the way that we are called to. And how we fall from this way.

As per Gen 1, God is imaged by "male and female."

Gen 2 informs this through a further articulation of what it means to be man and woman: married, united, partnering, helping...

Bringing this learning from Gen 2 back to Gen 1, we learn that God has a plurality at God's core that resembles a partnership, which sheds light on the "us" (i.e., the "Let us...") of Gen 1: we must read this as a plurality working together in a similar way as man and woman work together, i.e., the nature of God is expressed as differences coming together and acting as one.

This also informs our role as human beings, since we see that to truly image God, as per Gen 1, it is only as man and woman that we can do so. i.e., only as differences coming together and acting as one. This means we cannot image God working on our own, but only in partnership with each other, helping each other. That is the way that we are called to.

We also see this way fall apart by the end of Gen 3, when the relationship between man and woman becomes corrupted, and man takes control of woman (no longer working in partnership with her, but objectifying her).

Thus Gen 1 informs a reading of Gen 3 as the deterioration of this God-imaging relationship through the fear that knowledge of evil causes us to feel (if we're not ready for it), and the barriers that we setup to protect ourselves from evil (but that only alienate us from each other, and break up our partnerships).

See? Mutually informative.

[Danmark]

Some people refuse to entertain the notion that there could be a contradiction within the Christian scriptures. Others are so desperate in their opposition to Christianity that they will cling the slightest glimmer of inconsistency....

This sets up a false dichotomy. There are also people who simply want to find the truth. Some of them believe they've found it in the Bible. Some understand the Bible to be full of symbolic language and myths that were never intended to reflect historical or scientific fact.
Still others see the many stories and claims of the Bible and understand they conflict dramatically with the sciences and with history; that the claims of talking snakes and donkeys and the Sun standing still and the multitude of contradictory accounts of the resurrection are just that: error and contradiction.

It is a false dichotomy to suggest that anyone who sees error and inconsistency in the Bible are "so desperate in their opposition to Christianity that they will cling the slightest glimmer of inconsistency...."

[Zzyzx]

.
Moderator Intervention

YES I make claims I can't prove but I believe in dialectical conversation as being more useful than debate

Notice that the site is a DEBATE site (the first word in its title is 'debating') and the C&A sub-forum is a DEBATE sub-forum. Those who wish to conduct 'dialectical conversation' are welcome to do so ELSEWHERE.

stifled by the rules of debate which are so obviously weighted in favour of secular materialism -

The rules of debate are 'weighted in favor' of those who can present sound arguments supported by verifiable evidence REGARDLESS of theistic position. The site is owned and administered by a devout Christian.

Those who do not fare well in debate often attempt to blame anyone other than themselves.

Those who feel 'stifled by the rules of debate' may be more comfortable in a non-debate environment.

which are also ignored by the secular side who make claims about GOD which can't be proven.

Forum Rules and Guidelines apply to ALL members equally.

I have experienced the GOD who wrote the bible and I'm faithful in relaying what He told me it meant to HIM. If HE is false GOD, so be it.

Claims of personal God experiences and 'God told me' are not appropriate in debate.

And I don't care if this is not demonstrable to you - I live by faith, not by sight/proof. Now if you want to demonstrate that the Bible is not the word of GOD then I will listen but your unwillingness to demonstrate this is not meaningful to me except as a debate tactic.

In honorable and reasoned debate one does NOT ask that claims be disproved. That is an example of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Argument from Ignorance – Google if unfamiliar)

Kindly review Rules and C&A Guidelines

______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.