The Bible is not inerrant

[micatala]

Again, because of repeated assertions made in other threads that the Bible is inerrant, and because these assertions are not on topic within the threads in which they are being made, I am creating yet another Biblical contradiction thread but focused on just one contradiction.

For now, I will refer to it as an alleged contradiction, giving inerrantists a shot at addressing it.

Yes, there are other contradiction threads, and the issue has been long debated with many alleged contradictions being offered. There is disagreement on whether they have all been addressed adequately or not. While I have not gone through all the other threads to see if this one has been addressed, I think it is worth debating on its own (possibly again).

Question for debate:

Do the various passages within the Bible on divorce and remarriage constitute a self-contradiction, thereby showing the Bible is not inerrant?

Matthew in chapter 5 wrote:
31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[f] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Deuteronomy chapter 24 wrote:
1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Note that "indecent" in the passage above cannot mean the same as adulterous, otherwise the appropriate course of action would be to stone the woman.

Furthermore, in Matthew chapter 19 we have.

Quote:
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Deuteronomy allows divorce and remarriage for reasons other than infidelity. So does Leviticus.

Chapter 21 wrote:
7 " 'They must not marry women defiled by prostitution or divorced from their husbands, because priests are holy to their God. 8 Regard them as holy, because they offer up the food of your God. Consider them holy, because I the LORD am holy—I who make you holy.

Priests cannot marry a divorced woman, but this is special for priests. Obviously it is OK for other men to marry a divorced woman.


Jesus says a man who divorces, except for infideltiy, cannot remarry without committing adultery. He also says a man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


How is this not a contradictory teaching?





Also, the passage in Matthew chapter 19 is often cited as teaching that the only allowable marriage is between one man and one woman. This is often used against gay marriage, but it also implies polygamy is not allowed.

However, polygamy clearly is allowed in other passages.

Paul in I Timothy Ch. 3 wrote:
2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,


Overseers should only have one wife. Clearly it is OK for others who are not overseers to have more than one wife.

If this is not a contradiction within the Bible, it is at least a contradiction in interpretation among those who say "one man - one woman" is the only allowable marriage based on Matthew.

Please restrict comments to the particular areas of divorce and remarriage. Other alleged contradictions should be dealt with in existing threads, or other new threads.

[Cathar1950]

Please, make your case on how the Gospel stories are 'preponderance of evidence'.

He can't. He just read that phrase 'preponderance of evidence' in some apology book or on some site and thought it sounded cool.

That's pretty comical coming from someone who comes up with a wild new theory on Biblical events almost every night.

Mark, the source of two gospel meant to replace it didn't mention the resserection in the early manuscripts.

There it is - the latest unsupported theory / claim.

"He is risen!" - Mark 16:6 - as found in the earliest manuscripts. It's Mark 16:9-20 that isn't in the earliest manuscripts.

Also you have no copies of copies the predate the second century and the Magdalen Papyrus doesn't count as you have the opinion of one crackpot that is not only suspect but questionable as it is on codex.

Scholars date the New Testament

http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT.htm

Even if they all agree on a resurrection or the details (which they don't) it is still an orthodox selection....

Harmony of the Gospel Accounts

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/ ... onize.html

An "orthodox selection?" As opposed to a gaggle of "historical revisionists" selection"?

I think we have heard enough of your nonsense.

You're the one going down in flames here, Cathar, not me.

I think the only thing getting stroked around here is on your part and so far your opinion seems not only irrelevent but akin to nonsense.

Nonsense. Try again?

Can you show me these wild new theories I come up with every night?
I have hardly mentioned one idea that has not been out there for awhile.

He has risen can have a lot of meanings and there are those that can argue persuasively that risen could also mean that he was elevated to the right hand of God and had nothing to do with a resurrection of his body. Even Paul make reference to the flesh not being able to inherit the kingdom.
For Paul Jesus was transformed into the Christ and make no mention of a body being resurrected. That comes later in the Gentile Gospels along with ideas of divinity. Are you going to address anything but your nonsense accusation and claims? I didn't say anyone was going down in flames and you seem hardly qualified to say so about anyone else.
You just keep digging the same hole and now I am waiting for you to cover yourself up with the dirt you keep tossing.
Do you think you cvan answer the OP or are you just going to sit there and tell us your unsupported opinions of the nature of the bible and its stories?
Can't you find a site that claims the same thing you believe that has addressed the issue so you know what to say?

[Easyrider]

Can you show me these wild new theories I come up with every night?

Stay tuned.

He has risen can have a lot of meanings and there are those that can argue persuasively that risen could also mean that he was elevated to the right hand of God and had nothing to do with a resurrection of his body.

Did the rest of the passage seem ambiguous? "He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "

Even Paul make reference to the flesh not being able to inherit the kingdom.

Jesus could also be "spirit" when he wanted to, after the resurrection - suddenly "appearing" in the midst of the disciples. No doubt that's what occurred on his way "up."

For Paul Jesus was transformed into the Christ and make no mention of a body being resurrected. That comes later in the Gentile Gospels along with ideas of divinity.

Your theory (Here it is, the daily theory) has one major, glaring flaw - that being a grand assumption on your part that just because a Gospel or three may have been written "after" Paul, that that means the events and teachings of Jesus in the Gospels could not have legitimately occurred before Paul. That's like saying a legitimate 9/11 eyewitness account in a book written this year had to have been based on some other previous work rather than the actual events themselves.

Are you going to address anything but your nonsense accusation and claims? I didn't say anyone was going down in flames and you seem hardly qualified to say so about anyone else.

You're not doing too well again today, Cathar.

Try again?

[Cathar1950]

Can you show me these wild new theories I come up with every night?

Stay tuned.

He has risen can have a lot of meanings and there are those that can argue persuasively that risen could also mean that he was elevated to the right hand of God and had nothing to do with a resurrection of his body.

Did the rest of the passage seem ambiguous? "He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "

Even Paul make reference to the flesh not being able to inherit the kingdom.

Jesus could also be "spirit" when he wanted to, after the resurrection - suddenly "appearing" in the midst of the disciples. No doubt that's what occurred on his way "up."

For Paul Jesus was transformed into the Christ and make no mention of a body being resurrected. That comes later in the Gentile Gospels along with ideas of divinity.

Your theory (Here it is, the daily theory) has one major, glaring flaw - that being a grand assumption on your part that just because a Gospel or three may have been written "after" Paul, that that means the events and teachings of Jesus in the Gospels could not have legitimately occurred before Paul. That's like saying a legitimate 9/11 eyewitness account in a book written this year had to have been based on some other previous work rather than the actual events themselves.

Are you going to address anything but your nonsense accusation and claims? I didn't say anyone was going down in flames and you seem hardly qualified to say so about anyone else.

You're not doing too well again today, Cathar.

Try again?

I think most have tuned you out but I am still waiting.
Don't you think he is not here is rather ambiguous?
Given they told no one is even less convincing in the others gospel as well as bing at odds with their stories. You seem to have many "glaring" flaws and one of them is that because something was written it happened. That's like saying a legitimate 9/11 eyewitness account in a book written "any" year had to have been based on some eyewittness because you say so even if they were not there and say so.
You seem to be doing poorly again and haven't a clue to what I think or anyone else.

[micatala]

Can you show me these wild new theories I come up with every night?

Stay tuned.

He has risen can have a lot of meanings and there are those that can argue persuasively that risen could also mean that he was elevated to the right hand of God and had nothing to do with a resurrection of his body.

Did the rest of the passage seem ambiguous? "He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "

Even Paul make reference to the flesh not being able to inherit the kingdom.

Jesus could also be "spirit" when he wanted to, after the resurrection - suddenly "appearing" in the midst of the disciples. No doubt that's what occurred on his way "up."

For Paul Jesus was transformed into the Christ and make no mention of a body being resurrected. That comes later in the Gentile Gospels along with ideas of divinity.

Your theory (Here it is, the daily theory) has one major, glaring flaw - that being a grand assumption on your part that just because a Gospel or three may have been written "after" Paul, that that means the events and teachings of Jesus in the Gospels could not have legitimately occurred before Paul. That's like saying a legitimate 9/11 eyewitness account in a book written this year had to have been based on some other previous work rather than the actual events themselves.

Are you going to address anything but your nonsense accusation and claims? I didn't say anyone was going down in flames and you seem hardly qualified to say so about anyone else.

You're not doing too well again today, Cathar.

Try again?

I think most have tuned you out but I am still waiting.
Don't you think he is not here is rather ambiguous?
Given they told no one is even less convincing in the others gospel as well as bing at odds with their stories. You seem to have many "glaring" flaws and one of them is that because something was written it happened. That's like saying a legitimate 9/11 eyewitness account in a book written "any" year had to have been based on some eyewittness because you say so even if they were not there and say so.
You seem to be doing poorly again and haven't a clue to what I think or anyone else.

Just a reminder to stay on topic. The topic is not the general reliability of the gospel accounts, or how or when they were written. Let's stick to examples of Biblical teachings on divorce and remarriage.

[Flail]

Adultery re divorce would be just another sin would it not or are sins ranked?(homosexuality being near the top as I understand it here)...and sins are forgiven are they not? Jesus said to the self-righteous who thought they were above sin, that even the 'thought' of sinful conduct is sin....so we can't escape it.....I think his point was that we should get over our judgements....if God forgives us for being human, why can't we forgive each other?

The same as with murder,adultery or homosexuality, I think that God wants our repentance and our effort to do what is right....but mostly He wants our love of one another despite our differences and our judgements....see 'Ghandi'....

Does a Priest who vows a life of celibacy commit an unnatural act?....Does the Priest commit adultery after marrying the church when he rapes a child and breaks his vow of marriage to the church?....or can one have sex with another and not commit adultery? If a married man has sex with a boy, is this just rape or also adultery?

[micatala]

Adultery re divorce would be just another sin would it not or are sins ranked?(homosexuality being near the top as I understand it here)...and sins are forgiven are they not? Jesus said to the self-righteous who thought they were above sin, that even the 'thought' of sinful conduct is sin....so we can't escape it.....I think his point was that we should get over our judgements....if God forgives us for being human, why can't we forgive each other?

I am largely in agreement. I don't know that the Bible supports any sort of 'ranking of sins.' However, that is for another thread. The point the OP is making is that Jesus teaches one thing about divorce and remarriage, and the OT teaches another. If the Bible is inerrant, there cannot be such an internal inconsistency.

The challenge is for those that believe in Biblical inerrancy to explain this, if possible, or accept that the Bible is not inerrant.

The same as with murder,adultery or homosexuality, I think that God wants our repentance and our effort to do what is right....but mostly He wants our love of one another despite our differences and our judgements....see 'Ghandi'....

Again, I am largely in agreement. We should always do our best to love one another.

[micatala]

As claims continue to be made without evidence that the Bible is inerrant, I again bring this thread into view.

THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE MEANS THAT SCRIPTURE IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS DOES NOT AFFIRM ANYTHING THAT IS CONTRARY TO FACT.
I believe I posed this challenge before!
Got anything?

Biker has repeatedly been presented with not only the examples discussed in this thread, but also others. His response is:

Micatala,
Don't get your panties in a bunch, because I won't come over to your little thread about inerrancy, I see people are avoiding it like the plague, as do I!
If and when I want to debate a topic, I will, when I get ready to, so debate by yourself over there in the mean time!

Certainly Biker is free to participate or not participate in any threads as he sees fit. However, by continuing to make bald assertions on the inerrancy of the Bible without evidence and then avoiding debate on that specific topic or arbitrarily dismissing evidence against his position, Biker is, in my view, only serving to illustrate the weakeness and irrationality of his position.

[Cathar1950]

I see people are avoiding it like the plague

Another false statement. If anything it is those that make such claims are the ones avoiding this thread.
Biker is not the only one making the claim. It has been made and unsupported by others. Like his above statement it is nothing more then rhetoric and serves to divert any rational approach to debate or discussion. Not only does it "illustrate the weakness and irrationality of his position", but it also lowers the quality of the debates. The claim also fails to account for their interpretation and limits of their knowledge. How do human know something is inerrant?
Of course many fall back on some notions of the "Holy Spirit" that tells the all things which can hardly be distinguished from a personal or social form of Gnosticism where secret or revealed knowledge is just becomes another unsupported claim often used with further biblical reference. Stating that they just believe without any reasons would be more honest and less circular.
It is the insistence that the mystical be real for others and even be obeyed according to their interpretation that should make us wide-eyed and uncomfortable with apprehension.
The claim also ignores scholarship and studies that do a excellent job of explaining the writings history development and collection where extant manuscripts witness against the position.
What we see is a constant creation of new material added to the writings as they try to reconcile clear problems. It should not surprise us as much of the writings were created in such a fashion. We seem competing ideas interpretations and stories in the collection of writings and their development or evolution. The Shiloh Priest verses the Jerusalem Priest are just some of the varieties of interpretations and traditions involved where either the writings are human or God is a mad man and confused where prophet against prophet is also evident and often denied or overlooked.

[micatala]

I see people are avoiding it like the plague

Another false statement. If anything it is those that make such claims are the ones avoiding this thread.

Actually, we must admit that Biker is correct in asserting people are avoiding the thread. The motivation for this avoidance is certainly open to question.

Biker is not the only one making the claim. It has been made and unsupported by others. Like his above statement it is nothing more then rhetoric and serves to divert any rational approach to debate or discussion.

It does seem to be more of a rhetorical device, or even just a statement of opinion. Certainly it seems to me to be unsupported. Claims of inerrancy are often argued on the basis of:

1. A simple blind faith. The Bible is inerrant and that is what I believe.
2. Extensive reinterpretation of the text.

Reinterpretations are often, in my view, so implausible as to stretch the text to the breaking point.

The claim also ignores scholarship and studies that do a excellent job of explaining the writings history development and collection where extant manuscripts witness against the position.

I would certainly agree. In addition, the positive case for inerrancy seems to me to be quite lacking. Other than the negative argument claims that 'no errors have been found' what reason is there to suggest the Bible should be inerrant in the first place?

[Cathar1950]

At least two of us agree and I do believe there are others.
You are right we can only guess there motives despite what they say.

I think you are on to something here:

I would certainly agree. In addition, the positive case for inerrancy seems to me to be quite lacking. Other than the negative argument claims that 'no errors have been found' what reason is there to suggest the Bible should be inerrant in the first place?

It is a good question.
It seems an odd thing to to believe.
Given all the cultures, ideas,writings in history and their context, it does seem like even a special case would not make sense.
It glosses over interpretations and numerous other factors.
Your question is almost understated. Especially considering many use the defence of the "Spirit" to cover their bases. It almost seems trivial and redundant.
Good question indeed.

Other than the negative argument claims that 'no errors have been found' what reason is there to suggest the Bible should be inerrant in the first place?