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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #97]

I disagree with everything you say here...ESPECIALLY your assessment of Luke's preface..if that is what you got out of Luke's preface, then it is no wonder that you are so lost (no disrespect).

Moderator Comment

Please keep it civil ... gotta play by 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..

[1213]

Short answer is, they are different. Not just fiddling different names to be the same, but they are different lines, one through a collateral line that never ruled and the other through a line that was broken by the exile and restored through the Persian appointee, Zerubbabel. They are clearly different lineages, but both end in Joseph. It says so.

And I think they are different mostly because Matthew has list of generations, not actual genealogy.

It's al very well to say that God doesn't need to rest but the point is that Genesis says He did.

I don’t know any scripture in Bible that says "God needs rest". Genesis tells God rested. And it means, God didn’t create.

On the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. God blessed the seventh day, and made it holy, because he rested in it from all his work which he had created and made.
Gen. 2:2-3

What do you think, if I hammer 8 hours and then put the hammer to rest, is it because the hammer is tired and needs rest?

…but in the OT they can see God, though it's as risky as handling a nuclear leak. You are opening a can of worms to say that God (when he can be seen) is not actually God at all, because how do you know God is really God even if not seen?

The fact simply is that in OT there are many that are called gods, but they are not the one and only true God. For example:

God presides in the great assembly. He judges among the gods.
Psalms 82:1

I said, "You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless you shall die like men, And fall like one of the rulers."
Psalms 82:6-7

…so the others added contradictory last words according to their own preferences.

It seems to me that you don’t understand what a contradiction is. No Gospel says Jesus could not have said what John says he said, therefore there is not really a contradiction in this case.

…The fact is that there is only one animal in all the gospels but Matthew…

That is only your interpretation. There is nothing in the scriptures that say there could not have been also the parent of the young donkey with them. However, it may be true that Matthew has a mistake. My point is only to say it can’t be proven, because there are other possibilities.

…Did God know he's 'repent' about doing the Flood? Then why do it? ( cue - 'God has his reasons')

I believe the reason is that He would repent more that if He would not get rid of the evil ones.

…Ok he had to wipe out his creation, but why a flood? Especially one that leaves no geological trace?

Maybe because drowning is the most pleasant way to die, according to some.

By how earth, dry land, was set, it was convenient way. As the Bible tells, dry land, the original continent, was on top of vast water reservoir. The flooding happened when the original continent was broken and sunk. We have lot of traces of that event, coal, gas and oil fields, orogenic mountains, modern continents, vast sediment formations like Grand Canyon area, marine fossils on high mountain areas, glaciers on poles…...that all are evidence for the event.

…Understood that Satan is the gofor for God, but that's putting the whole Satan is to blame, not God' excuse for Evil into an odd light, isn't it? The problem of evil is sometimes blamed on Satan, but if Satan is just God's doer of dirty work, it's down to God, isn't it? And it's easy to try to accuse the doubters as being biased, but aren't the Bible apologists motivated to explain away the problems?

I think the blame of bad actions of humans is always for humans. Even if Satan would say something, it is the people who decide do they follow or not. And for example, in this case, people had the true good message, but chose to ignore it.

…Genesis 7:2-3

Slight correction. How many of each kind of animal? Not clean animals. Well, two of each. And 7 pairs of the clean ones. The reason being that Noah has to sacrifice after the flood. There is not really a contradiction there. The Flood problems are not really on 2 or 7 but how such breeding pairs could work without ruined genetics and how you could either get all kinds onto the ark (including dinosaurs, because their footprints are in supposed 'flood levels') or just basic 'kinds' (Baryma) that could be comprehensibly fitted on the ark but have to super -evolve in just 1,000 years into all species. [/quote]

If Bible is true, the species were created not a long go, before the flood. We can assume their genetics had less problems then than now, which is why it would not have been as problematic as it could be now.

All animals are small, when they are born. No reason to assume Noah should have had fully grown animals with him. And dinosaurs could have been still on egg phase when they were taken into the ark, if they were there really. It is also possible that dinosaurs didn’t exist at that point anymore, were killed by the corrupted being before the flood.

…I get the idea that claims about himself re not valid, but God's testimony is. But since we only have Jesus' word that God is validating him, it's back to Jesus testifying about himself. It is of course the 'signs' that are supposed to do the validation.

For those who were with Jesus, there was also that they saw the works of him, and heard for example God testifying for him.

and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form as a dove on him; and a voice came out of the sky, saying “You are my beloved Son. In you I am well pleased.”
Luke 3:22

Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.
John 7:16-17

…Explaining that Jewish hours aren't like ours (night hour 1 began when 2 evening stars appeared, not at midnight) doesn't explain why 3rd hour is the same as 6th. Essentially your apologetic is that they are the same because 'about' means 'before'. Excuse me, but calling at least 2 hours before the 6th hour '6th hour' makes no more sense than referring to a governorship 'before' Quirinus rather than saying whose governorship it actually was.

Ok, sorry, it was not necessary to explain about the hours. The reason why there is no problem is that the original word means before, which is why it is not exact time and is in line with the other scripture.

…And, as I have said before, these are piddling problems compared to the really serious ones.

Please tell, what do you think is the most serious problem?

[1213]

...This is not correct. I have no NEED to see the Bible with errors.

Ok, that is good. And sorry, I didn't mean to claim it would be so in your case. What I mean is, Bible can be seen contradictory, but it can also be seen non-contradictory. Often it seems atheist want to see it contradictory. Reason why I think so is that those lists of alleged contradictions are so silly most of the time that only reason why I think one would make such issues is that person just needs to see contradictions even where they do not exist. Maybe their atheism is so weak that it needs the contradictions, I don’t know.

...Why do apologists always assume people are looking for errors? I used to be a committed Christian that was trying to study the Bible to further understand God. Like many others, this backfired and I could no longer continue with my cognitive dissonance.

I think it is fine thing that person wants to understand. I am sorry to hear, if those contradictions are the best understanding you could get from the Bible.

....1213, I really do appreciate your attempt. Sadly none of it is convincing to me. ..

Thank you. My goal was only to try to show why those are not contradictions, unless person wants to see them as contradictions. I am sorry, if my arguments were not good enough.

[Tcg]

All animals are small, when they are born.

Elephants aren't. They weigh around 200 pounds at birth and they gain about 30 pounds a week initially. At the end of a year they'll weigh as much as 600 pounds. By the end of Noah's supposed time on the ark, a baby elephant would need 3 times as much room. Unless the ark was elastic, this presents a very real problem for the apologetic that he took baby animals. This is only one example that contradicts your claim.

No reason to assume Noah should have had fully grown animals with him.

There is no reason to assume the story of Noah and his ark is factual. But, if such an event were to happen, the problem with taking infant animals is that many are dependent on their mothers for years and couldn't survive without them. Using elephants again as an example, baby elephants rely on their mother's milk for from 2-3 years.


Tcg

[nobspeople]

All animals are small, when they are born.

Elephants aren't. They weigh around 200 pounds at birth and they gain about 30 pounds a week initially. At the end of a year they'll weigh as much as 600 pounds. By the end of Noah's supposed time on the ark, a baby elephant would need 3 times as much room. Unless the ark was elastic, this presents a very real problem for the apologetic that he took baby animals. This is only one example that contradicts your claim.

No reason to assume Noah should have had fully grown animals with him.

There is no reason to assume the story of Noah and his ark is factual. But, if such an event were to happen, the problem with taking infant animals is that many are dependent on their mothers for years and couldn't survive without them. Using elephants again as an example, baby elephants rely on their mother's milk for from 2-3 years.


Tcg

Now now... there's no place for logical thinking in the Noah story.
The need to point out logical issues with such stories speak to indoctrination and the taught avoidance of critical thinking for oneself, at the very least.
And yet, these stories are 'assumed' to be factual simply because they're in the bible.
People truly are amazing creatures.

[Hawkins]

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.

In a humans court, when 2 witnesses describing a crime scene. One said the crime happened at 3:30pm, while the other independently said that it happened at 3:25pm. Will you consider one is lying or they are within the accuracy which human's capability can attain?

Similarly, before you call anything errant or fallible please tell us which historay book(s) written 2000 years ago are without error? To do an examination, first we the original ancient scrolls from the original author. However, it's out of human capability to keep original documents before the invention of paper. The earliest scrolls of the Bible available to todays can only be from the 3rd and 4th century. So in the absence of the original scrolls, how much can you tell about how many "errors" are in today's Bible? Second, in the case of "3:30 vs 3:25" you can't deem it an error as long as it lies within human capability. Similarly, as long as the Bible is with best human effort within the best human capability, then you can't deem that errors as it stands for a true account of human testimony with best human effort and capability.

Rather now what God should do with such a human incapability? Before humans are capable of writing, a historical fact may turn out to be a myth. In Chinese history, we suspect that some myth may one time be historical facts some 6000 years ago but after be conveyed verbally through generations, facts may turn out forming the myths. It is so because humans are incapable of delivering truths before writing capability is developed and accuracies are attained possibly after the invention of paper, because republishing to overwrite errors are much more convenient. If you have make 100 copies of a book by carving the characters onto animal skins, you won't bother wasting the whole piece of an animal skin simply because you spotted an error somewhere between the lines. Here we are talking about human capability for recording facts.

Thus early Scripture such as Genesis is put in story form, the story of Eden etc., such that God can make use of human capability in full. Very rich information are embedded or encoded into stories in Genesis. It's waiting for a decoder to read the information out. While it's corelated to the book of Revelation such that it symatrically marks the beginning and the end.

If you have to apply the term "inerrant", you need to first point out which human book written 2000 ~ 6000 years again are without error, such that if an "error" occurs in a book of God, it thus falsifies the truth of such a God. God on the other hand, is to employ the best human effort and capability for a theology (not necessarily at context level) of His salvation to convey correctly.

Do you have any human book which you can compare its ancient scroll written 2000 years ago to spot the differences in today's paper verison? We have the Dead Sea Scrolls for such a comparison at the theological level. While NT is a gathering of mass of ancient scrolls from 3rd to 8th centuries to affirm another theology (which is NT). In a Christian book site, you can search the term "Hebrew" or "Commentaries" to see how many books you can find. They are all about human efforts on a single book we called the Bible. Do you have another human book with this scale of human effort? I myself own more than 1000 books of Christianity. That reflects what human efforts are about a single book which is the Bible, including how each word is explained in the different concordances. Basically it's all for a theology/doctrine of salvation to convey!

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Hawkins in post #106]

In a humans court, when 2 witnesses describing a crime scene. One said the crime happened at 3:30pm, while the other independently said that it happened at 3:25pm. Will you consider one is lying or they are within the accuracy which human's capability can attain?

If they claimed (or it was said) they were inspired by god, I would question the whole statement of both individuals as truthful and or actual.
If they never claimed (or it was never said) they were inspired by god, it wouldn't be as big of a deal.

Similarly, before you call anything errant or fallible please tell us which historay book(s) written 2000 years ago are without error?

History books aren't inspired by, or are the word, of god. As such, history books aren't expected to be exactly perfect in every regard. Apples to oranges.

Rather now what God should do with such a human incapability?

It doesn't matter. If god is real, gods a gonna' do what gods a gonna' do.

Thus early Scripture such as Genesis is put in story form, the story of Eden etc., such that God can make use of human capability in full. Very rich information are embedded or encoded into stories in Genesis

Perhaps. Or perhaps it's god (or men) playing games? Seems rather unproductive for a supreme being, that's capable of all things, creator of all things, to 'embed' or 'encode' anything instead of simply stating it.
Oh the games god plays!

Do you have another human book with this scale of human effort?

There are many ancient religious works from other groups of people:
Tipitaka
The Vedas And The Upanishads
The Quran And The Hadiths
The Agamas
The Dao De Jing
The Seven Valleys and The Four Valleys
The Avesta
Even the Sumerians were influential, even today.

Rather or not you consider them relevant only matters to you.

Claiming superiority and relevance simply due do to 'effort' and 'scale' seems rather inconsequential and mostly irrelevant. Unless, of course, quantity supersedes quality.
Said generally, of course.

[benchwarmer]

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.

In a humans court, when 2 witnesses describing a crime scene. One said the crime happened at 3:30pm, while the other independently said that it happened at 3:25pm. Will you consider one is lying or they are within the accuracy which human's capability can attain?

And what would you make of the following 2 exact witness statements in your analogy?

Witness 1) I was sitting on my front porch at 3:30pm, soothing the aches of the day in my green lounger, when I saw a mugger steal Mrs Glurkin's blue purse.

Witness 2) I was sitting on my back porch at 3:25pm, soothing the aches of the day in my green lounger, when I saw a mugger steal Mrs Perkin's blue purse.

Google the Synoptic problem in relation to the Bible if the above is not making sense. In other words, are you sure we have 2 independent witnesses? How can one tell? Surely something would seem suspicious in the above example just as it does when reading the Gospels.

[Diagoras]

There are many ancient religious works from other groups of people:
Tipitaka
The Vedas And The Upanishads
The Quran And The Hadiths
The Agamas
The Dao De Jing
The Seven Valleys and The Four Valleys
The Avesta
Even the Sumerians were influential, even today.

Rather or not you consider them relevant only matters to you.

Plenty of great examples of influential works there, thanks. Just to expand upon the point, it's worth pointing out just how 'influential' the Sumerians really were.

The Eridu Genesis for example, dates back to around 1600 BCE and details an interesting story about a man who is instructed to build an ark for 'preserving the animals and the seed of mankind', before a god causes a flood designed to destroy mankind.

If it hadn't been written a thousand years before a certain Hebrew book, one might think the Sumerians were guilty of plagiarism...

[Tcg]

...This is not correct. I have no NEED to see the Bible with errors.

Ok, that is good. And sorry, I didn't mean to claim it would be so in your case. What I mean is, Bible can be seen contradictory, but it can also be seen non-contradictory. Often it seems atheist want to see it contradictory. Reason why I think so is that those lists of alleged contradictions are so silly most of the time that only reason why I think one would make such issues is that person just needs to see contradictions even where they do not exist. Maybe their atheism is so weak that it needs the contradictions, I don’t know.

Given that some theists recognize the contradictions in the Bible, it is clearly NOT an atheist vs. theist issue:

Does the Bible contradict itself?

Does the Bible contradict itself? And is that a problem? An honest look at apparent inconsistencies in the Bible.

Are there contradictions in the Bible?

Those who wish to discredit the Bible will sometimes come up with lists of contradictions in order to try to discomfit those who believe it. In response, many Christians will perform extraordinary mental gymnastics to attempt to prove that there are no contradictions in the book.

But if we study the Bible carefully and deeply, and are honest about what we find, we have to conclude otherwise. Does the Bible contain contradictions? Yes.

https://christianity.org.uk/article/doe ... ict-itself

There is no mystery about why some folks, Christians and atheists alike, recognize contradictions in the Bible. They recognize them because they are contradictions.


Tcg