On the Bible being inerrant.

[nobspeople]

I came across a post the other day as follows:
"My argument doesn’t rely on the Bible being inerrant."
It has meaning in the context of that discussion, of which I wasn't privy. But it got me thinking:

Does (or should, if you wish) a christian believe the bible is inerrant?

There seems to be a couple camps on the subject:
1) A christian should believe the bible is 100% true and accurate in every way
1a) This seems to indicate the bible was 'god written' (by whatever means you think necessary)
2) A christian should believe the bible is capable of being wrong or inaccurate
2a) This seems to indicate the bible may or may not have been 'god inspired'
2a1) To what extent is it god inspired and when do you know it is and when it isn't?
2b) To what percentage is the bible capable of being wrong or inaccurate?
3) A christian should be able to pick-n-choose their beliefs when they fit their chosen lifestyle agenda (this seems to be a popular choice for obvious reasons)

For discussion:
Do you believe the bible is infallible or not?
Why or why not?
How did you come to this belief?

NOTE: This should be about one's belief and why, not taken as a challenge to 'prove' the bible is or isn't correct and or devoid of errors, contradictions, lies or ½ truths.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to 1213 in post #9]

But, when I look at them, there is nothing that proves Bible wrong. If you disagree, please sow the worst case for the Bible.

Caveats need to be address here, first:
1) If god wrote or inspired the bible, I expect there to be no errors, omissions, contradictions, etc.
2) If god didn't write nor inspire the bible, I expect there to be some errors, omissions, contradictions, etc.
3) If #2 doesn't apply, then I'd expect god to have the foresight to know, any contradictions, errors, omissions, etc would plant doubt and challenge no only a believer's faith, but the chance of a non-believer accepting god via the bible.

That all said, I would expect the gospels to be tell the same, exact story, without interpretations, editorializations, personal bias, need to research the original language (a more modern-day problem, as not everyone has that ability), etc.

A little from what I've seen:
Mark has Simon and Andrew as the first disciples by the Sea of Galilee (Mark 1: 16-20). Matthew has Peter in place of Simon, Luke has solely Peter. Lastly, John has Andrew telling Peter.

John’s Gospel omits a large amount of material found in the synoptic Gospels, including some surprisingly important episodes: the temptation of Jesus, Jesus’ transfiguration, and the institution of the Lord’s supper are not mentioned by John. John mentions no examples of Jesus casting out demons. The sermon on the mount and the Lord’s prayer are not found in the Fourth Gospel. There are no narrative parables in John’s Gospel (most scholars do not regard John 15:1-8 [“the Vine and the Branches”] as a parable in the strict sense).

According to John, Jesus’ public ministry extended over a period of at least three and possibly four years. During this time Jesus goes several times from Galilee to Jerusalem. The synoptics appear to describe only one journey of Jesus to Jerusalem (the final one), with most of Jesus’ ministry taking place within one year.

The list can, and does, continue but, as you said "...I thought it is not reasonable to take all the issues here, would be very, very long post."

In short, I see zero reason why god would allow the story of his life to be written, for prosperity and to further his cause, with the following 'issues' (my words):

Written from a different perspective
Need to 'understand' anything superlative (history, original language/text, etc)
Need to have 'experts' involved to study and then report 'Well, what was meant was...'

Each gospel should match the other in timeline, details, be devoid of omissions, etc.

But than again, I expect god to show himself to those who ask. That doesn't always happen either.
Missing information from one book to another

[1213]

… I would expect the gospels to be tell the same, exact story…

I don’t think there is any good reason to assume so, when they are basically like witness testimonies.

A little from what I've seen:
Mark has Simon and Andrew as the first disciples by the Sea of Galilee (Mark 1: 16-20). Matthew has Peter in place of Simon, Luke has solely Peter. ….

I think it would be good to notice that Peter was called Simon Peter, he had at least two names, as many people have.

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Matt. 16:16

…Each gospel should match the other in timeline, details, be devoid of omissions, etc.

I think they match, even though they don’t have the exact same matters told. Each of them give small part of the whole image.

But than again, I expect god to show himself to those who ask. That doesn't always happen either.

Why do you expect that? I think God is no show dog that hops by commandments of men.

[1213]

….
I had it wrong, it's placing em in front of a water trough...

From Bible gateway.com

34 “Agreed,” said Laban. “Let it be as you have said.” 35 That same day he removed all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs, and he placed them in the care of his sons. 36 Then he put a three-day journey between himself and Jacob, while Jacob continued to tend the rest of Laban’s flocks.

37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.

Thanks. So, the story tells actually that the peeled sticks were on the drinking water of the animals. It would be interesting to test that and peel same sticks and look does it affect the colors of the animals that drink the water.

[1213]

…The "Jacob was also called Heli" sounds like blatant denial…

If the goal is to prove Bible wrong, we must consider that there are other possibilities also than what atheists require and hope. Bible shows that for example Peter had two names and his whole name was Simon Peter. It is possible that also Jacob had two names. I understand that you don’t want to believe that, and you don’t have to. But, if you are trying to prove Bible wrong, it requires more than wishful thinking from you. As long as the scriptures can in theory be without contradiction, it is possible that they are without contradiction.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to 1213 in post #32]

I don’t think there is any good reason to assume so, when they are basically like witness testimonies.

If the bible is a 'guide' to understand god, there's every reason to assume so. Even if they're witness testimonies, if god wanted them to tell its story correctly, one would think there would be no contradictions, errors, omissions, confusion caused by wordings or bias or individual agendas.
But that's not what we see.

I think they match, even though they don’t have the exact same matters told.

Then they don't match. I mean, really.

Each of them give small part of the whole image.

One would expect that from an imperfect being. That's not god (by popular definition anyway).

I'd suggest people stop excusing god for its lackluster (or total absence, as some claim) or influence over its story.

You're more than free to excuse your god for having a terrible editor, of course. That seems to be the MO of christians in general and should be expected when they need to contort things to fit their chosen lifestyle agenda.

But some of us have higher standards for a god.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to 1213 in post #34]

But, if you are trying to prove Bible wrong, it requires more than wishful thinking from you.

Likewise, if you're trying to prove the bible right, protect and excuse god, it requires more from you than "It is possible that also Jacob had two names."
Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

A long as the scriptures can in theory be without contradiction,

Excuse. The only reason one needs to theorize as you stated here, is to excuse god and make it make sense to your needs and wishes.

[JoeyKnothead]

….
I had it wrong, it's placing em in front of a water trough...

From Bible gateway.com

34 “Agreed,” said Laban. “Let it be as you have said.” 35 That same day he removed all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs, and he placed them in the care of his sons. 36 Then he put a three-day journey between himself and Jacob, while Jacob continued to tend the rest of Laban’s flocks.

37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.

Thanks. So, the story tells actually that the peeled sticks were on the drinking water of the animals. It would be interesting to test that and peel same sticks and look does it affect the colors of the animals that drink the water.

Interesting angle, I must say. There could well be an effect similar to how flamingos get their color. I had fixated on the "poking sticks in the ground (as I was told the story)" from a young age, and didn't register the effects that might occur with putting em in a trough. Notice I even still read it as placing in front, not in.

For those scoring at home that'll be point for 1213.

I'll be anursing this black eye

[benchwarmer]

…The "Jacob was also called Heli" sounds like blatant denial…

If the goal is to prove Bible wrong, we must consider that there are other possibilities also than what atheists require and hope. Bible shows that for example Peter had two names and his whole name was Simon Peter. It is possible that also Jacob had two names. I understand that you don’t want to believe that, and you don’t have to. But, if you are trying to prove Bible wrong, it requires more than wishful thinking from you. As long as the scriptures can in theory be without contradiction, it is possible that they are without contradiction.

I would be willing to entertain the possibility of the 'two name theory' if it made any sense whatsoever. The issue is, if you bother to actually read what's in the Bible, The number of names between matching portions of the geology also does NOT match. If the number were the same, there might be some small chance for the multiple name apology, however it doesn't wash.

From the chart I showed previously at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy ... enealogies

Count the names between the common section at the top (the one in green starting with Abraham and ending with David) and Joseph. One list has 25 names, the other has 40. Ooops!

What do you propose to do about the 15 missing people in a list that is supposed to be 'inerrant'? The best you can argue now is that one list is missing people. If the list is missing people it is in error. Plain and simple. It is also useless since an incomplete genealogical list does not actually show what it is trying to show. i.e. a direct line from Abraham to Jesus.

What's obvious to me is:

1) The author of Matthew may be correct and the author of Luke is wrong.
2) The author of Luke may be correct and the author of Matthew is wrong.
3) Neither is correct, they are both wrong.

My guess is (3), but would be charitable and go with (1) or (2) for the sake of debate. The problem would be determining which one is correct.

This might all seem like an innocuous detail, but it's actually very important (at least to the authors) in establishing Jesus as the one that was prophesied to come. If the genealogy is incorrect, then it's useless. If it's in contradiction with another 'inerrant' gospel, that spells trouble for inerrancy.

If some believers want to try to sweep it under the rug of 'different names and number of names' is the 'same thing', then good luck to them. I'm not buying it. I doubt many others will either after it's pointed out.

[nobspeople]

….
I had it wrong, it's placing em in front of a water trough...

From Bible gateway.com

34 “Agreed,” said Laban. “Let it be as you have said.” 35 That same day he removed all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs, and he placed them in the care of his sons. 36 Then he put a three-day journey between himself and Jacob, while Jacob continued to tend the rest of Laban’s flocks.

37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.

Thanks. So, the story tells actually that the peeled sticks were on the drinking water of the animals. It would be interesting to test that and peel same sticks and look does it affect the colors of the animals that drink the water.

Interesting angle, I must say. There could well be an effect similar to how flamingos get their color. I had fixated on the "poking sticks in the ground (as I was told the story)" from a young age, and didn't register the effects that might occur with putting em in a trough. Notice I even still read it as placing in front, not in.

For those scoring at home that'll be point for 1213.

I'll be anursing this black eye

I think the way that story is read and understood is the issue. There's genetics at play here (as well as knowledge any good shepherd of any length of time would have), not simply 'god did it', which is what some fall back on.

Overall, this isn't a full fledged 'the bible is wrong' as much as it is 'the bible misrepresented itself' (seemingly omitting the passage of time coyly), as well as taught faith that 'just because it's in the bible means god did it', which is popular indoctrination.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

Circling back a bit to the OP and giving my reasons.

So, obviously I think the Bible is not 'inerrant' by any definition. I also don't think it's trustworthy or authoritative in any significant way if one wants to debate that instead. Although my previous replies went down the rabbit hole of just 1 contradiction, there are plenty more. In the spirit of that, I'm planning to highlight one contradiction per day until I grow weary of it. Hopefully that's ok in this thread since that is the topic and these contradictions are my support for my position. I don't think any single one of these is the 'nail in the coffin', but the accumulation of issues should make my point. I fully expect all of them to be apologized for and look forward to the word games and contortions likely required to do so.

I'll put a number on each one just to keep track. They are not in any order and completely what happens to tickle my fancy at the moment.

Feel free to join the party and add your own. I'll try to keep the numbers straight if you decide to pile on.

#1 The genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17 vs Luke 3:23-38). Already detailed previously.

#2 God needs to rest or not? (Isaiah 40:28 vs Exodus 31:17)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NRSV

Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
his understanding is unsearchable.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NRSV

It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”