On the Bible being inerrant.

[nobspeople]

[benchwarmer]

[benchwarmer]

#1 The genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17 vs Luke 3:23-38).
#2 God needs to rest or not? (Isaiah 40:28 vs Exodus 31:17)
#3 Man can see God or not? (Genesis 32:30 vs John 1:18)
#4 What were Jesus's last words? (Mark 15:34 vs Luke 23:46 vs John 19:28)
#5 How many animals did Jesus ride on into Jerusalem? (Mark 11 1:7 vs Matthew 21 1:7)
#6 Does God change his mind? (1 Samual 15:28 vs Exodus 32:14)
#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)
#8 Did God or Satan incite David to take a census? (2 Samuel 24 vs 1 Chronicles 21)

Next up:

#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)

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

And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every kind shall come in to you, to keep them alive.

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

Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate; 3 and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth.

[TRANSPONDER]

Genesis 7 just Clarifies Genesis 6 (1). There is no contradiction.
In fact I'd see this as the original borrowing of the Babylonian myth (probably while in exile in Babylon) - two of each animal, sending the birds out and even sacrificing to the gods afterwards, and I believe, the rainbow, too, and adapting it so as to make the Jewish God the Top God. But later on, someone had the idea that Noah should make a burnt sacrifice of sheep or goats, even before animal sacrifice has become a Thing.

Plainly sacrificing one of your sheep or goats when there was only a genetically slender breeding -pair would be a guaranteed extinction of that species, so Noah was told to take a ritually clean sacrificial animal for one day of every week to offer up when the floods went down. What he sacrificed after that is not explained, nor indeed mentioned. But for 2,000 years, nobody seems to have wondered about that.

Understandably perhaps, most have regarded it as a metaphor or myth - including Judaic savants, so I have read. Perhaps it's only since Genesis -literalism that we have been asked to take Eden and the Flood as actual events.


otseng edited out video with mild profanity

[benchwarmer]

Genesis 7 just Clarifies Genesis 6 (1). There is no contradiction.

If by clarify you mean 2 = 7, sure

In fact I'd see this as the original borrowing of the Babylonian myth (probably while in exile in Babylon) - two of each animal, sending the birds out and even sacrificing to the gods afterwards, and I believe, the rainbow, too, and adapting it so as to make the Jewish God the Top God. But later on, someone had the idea that Noah should make a burnt sacrifice of sheep or goats, even before animal sacrifice has become a Thing.

Plainly sacrificing one of your sheep or goats when there was only a genetically slender breeding -pair would be a guaranteed extinction of that species, so Noah was told to take a ritually clean sacrificial animal for one day of every week to offer up when the floods went down. What he sacrificed after that is not explained, nor indeed mentioned. But for 2,000 years, nobody seems to have wondered about that.

Understandably perhaps, most have regarded it as a metaphor or myth - including Judaic savants, so I have read. Perhaps it's only since Genesis -literalism that we have been asked to take Eden and the Flood as actual events.

Interesting take. I think it's pretty clear we have two separate versions of the story (wherever it originally came from) smashed together and Bible literalists have to tap dance their way around it.

Purely from a historical view and from an 'understanding religions' view, I find it interesting how the stories evolve and are adapted to fit the authors current beliefs. As you say, at some point the 7 clean animals and birds probably became a thing because you had to have some extra for sacrificing. If you didn't have the extra, the story would fall apart, so the author seeing that may have 'fixed' it. Now literal apologists have to deal with the fall out.

[Diagoras]

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

I believe the bible is not infallible for the same reasons many non-theists have already submitted here. Probably the main routes to this understanding came from reading Genesis, Revelation and parts of Deuteronomy as a teenager.

Since joining this forum and doing more research, I've found ample evidence for myself of biblical content and history that points to its manmade origins. This Wikipedia article on textual criticism is a good starting point toward an understanding of how and why errors creep in.

Historically, scribes who were paid to copy documents may have been literate, but many were simply copyists, mimicking the shapes of letters without necessarily understanding what they meant. This means that unintentional alterations were common when copying manuscripts by hand.

<..>

..if a story was spread by oral tradition, and then later written down by different people in different locations, the versions can vary greatly.

<..>

Although biblical books that are letters, like Greek plays, presumably had one original, the question of whether some biblical books, like the Gospels, ever had just one original has been discussed.

[benchwarmer]

[benchwarmer]

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #77]

I can keep going, but I think my point is clear. There are many glaring contradictions and/or obviously edited passages. I found one list online that has 101 issues laid out.

Some of these simply can't be tap danced around without equating opposite things or wildly different things. Biblical inerrancy is a dead horse and shown to be so without much digging.

Given the listed issues and many more, I can't understand how one would arrive at 'trustworthy' either. I would be interested to hear how one justifies trustworthiness in a collection of writings that say so many opposite/different things. How can one tell which authors 'have it right'?

[brunumb]

Given the listed issues and many more, I can't understand how one would arrive at 'trustworthy' either.

With all the issues surrounding errors, discrepancies, contradiction and so on, not to mention gross exaggerations and fanciful tales, it's very hard to consider that anything written in the Bible is actually God-inspired.

[otseng]

Some of these simply can't be tap danced around without equating opposite things or wildly different things. Biblical inerrancy is a dead horse and shown to be so without much digging.

I believe inerrancy is a doctrine that should be scraped. Most seminaries have already done this. But, in my opinion, the reason there are holdouts on the doctrine of inerrancy is they also believe its trustworthiness is dependent on inerrancy. I don't believe this is necessary. The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

Given the listed issues and many more, I can't understand how one would arrive at 'trustworthy' either. I would be interested to hear how one justifies trustworthiness in a collection of writings that say so many opposite/different things. How can one tell which authors 'have it right'?

That is worthy of another debate.