On the Bible being inerrant.

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

On the Bible being inerrant.

Post #1

Post by 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.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: On the Bible being inerrant.

Post #81

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to otseng in post #80]
I believe inerrancy is a doctrine that should be scraped. Most seminaries have already done this.
'Most' is, to me at least, still troublesome. But beyond that, this is fine and good for today and going forward, but what about those that have already came and gone? Those that died believing the bible is inerrant? God didn't seem to 'enlighten' people then enough to see that the bible isn't perfect and correct 100%. Of course we can't go back and make things right, but for centuries (perhaps, or perhaps more) people believed, and it was taught, the bible is 100% true and exact in every way. Even my childhood church taught this (and I'm not quite 100 yet :D ).
If the bible is capable of being wrong, erroneous, et al, it was 100, 200, 300 years ago as well. I guess those people that lived their lives thinking the bible was god's word and incapable of being wrong are just 'out of luck'.
The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.
How*? How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

*You can, of course, believe what you want independent of anything other than your wishes. That's not being challenged. It's the 'how' that's being questioned.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: On the Bible being inerrant.

Post #82

Post by otseng »

nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amBut beyond that, this is fine and good for today and going forward, but what about those that have already came and gone? Those that died believing the bible is inerrant?
Can't really change the past, so it's not something worth worrying over. But, we can try to move the needle now. And I'm trying by sharing my thoughts on this forum.
God didn't seem to 'enlighten' people then enough to see that the bible isn't perfect and correct 100%.
I'm not so sure this was the attitude of people in the past. We cannot impose our personal philosophies on past and foreign cultures and expect others to conform to what we expect them to be. Today, we live in a scientific and precise culture. We expect correctness and truthfulness (at least in academic circles). And if they do not conform, they are not correct. But this attitude was not existent when the Bible was written. Even the dictionary is a modern invention. People in the past did not even think about spelling with precision. They did not have copyrights and worry about plagiarism. They did not worry about adding footnotes and references to every fact stated. People did not have access to vast amounts of information to be able to do their own research concerning facts. So, our idea of "perfect and 100% correct" wasn't even on their radar in the past.
If the bible is capable of being wrong, erroneous, et al, it was 100, 200, 300 years ago as well. I guess those people that lived their lives thinking the bible was god's word and incapable of being wrong are just 'out of luck'.
I don't see how it really matters if people believed the Bible was God's word would be out of luck, even if the doctrine of inerrancy was incorrect.
How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times?
Do you trust any news source? Do you trust your parents? Do you trust your spouse? Do you trust the government? Do you trust your teachers?

I've created a thread to debate it - How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: On the Bible being inerrant.

Post #83

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to otseng in post #82]
Can't really change the past, so it's not something worth worrying over.
You 'overlooked' the point, rather conveniently. Surely, those of 500 years ago read the bible and said 'Yup this is the way it is!'. Seventy years ago, people read it and said 'Yeah well, this is the right way to understand the bible. People from 500 years ago had it wrong.' Then, 100 years in the future (if humanity survives), they may read it and say 'Yeah well, now, this is the right way to understand the bible. People from 100 years ago had it wrong.'
That's something to be concerned over.
Christianity has evolved throughout history. Christianity typically basis its belief on the bible and the understanding of it. Understanding changes over time. So while we can't 'change the past', there is something to worry over by the simple fact that the biblical understanding (and acceptance) changes over time. If god inspired, if god is the rock and doesn't change, then why does he allow understanding of the bible to change?
We cannot impose our personal philosophies on past and foreign cultures and expect others to conform to what we expect them to be.
If god is real, and wants his creation to understand him and ultimately get to heaven with him (which is the end goal of all christians), the bible shouldn't have inconsistencies, errors, omissions, confusion, no matter who is or isn't imposing beliefs on past of future cultures.

One can accept the bible has inconsistencies, errors, omissions, causes confusion and on and on, simply to allow it to fit their chosen lifestyle agenda.
But there are those that can see through this, and expect more from any god, including the christian god.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: On the Bible being inerrant.

Post #84

Post by otseng »

nobspeople wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 9:19 am Surely, those of 500 years ago read the bible and said 'Yup this is the way it is!'. Seventy years ago, people read it and said 'Yeah well, this is the right way to understand the bible. People from 500 years ago had it wrong.' Then, 100 years in the future (if humanity survives), they may read it and say 'Yeah well, now, this is the right way to understand the bible. People from 100 years ago had it wrong.'
It would be hubris for anyone at anytime to say they know with 100% certainty they know what the Bible means. We'll be studying the Bible for thousands of more years and still be learning from it.
Christianity has evolved throughout history. Christianity typically basis its belief on the bible and the understanding of it. Understanding changes over time.
Yes.
So while we can't 'change the past', there is something to worry over by the simple fact that the biblical understanding (and acceptance) changes over time.
This is the same with all disciplines.
If god inspired, if god is the rock and doesn't change, then why does he allow understanding of the bible to change?
The Bible is meant to be instructive and applicable to all people, across all cultures, in any period of time. So, our understanding of it will change.

God's revelation is also dynamic. The Bible wasn't just written all in one shot by a single person. It's development resulted through progressive revelation. So, God reveals himself more and more over time.
One can accept the bible has inconsistencies, errors, omissions, causes confusion and on and on, simply to allow it to fit their chosen lifestyle agenda.
But there are those that can see through this, and expect more from any god, including the christian god.
You might see through window 1, but how do you know there might not be a window 2 beyond that? Yes, I agree that seeing through window 1 there are "inconsistencies, errors, omissions". But like the quantum mechanics analogy, I believe there is a window 2 beyond window 1. Newtonian physicists could not immediately grasp quantum physics because it has contradictions in it according to their paradigm. But, they had to go through window 2 in order to advance.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: On the Bible being inerrant.

Post #85

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to otseng in post #84]
It would be hubris for anyone at anytime to say they know with 100% certainty they know what the Bible means.
I would agree, though many others don't seem to - some on this very forum.
This (there is something to worry over by the simple fact that the biblical understanding (and acceptance) changes over time) is the same with all disciplines.
Yes. But not all disciplines claim to be basic instructions for understanding an all creating, knowing, powerful creator and as a means to get to heaven. Let's not discount the (seemed) importance of the bible, here, by comparing it to 'all disciplines'. Unless, of course, the bible really isn't as big of a deal as any other form of discipline. Which, if that's the case, this very forum is irrelevant.
The Bible is meant to be instructive and applicable to all people, across all cultures, in any period of time. So, our understanding of it will change.
I would submit that there are some things to which this could apply. But when you run into inerrant issues, that's when you should have a 'full stop' and start questioning.
God's revelation is also dynamic. The Bible wasn't just written all in one shot by a single person. It's development resulted through progressive revelation. So, God reveals himself more and more over time.
So this would mean that, for example, people of 500 years ago won't be judged by the same standards of people today, as god 'reveals himself more and more over time.

You might see through window 1, but how do you know there might not be a window 2 beyond that?
One doesn't need to be Clark Kent/Superman to see though christianity. One only needs to be honest with themselves when reading the bible. If you (generally stated 'you') want to ignore errors, omissions, contradictions, things causing confusion and excuse what was once called the word of god to be down graded to inspired by god, you can accept the bible as being incapable of being wrong. People do it all the time. We see it in this very forum.
I haven't seen anyone saying 'this is a scam; I know what's right' on this forum (though there might be or have been) even though some throughout history has done just that. What most are saying is if there are errors, omissions, contradictions, (and on and on and on) in the bible, and the bible is the word of god (or even inspired by) it throws up red flags that it might not be able to be trusted.
I believe there is a window 2 beyond window 1.
Belief is a wonderous thing, ain't it? And who's to say there's not a dozen more windows - some of which invalidate the first, oh let's say, 8 windows? It's a rabbit hole that, if gone into, could negate one's life belief. So best to stop at the window that first one's paradigm the best. Voila: christianity.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: On the Bible being inerrant.

Post #86

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

otseng wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:59 am
I would challenge this. I know it's a bit controversial, esp among evangelicals, but I believe it's not necessary to believe the Bible is "100% true and accurate in every way". What is more important is to consider the Bible to be the authoritative source for instruction and life for believers.
I feel you.

But if I shouldn't believe the Bible is 100% true and accurate in every way, then that would make whether or not the Bible can be considered an authoritative source for instruction and life for believers very....iffy, so say the least.

It is already a full time job trying to figure out which translation/version of the Scriptures is the most accurate...and now we can't even determine whether certain messages at their very core is true/accurate....that would mean the entire religion is going down the toilet, in my opinion.
otseng wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:59 am Implicit in the claim that the Bible is "100% true and accurate in every way" is one person knows with 100% certainty what the Bible is saying. How do you know if one person's view of the Bible is accurate and another's is not?
Well, we know very few things in life with 100% certainty. Gotta leave some wiggle room in there.

The question is, how much wiggle room?
otseng wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:59 am How do you know if a passage is meant to be taken literally or symbolically? An example of this is a controversy between Mike Licona and Norman Geisler over Matt 27.

Mat 27:52-53
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Geisler wrote:

Our original focus was on his denial of the historicity and inerrancy of the resurrection account of the saints in Matthew 27. He called this “poetical,” a “legend,” an “embellishment,” and literary “special effects” (see 306, 548, 552, 553). Against Licona’s view, we set forth “Ten Reasons” for the historicity of this text. And, as evidence that it was a denial of the historic ICBI (International Council on Biblical Inerrancy) view on inerrancy, we provided “Six Reasons” (www.normangeisler.com). Thus, both the historicity and inerrancy of the text which are firmly established are tragically denied by Licona.
https://normangeisler.com/mike-licona-o ... y-thought/

However, Mike Licona is no liberal scholar. He is one of the foremost Christian apologists and is firmly rooted in the truthfulness in all of scripture.

Debating over inerrancy gives rise to unfruitful debates between believers and also between believers and non-believers.
Yup, good ole Norman Geisler. I am familiar with his take on Mike Licona and the whole Matt 27:52-53 thing.

The bottom line with that is; believers aren't necessarily going to agree on every little thing as it pertains to the Bible and/or Christian doctrine. Those are "in house" debates among believers...basically, a disagreement among family.

If you recall in the book of Acts, they were about two decades or less removed from the Resurrection of Jesus, and they were already having a council on Christian doctrine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem

It happens.
benchwarmer wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:05 pm 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 contractions 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.
otseng wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:59 am It's not like presenting any contradiction is new to anyone. Billions of people have been reading and studying the Bible for thousands of years. Yet, not one single person can state they know exactly what the Bible means or says. That's not to say it's incomprehensible. But it is a complex book. It's like saying you've watched a YouTube video on quantum mechanics and then you know everything about it. And then arguing quantum mechanics is wrong because there's a contradiction that light can't be both a wave and a particle.
It is important that I make my stance clear...my point is; the Bible, at its core, is absolutely 100% true. What each author wrote as inspired men of God is 100% true.

I am of the opinion that, if I can't trust the Gospel writers, then I would have to question the entire the validity of Christianity as an entire religion.

That being said, while maintaining the Bible to be 100% true, I also maintain that the present day believers who are thousands of years removed from the fact (myself included); it is our understandings that are flawed, and questionable.

But the Bible, no....is true.

If I have to question the validity of the Gospel writer's core message, then Christianity itself becomes questionable.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: On the Bible being inerrant.

Post #87

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

.

:D

Ya know, otseng mentioned Norman Geisler in an earlier post, and how fitting...considering you are giving lists of alleged Biblical contradictions.

And why is this perfect?

Well, considering Norman Geisler authored a book called "When Critics Ask", and in the book he brilliantly addressed most of those contradictions.

True story. Back in the early 2000's, I was a young guy on the start of my apologetic journey. If I recall, I was working at a Target which was attached to a shopping mall.

After work, I was taking a stroll through the mall when a gentlemen approached me and started talking to me about the Bible. He was basically evangelizing inside of the mall.

He had a book in this hand, and he said something along the lines of "I don't know you, but I thought you'd be interested in this book."

He handed me the book, and what book was it?

Well, it was Norman Geisler's book; When Critics Ask.

Of course, I believe this to be divine intervention, as the Lord knew of my apologetic journey, and he saw to it that a man who I didn't know from Adam would practically hand me over a book that would be detrimental to my apologetic journey ahead.

:D

RIP Norman Geisler :thanks:

The PDF to the book is here..

https://www.difa3iat.com/wp-content/upl ... Z.org_.pdf

Now, to the alleged contradictions...
benchwarmer wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:42 am #1 The genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17 vs Luke 3:23-38).
Ahh yes, the genealogy of Jesus. This is addressed on page 328 of PDF.
benchwarmer wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:42 am #2 God needs to rest or not? (Isaiah 40:28 vs Exodus 31:17)
I will take this one. This is an equivocation of the word "rest", so when you ask if God needs to rest, you are using the term "rest" in the sense of God getting tired from work and needed to take a nap.

No.

Rest in this context means freedom from activity or labor, which may/may not entail weariness.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rest
benchwarmer wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:42 am #3 Man can see God or not? (Genesis 32:30 vs John 1:18)
Addressed on page 49 of PDF.
benchwarmer wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:42 am #4 What were Jesus's last words? (Mark 15:34 vs Luke 23:46 vs John 19:28)
I will take this one.

Mark 15:34 does not state that those were Jesus' last words..this is obvious by verse 37 stating, "With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last".

Luke 23:46 details specifically what Jesus said before he breathed his last, piggy backing off of where Mark 15:37 left.

John 19:30 (not 28) has Jesus' last words being "It is finished", which is different than what Luke and Mark states.

This difference can be reconciled, considering scripture tells us that the apostle John was obviously standing closer to Jesus near the cross (John 19:26), and he may have heard things that others standing further away from the cross may not have.

So, Jesus yelled words in a loud voice (according to Mark and Luke) for all to hear, and that was the last thing they heard...and then before he gave up his spirit, he uttered in a lower tone "It is finished" (according to John, who was standing closer).
benchwarmer wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:42 am #5 How many animals did Jesus ride on into Jerusalem? (Mark 11 1:7 vs Matthew 21 1:7)
Addressed on page 301 of PDF.
benchwarmer wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:42 am #6 Does God change his mind? (1 Samual 15:28 vs Exodus 32:14)
Addressed on page 17 of PDF
benchwarmer wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:42 am #7 Was Jesus betrayed with a kiss or did He see it all coming and pre-emptively ask the soldiers who they wanted and told them who He was? (Matthew 26:47-50 vs John 18:4-8)
I will take this one.

Matthew mentioned the "Kiss of Betrayal". John doesn't mention the kiss of betrayal, and John's failure to mention the kiss of betrayal doesn't mean that it didn't happen, it just means that he didn't mention it.

In John, Jesus identified himself, but in Matthew, this self identification wasn't mentioned. Didn't mean that it didn't happen, it just means that it wasn't mentioned.

What I think happened was; Judas kissed Jesus in efforts to betray him (which was arranged as a sign as to which one the arresting party would arrest).

However, the arresting party was still hesitant to arrest Jesus (for whatever reasons) and when Jesus identified himself as "Jesus of Nazareth", that is when all doubt was removed as to who they came looking for, and they arrested him.

Either way, all Gospel accounts point to Judas orchestrating the betrayal of Jesus.
benchwarmer wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:42 am #8 Did God or Satan incite David to take a census? (2 Samuel 24 vs 1 Chronicles 21)
Addressed on page 160 of PDF.
benchwarmer wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:42 am #9 How many pairs of clean animals and birds was Noah directed to take on the Ark? (Genesis 6:19-20 vs Genesis 7:2-3)
Addressed on page 34 of PDF.
benchwarmer wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:42 am Next up:

#10 Is Jesus's own testimony about himself true or not? (John 5:31 vs John 8:14)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NRSV
“If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NRSV
Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid because I know where I have come from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.

* Didn't even have to switch gospels or compare New/Old Testament here.
Addressed on 348 of PDF.

And there you have it. There are also plenty of websites tailor made to address these alleged contradictions.

If the kingdom of God is a human body, Christian apologetics is the immune systems. We are out here. We are warriors.

:thanks:
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2283
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1956 times
Been thanked: 734 times

Re: On the Bible being inerrant.

Post #88

Post by benchwarmer »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:11 pm .

:D

Ya know, otseng mentioned Norman Geisler in an earlier post, and how fitting...considering you are giving lists of alleged Biblical contradictions.

And why is this perfect?

Well, considering Norman Geisler authored a book called "When Critics Ask", and in the book he brilliantly addressed most of those contradictions.
If by 'brilliantly' you mean very poorly, I agree :D

We only have to look at the first one to see the quality of the answers given:
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:11 pm
Now, to the alleged contradictions...
benchwarmer wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:42 am #1 The genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17 vs Luke 3:23-38).
Ahh yes, the genealogy of Jesus. This is addressed on page 328 of PDF.
What is in the PDF:
SOLUTION: This should be expected, since they are two different lines of ancestors,
one traced through His legal father, Joseph and the other through His actual mother,
Mary
If you actually bother to read the scripture, you can see this is wrong as I already addressed in that post:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NRSV
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NRSV
23 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,
Which part of "Jacob the father of Joseph" or "Joseph the son of Heli" is confusing for you? I see no mention of daughter anywhere or 'father of Mary'. In other words, apologetic fail.

The rest of your apologetic tap dancing is similar. If you want to believe you've sidestepped all the issues, more power to you. No one who is paying attention is likely to be convinced.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: On the Bible being inerrant.

Post #89

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

benchwarmer wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:55 pm
If by 'brilliantly' you mean very poorly, I agree :D
We will have to agree/disagree there.
benchwarmer wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:55 pm We only have to look at the first one to see the quality of the answers given:


What is in the PDF:

SOLUTION: This should be expected, since they are two different lines of ancestors,
one traced through His legal father, Joseph and the other through His actual mother,
Mary

If you actually bother to read the scripture, you can see this is wrong as I already addressed in that post:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NRSV
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NRSV
23 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,

Which part of "Jacob the father of Joseph" or "Joseph the son of Heli" is confusing for you? I see no mention of daughter anywhere or 'father of Mary'. In other words, apologetic fail.
I really have no idea what you are talking about here.
The so called contradiction is directly addressed, in detailed explanation.

And even your quotation of the PDF passage, Geisler addressed this issue in much more detail than you quoted, which is, in my opinion, selective quoting and borderline disingenuousness on your part.

The explanation may not work for you, but it does for me. :D

In order for it to be a true contradiction, there can't be any other POSSIBLE explanations to reconcile that which is in question.

And what Geisler laid out is reasonably possible, but of course I don't expect a skeptic that is hell-bent on the Bible being inaccurate to accept the explanation.
benchwarmer wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:55 pm The rest of your apologetic tap dancing is similar. If you want to believe you've sidestepped all the issues, more power to you. No one who is paying attention is likely to be convinced.
Not at all. I need specifics as to why my explanations aren't valid. Not generalizations.

You took it there, now we are here.

I guess you thought that all you needed to do was find your favorite anti-Christian skeptic website, copy and paste their provided contradictions, and post it to the forum and that would be that.

No sir. I do this. :D
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2283
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1956 times
Been thanked: 734 times

Re: On the Bible being inerrant.

Post #90

Post by benchwarmer »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:32 pm
benchwarmer wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:55 pm We only have to look at the first one to see the quality of the answers given:


What is in the PDF:

SOLUTION: This should be expected, since they are two different lines of ancestors,
one traced through His legal father, Joseph and the other through His actual mother,
Mary

If you actually bother to read the scripture, you can see this is wrong as I already addressed in that post:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NRSV
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NRSV
23 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,

Which part of "Jacob the father of Joseph" or "Joseph the son of Heli" is confusing for you? I see no mention of daughter anywhere or 'father of Mary'. In other words, apologetic fail.
I really have no idea what you are talking about here.
This seems to be a common tactic. When the issue is obvious, you have no idea what anyone is talking about.

I don't need to address all the handwaving in the PDF (the detailed explanation you speak of) because the scripture directly contradicts it. You seem to be missing (likely on purpose) the actual words written in the Bible.

The Bible says "Jacob the father of Joseph". I don't know about you, but that means Joseph's father's name is Jacob.

The Bible says "Joseph the son of Heli". I don't know about you, but that means Joseph's father's name is Heli.

Ooops.

The PDF authors attempt to claim we are talking about Joseph's line and Mary's line is irrelevant (and wrong). The scripture says who Joseph's father is twice and it gives a different name each time. At least 1213's attempt to claim these are the same person referred to by a different name was a logical (if misplaced due to the different number of names) attempt to explain this. The separate Joseph/Mary apologetic is an immediate fail.

What I find really interesting and telling is that Norman Geisler had to write a 552 page document to try and address all the issues in the Bible. Honestly, I'm surprised it's that short. Thanks for the PDF though, it's amusing reading.

Post Reply