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?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 38 by hoghead1]



[center]
Not that I'm putting other people down and blowing my own horn, BUT....
Part One: Humility[/center]

I also have few problems with fundamentalists. Usually, once they find out I'm a scholar and can really come back at them, they simply avoid me like the plague. That's why I wasn't particularly surprised when several JW's here told me they no longer wanted to talk with me. I think the JW's and other door-to-door religious solicitors have a hex sign on my house or something. They knock and the door, I invite them in for a discussion, really pout the question to them, and then they never come back, never. I am concerned about the churches. Too often, they forget about education and allow themselves to collapse into glorified social clubs, where theology and biblical studies are the last things on their minds. However, currently I am affiliated with a church which wants to upgrade theological education and invited me to write a monthly column for their newsletter.

Yeah, all of those OTHER religions are so bad, aren't they?
It's great that we have you here, though, I can always use an upgrade to my theological education. I'll be looking forward to that.

[Zzyzx]

.

I also have few problems with fundamentalists. Usually, once they find out I'm a scholar and can really come back at them, they simply avoid me like the plague. That's why I wasn't particularly surprised when several JW's here told me they no longer wanted to talk with me.

It must be frustrating for amateur solicitors (or debaters) to encounter a 'real live' religious scholar that they cannot 'baffle with baloney'.

I think the JW's and other door-to-door religious solicitors have a hex sign on my house or something. They knock and the door, I invite them in for a discussion, really pout the question to them, and then they never come back, never.

I'd like to watch that in action. It has been years since I discussed religion with the door-to-door proselytizers.

I am concerned about the churches. Too often, they forget about education and allow themselves to collapse into glorified social clubs, where theology and biblical studies are the last things on their minds. However, currently I am affiliated with a church which wants to upgrade theological education and invited me to write a monthly column for their newsletter.

That must be a rather unusual church group. Can they tolerate / accept discussion of such things as Bible Errors or Questionable authorship of Gospels or Authentic history of Christianity?

You could post those monthly columns here in Member Notes. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... m.php?f=72

[Elijah John]

Just note your language: 'sweep it away', 'dance all over'. Language is our only access to learning and if we mentally block ourselves by locking our mind down then we will only ever learn what we want to. Most contradictions in the bible aren't and are also well known and were found by Christians to begin with.

You're claiming here that skeptics are suffering from confirmation bias. One can easily make that argument towards us believers as well. Neither side is totally objective.

Personally, I was not looking for error when I had a growing sense descreprancy between the Gospel of John vs. the Synoptics, and the letters of Paul vs. the Synoptics.

I was doing my devotional reading one day and I happened upon a verse that shattered my faith in Bibilcal inerrancy, and in the Divinity of Jesus. I wasn't looking for it, but I found it.

What's a real Bible error? Or what other favourites do people have?

I agree, that people can be too "nit-picky" when highlighting Biblical errors. But here are two major ones, if you want to include failed prophecies as error.

The verse I alluded to above is Matthew 16.27,28. I read that as a failed prophecy, indicating that either Jesus or the Bible is not perfect.

Another major internal, theological contradiction/error is between Luke and the author of Hebrews.

The author of Hebrews asserts that "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins." and yet Luke has John the Baptist performing "baptisms of repentance for the forgiveness of sins"..This was forgiveness subversively offered outside of the Temple authority. No blood involved, just water and repentance..

[sawthelight]

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?

My question is, what makes someone believe in the bible over any other religious texts?

Why not believe Vedas as the true holy book? How about Budda's teachings?

What gives the bible any right to trump over any other holy book? Just because your pastor or local area says so? Is that fair to others or yourself to make such a claim without investigating?

Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' (Matthew 22:37)

I'm certain Jesus (supposedly god) is saying here to truly be convinced with all your mind that his is the right religion. Being convinced with your mind means to learn. So it seems even Jesus wants you to investigate and find out if it all makes sense to follow him and god.

Does it make sense that god is perfect but his book isn't? How can your mind accept such a god willingly?

Isn't the reason why people chose the bible is because it's supposed to be perfect without error like their god?

I too think that the bible has to be perfect and flawless to be claimed as the true word of god, otherwise it is just another man-made religion with a flawed god unfortunately.

[JehovahsWitness]

The verse I alluded to above is Matthew 16.27,28. I read that as a failed prophecy, indicating that either Jesus or the Bible is not perfect.

It's a shame you came to that conclusion.

Mark 9:1 And he said to them, Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.

Matthew 16: 27, 28 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Fathers glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Luke 9: 27 Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.

QUESTION: Did Jesus indicate that his first century disciples would see him returned in Kingdom power? (Mark 9:1; Matthew 16: 27, 28; Luke 9: 27)

ANSWER: No, not literally. firstly, note Jesus said "some" of those present would see him in kingdom power. If he was speaking of his literal return to take full control of the earth ALL would see this event, both wicked and good. Jesus was speaking in the presence of his faithful disciples, so there would have been no reason to say "some" and not "all", we can conclude therefore he was speaking of another event.

Furthermore, note that Jesus' emphasis was on those present would "see" not necessarily what would happen. For example: one can today "see" Elvis, although he is in fact long dead and a vision of the future could, in theory enable someone to "see" a winning lottery ticket even if it hasn't yet been chosen. In a similar way, Jesus was promising his disciples they would "see" something quite magnificent but not that that magnificent event would literally be happening when they see it.

Indeed, what Jesus promising was that they would "see" him in his kingdom glory, something which they did indeed witnesses in a vision a week later; This event is often referred to as "the transfiguration"

The bible writer Luke, links Jesus' words above with the transfiguration, explaining: "In fact, about eight days after saying these words, he [Jesus] took Peter, John, and James along and climbed up the mountain to pray. And as he was praying, the appearance of his face changed and his clothing became glitteringly white." - Luke 9: 28, 29. So Luke equates the fullfillment of Jesus words to this event.

Further, The Apostle Peter (one of those present) also viewed the transfiguration as a fullfilment of Jesus promise above. Refering to the same event Peter writes: "we were eyewitnesses of his magnificence. For he received from God the Father honor and glory when words such as these were conveyed to him by the magnificent glory: This is my Son, my beloved, whom I myself have approved. Yes, these words we heard coming from heaven while we were with him in the holy mountain" The apostle John may also have alluded to the transfiguration at John 1:14.


Note: Christ "coming" is not to be confused with the "Parousia" or his presence [Mat 24:3]



QUESTION: But did not Jesus say in that verse (27) that he would "repay everyone" in the lifetime of any of his listeners?

No he did not. Neither did he imply it. A careful reading of the verse reveals that the only thing he promised those "standing with him" in the first century was they would see "the son of man coming in his kingdom" no more.

MATTHEW 16: 27, 28
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Fathers glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... w+16:27-28

In the above verses we see Jesus make a prediction (prophecy) in verse 27 and a promise (v 28). The prophecy has two features (a) and (b)...

v 27: (a) 'the son of man [coming]" followed by (b) reward for "each person" / "everyone" (JB) according or their deeds (other bibles render the same idea he will "judge all people" (NLT).

Jesus then goes on to make a second promise something specifically to those standing with them, ie

v 28: Some standing with him (Jesus) would not die before the would "see" - NOT the judgement of everyone (b) but only the "Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (a). What he would do after he came (ie Judge all mankind) they were not promised to "see".

To illustrate: A father explains that the following week there will be a transmission of the Superbowl (sports event) and adds and then there will be a movie. The father then says the following "Truly my son, you will be permitted to see the "the superbowl". Can the son complain that his father broke his promise to let him watch the late night movie that was AFTER the superbowl?

In a similar way, a careful reading of the text shows Jesus' disciples should not have expected to see anything more than what was promised ie "the son of man coming" and certainly there is no reason to conclude that Jesus promised first century disciples would see the final judgement of mankind or that that promise "failed".

Further reading
http://m.wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102013268#h=24





OBJECTION: But did not Jesus mention the global judgement and the coming of the kingdom in the same paragraph? Can we not conclude "same paragraph, same subject"

This is not only nonsense logic, it is grammatically faulty nonsense logic. Firstly the bible text wasn't originally broken into paragraphs, the paragraphs (like the punctuation) we see in our English bibles remains at the discretion of the individual translator. Further that two elements appear together doesn't mean both are necessarily the object of a given verb; their proximity may be indicative (depending on the structure of the language) but it is the grammatical rules that govern the language that determines the object of a verb not the placement.

To illustrate: I intend to kick my dog and then make love to my wife. Truly I tell you, posters in this forum, you will not die before you see me do the kicking. Does that fact that the kicking of the dog and the making love to the wife are two connected events (in the same line/paragraph) mean you have been promised to see both?

In a similar way, Jesus mentioned two connected events together but only one of those was the object of his promise.

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

The author of Hebrews asserts that "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins." and yet Luke has John the Baptist performing "baptisms of repentance for the forgiveness of sins".This was forgiveness subversively offered outside of the Temple authority. No blood involved, just water and repentance.

QUESTION: Does Luke imply that the water of John's baptism had the atoning properties attributed to blood sacrifice?

No, this would be an inaccurate reading of the expression used in Luke 3:3 which reads

"And he [John] went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." ESV (also see Matthew 3:1-11; Mark 1:4-6)

Notice the baptism itself was "of" or a symbol/sign of repentance. The Jews had strayed from adherence to the law and John was calling for them to recognize this and be baptized as an outward sign or symbol that they sincerely regretted their wayward course. They were to undergo this "Baptism of Repentance" ... for ---> the forgiveness of sins. Referring to Strong's Greek Concordance we find the word translated into the English "for" (Gr eis) has a very wide variety of meanings, including

(figuratively) purpose (result, etc.);..., for (intent, purpose), ... to the intent that, ... (so) that

So the baptism of John, rather than being the end was the means to the end, the step or the first part of the process with the "intent that" or "result" that sins (eventually) be forgiven it the fullest sense, through the Messiahs blood sacrifice. This is completely in line with John's role as a Prophet sent to "prepare the way" so that "all flesh will see the saving means of God" (see Luke 3:5, 6).

To illustrate: If a parent tells their child "get a good education so that/for/ to the intent that... you can get a good job. This does not mean that school will give them a good job, only that their education will eventually lead to that good job.

In a similar way the water of John's baptism did not atone for or wash away sins neither did his baptism exist in opposition to the temple arrangement, but rather was the first step for sincere Jews to come to the atoning sacrifice of their Messiah.

Thus various commentators present the following explanations:

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible: ... not for the obtaining the remission of sins, as if either repentance, or baptism, were the causes of pardon of sin; but the sense is, that John preached that men should repent of their sins, and believe in Christ, who was to come; and upon their repentance and faith, be baptized; in which ordinance, they might be led to a fresh view of the free and full forgiveness of their sins, through Christ; whose blood was to be shed for many, to obtain it: see Acts 2:38

Pulpit Commentary: The baptism of John was the profession of their penitence. Hence they who were baptized with his baptism confessed their sins, and thus made the first step towards the forgiving mercy which was to be found in Christ;

Insight on the Scriptures, Vol I p. 249 The baptism did not wash away their sins, but the repentance [...] The baptism performed by John was therefore not a special cleansing from God through his servant John, but a public demonstration and symbol of the individuals repentance over his sins against the Law, which was to lead them to Christ. (Ga 3:24)

JW

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 45 by JehovahsWitness]




[center]
I seen him, I seen him !!
Part One: Oh, it was just a guy with long hair.[/center]

The verse I alluded to above is Matthew 16.27,28. I read that as a failed prophecy, indicating that either Jesus or the Bible is not perfect.

It's a shame you came to that conclusion.

It's a shame that you didn't.

_______________


Blastcat 16:27-28 New Blasctat Version (NBV)

"Truly I tell you, all of whom were standing there tasted death before they got to see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

________________

And we aint seen him yet.

[1213]

No real proof that the earth rotates around the sun? Are you kidding me?

So it would seem, but everyone who studies the matter can found that there is no real proof for earth rotating around the sun. At least if proof is defined as scientific proof. There is evidence, but the evidence can also mean that sun rotates around the earth.

I have no problem in accepting that earth rotates around the sun. But I have problem in founding any real proof for it. All that I have is things that can be explained easily by other way and so the explanations are not any proof. And unfortunately for the rotate-earth people, Airy failed when he tried to actually prove the matter.

Also, interestingly Wikipedia says:
While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media, many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory,".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

There are at least 75 biblical passages (e.g., Isa. 40) that affirm the earth is flat

Please show the best passage?

God could have created animals before he created the animals? That doesn't even begin to make sense. Gen. 1 says god created all the animals before man. Gen. 2 clearly states God created all the animals after Adam. Either he created all the animals before Adam, or after. It can't be both. Hence, the contradiction.

Genesis speaks how Yahweh formed animals, not about creating animals. Also, Genesis 2 doesnt say God created all the animals after Adam. It just tells God formed certain animals to show to Adam, so that he could name them. It is only contradiction, if we accept your additions to the story, which in my opinion would be irrational. But obviously, anything can be made to look contradictory, if we can add own things to the story, so that it will look contradictory. I just dont understand why do that.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 42 by Zzyzx]

Liberal Christian groups have absolutely no trouble addressing those issues you spoke of. I am Presbyterian, PCUSA. However, I had friends in the local Unitarian church, so I have been going there. Unitarians are very flexible on doctrine, accept all religions, also gays, lesbians, and transgender people, as does the PCUSA. I would be open to publishing my weekly column here, but I'm not sure how we'd do that.

Yes, I can be frustrating dealing with fundamentalaistic groups, as they are very anti-intellectual, as I am sure you know. The minute they find out I'm a scholar, then denounce me to the lowest. That is especially of the JW's. But I'm ready for it. Occupational hazard.

[Zzyzx]

.

But you still have to follow the rules or leave. Those are your choices.

Moderator Comment

While your dedication to Forum Rules is admirable, kindly leave enforcement (and invitation to leave) to the Moderating Team.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.