A New Testament “Contradiction By Omission”?

[bornagainathiest]

Hi Ready!

 

Ummm... your viewpoints on Matthew 12, as per post # 10?  As well as the content of # 23?

 

Just asking for the sake of clarification, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

[readyforchange]

Hey BAA.  Yes, viewpoints on Matthew 12, but I'd say the one to focus on is post #14 - that's the one that would be the end point of where my thought process had  transitioned to earlier.  Then #23, for a similar reflection.  Thanks!

[bornagainathiest]

Sorry, one more thought occurred to me, too:  Are not many currently Christians living TODAY also at risk of missing salvation?  Think about how many Christians (whether people you know or maybe communicate with online) today access the Bible, or how many may read the Bible closely?  Because most of the time, I think the focus of the Matthew passage, when it is discussed orally in church, is much more about what happened with the demon-possed man.  How many Christians, if we were to poll them and ask, "Can all sins be forgiven by Jesus if you believe in your heart that He died and was raised from the dead to forgive all of your sins?" would CONFIDENTLY answer that question as "yes"?  I say that in reflecting on my own experience.  As an currently-identifying agnostic, what's amazing to me is that I actually now read the Bible FAR more often and FAR more closely now than I ever did when I could say I was a 100% believer.  And in all the years when I was a 100% believer, I do not ever recall hearing a pastor/minister/elder specifically say that there is an unforgivable sin.  Now granted, I may have heard something of some context before or "sort of heard something" once or twice.  But never did I actually hear about this unforgivable sin and fully comprehend the consequences of committing it.

 

So...let's just take me for instance.  If one day, back when I was a 100% believer, I had NEVER orally heard, or even if I did "sort of heard something" once or twice, but NEVER FULLY COMPREHENDED the MAGNITUDE of what I did hear.  And I also never paid attention to those two verses in Matthew about blasphemy as the unforgivable sin...

 

One day I am walking in my house and I stub my toe really hard against a door, then I, without thinking, say the G-D phrase out loud...would I have then forever lost my chance at salvation?

 

Ok Ready, having looked at the above, I feel I need to ask you some questions.

 

Why are you taking anything Jesus said seriously, when you've agreed (in # 22) that the Holy Spirit failed to help the martyr Stephen, by teaching him falsehoods about Abraham, Joseph or Jacob?

 

If you agree that the Holy spirit is not the Spirit of Truth that Jesus claimed He is, then why would you accept any of his claims as true?

 

And if the Son of God has failed the 'truth' test, why bother giving the apostle Paul (or any other Biblical writer) any credibility?

 

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[readyforchange]

 

Ok Ready, having looked at the above, I feel I need to ask you some questions.

 

Why are you taking anything Jesus said seriously, when you've agreed (in # 22) that the Holy Spirit failed to help the martyr Stephen, by teaching him falsehoods about Abraham, Joseph or Jacob?

 

If you agree that the Holy spirit is not the Spirit of Truth that Jesus claimed He is, then why would you accept any of his claims as true?

 

And if the Son of God has failed the 'truth' test, why bother giving the apostle Paul (or any other Biblical writer) any credibility?

 

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Hi BAA.  Sure, no problem.  I would actually answer each of your 3 questions in the affirmative, in that I concur with you.  The ability to take any of the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels is gone if the Holy Spirit led Stephen to make errors in his speech.  This also makes it untenable to accept any of Jesus' claims as true.  And Paul's letters are essentially his own opinions.  In my post #14, I use the pronoun "I", but that is more of me looking at the Matthew passage and the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit from a Christian perspective, and trying to figure out why this sin is not more prominently discussed in the New Testament or (at least from my perspective) in most churches. 

 

So just a little bit of background on me (and I may post a testimonial one day) - I realized that my religious viewpoint had evolved to agnostic about a year ago.  But I still had a real fear of hell.  I only recently came to get past the fear of hell, because seeing this statement from Jesus in a new light, about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit being an unforgivable sin, has really moved me past that fear.  To me, it essentially proves that there was a real disconnect between Paul and the Gospels.  There is no way Paul should not have addressed the one unforgivable sin in his letters.  It also proves that no Christian can ever be sure of his or her salvation, even if s/he believes Jesus died for his or her sins.  If there is an unforgivable sin, then for the rest of a Christian's life, one has to be very careful to never commit this sin.  To me, it seems completely irrational that even if there had to be an unforgivable sin, why would it have been this one?  It's like, people can commit all kinds of bad acts such as mass murder, child molestation, torture, steal from the poor, etc., and those acts can be forgiven if the person earnestly repents and is a believer.  But blasphemy against the Holy Spirit outranks each of those as the one sin that cannot be forgiven.  It makes no sense at all.  Or maybe there is an apologetic response about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (e.g., maybe Jesus was only addressing the Pharisees?). 

 

Let me know if this helps. 

[★ Citsonga ★]

I recall one of pauls passages condemning premarital sex is followed by "but this is only my opinion" he does that quite a bit.

 

With that, he's speaking of whether or not to marry. It's not in any way, shape or form a statement that opposition to premarital sex is just his opinion.

 

Of the writings attributed to Paul, the instances specifying that a command is not coming from "the Lord" are exactly two occasions (a far cry from "quite a bit"). Those instances are both in the same chapter: I Corinthians 7, verses 12 and 25 (the latter of which is the one you allude to above). If I am mistaken and there are other instances, then please indicate where. There are some other things in the letters attributed to Paul that pose problems for the notion of divine inspiration, but I'm pretty sure that only those two verses specify that he was not speaking for the Lord.

[bornagainathiest]

Oops!  My apologies for not getting back to you sooner, Ready! 

 

(I'm not sure how I did that.  I make it my business to respond to whoever I'm in dialog with as soon as I can.  To err is human.  So my Vulcan half isn't to blame.)

.

.

.

Anyway, to business.

I agree.  The tenability of any of Jesus' claims is now zero.  That which claims to be perfect needs only one flaw to render it imperfect. Thus scripture itself, rather than supporting the perfection and infallibility of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, instead shows us their imperfection and fallibility.  A Biblically-proven, imperfect Holy Spirit is fatally damaging to Biblical Christianity in many ways.  Just off the top of my head, here's what comes to mind.

 

1. 

All three persons of the Trinity are shown to be imperfect.  The Holy Spirit by teaching Stephen falsely.  Jesus, by falsely promising a 'true' spirit to his disciples and followers.  The Father, by being whom this false spirit comes from.  (See John 14 : 15 - 17 and 15 : 26)

 

2.

All of Jesus' promises are thrown into doubt.  If shortly after he ascended, the spirit he sent failed to teach Stephen correctly about the Hebrew scriptures... then what good are any of his promises? 

 

3.

If Jesus' promises count for nothing, then why should any of his prophecies, wisdom or teachings be treated differently?

(Please note Ready, that whatever Jesus said about the unforgivable sin can now be written off as untrustworthy.  I know that you've already arrived at this logical conclusion, but I just thought it was worth restating, for the sake of clarity.)

 

4.

Since the Bible itself confirms that Jesus is a maker of false promises, he therefore cannot be the Son of God, the Messiah and the Christ.  Such a person is, by definition, perfect and free from falsehood and error.

 

5.

Therefore, all Biblical references to Jesus' virgin birth are shown to be false.  A virgin birth isn't necessary for someone who will grow up to be a flawed and imperfect promise-breaker. 

 

6.

Also, all Old Testament prophecies that Christians believe point to Jesus are now shown to be false.  The promised One cannot be a promise-breaker. 

 

7.

The scripturally-demonstrated imperfection of Jesus is particularly damaging to the book of Hebrews, which goes to some lengths to stress the perfect priesthood of Jesus.  He cannot be a perfect priest in the order of Melchizedek. (Heb 7 : 11)  He cannot have been made perfect forever. (Heb 7 : 28)  Nor can he be the pioneer and perfecter of faith, as per Hebrews 12 : 2.  To satisfy these conditions Jesus would have had to have been perfect - and Acts 7 shows that this isn't so.

 

8.

Especially relevant to our dialog Ready, is Saul's meeting with Jesus the Promise Breaker, on the road to Damascus.

Since ALL of Paul's ministry is based on the gospel he (allegedly) received at that meeting, then all of his writings are similarly suspect and not to be trusted.  So that's everything from Romans thru Philemon and possibly Hebrews as well.  What does it matter if Paul was giving his own opinions on certain issues?  His source of authority (Jesus Christ) is not to be trusted.

 

9.

The assurances given by the gospel writer Luke to Theophilus concerning the truth about Jesus are also shown to be worthless.  (See # 4.)

 

10.

Since Jesus' words cannot be trusted (see # 3) then everything he has to say about eternal torment in Hell (like the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man) can be written off as false too.  This destroys the whole narrative of the book of Revelation and also falsifies the terrifying notion of Judgement and Damnation.

.

.

.

It looks like one small breach in the dam (Acts 7) leads to the catastrophic failure of the whole structure!

 

None of it holds water.

.

.

.

Ok Ready, I've confined myself to responding only to your first paragraph.

 

I'll be back online later.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

  Hey Ready...look at what I missed!

 

In Luke 21 some of Jesus' disciples ask him about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and he warns them about coming wars, earthquakes, famines, pestilences, fearful events and great signs from heaven.  Then he says this.

.

.

.

Luke 21 : 12 - 15, NIV.

 

12 "But before all of this, they will seize you and persecute you.  They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name."

13 "And so you will bear testimony to me."

14 "But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how to defend yourselves."

15 "FOR I WILL GIVE YOU WORDS AND WISDOM THAT NONE OF YOUR ADVERSARIES WILL BE ABLE TO RESIST OR CONTRADICT."

.

.

.

There it is.  In black and white. 

Jesus... H-I-M-S-E-L-F ...gave Stephen false words about Abraham, Joseph and Jacob! 

 

And you'll notice how verse 15 agrees perfectly with Acts 6 : 10..? 

"But they [the Jews who argued with Stephen] could not stand up against the wisdom the Spirit [of Jesus] gave him as he spoke."

.

.

.

Proof poz! 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[readyforchange]

Hi BAA.  No problem at all!  Thanks for outlining your 10 points about how the Holy Spirit could not be perfect based off the content within the New Testament.  Very sound case you've laid out.  I really now recognize the broader implications of the errors in Stephen's speech in Acts even more fully, too.  Thanks for also pointing out the additional problem in Luke 21.  I think this is Jesus' speech to the discliples known as the Olivett Discourse.  I agree that verse 15 is a problem, especially in light of Acts 6:10.  And another indirect problem with Luke 21:15 would be the statement that "...none of your adversaries will be able to resist..."  If this were true, then when Stephen gave his speech in Acts, the Jewish authorities should have agreed with Stephen and never stoned him, because they should not have been able to resist the message of Stephen's speech.

 

I spent a lot of time over the past couple of years contemplating on and closely examining your #5 (the virgin birth) and #6 (Old Testament prophecies that supposedly point to Jesus). 

 

With the virgin birth, beyond the problems with the prophecy, from a philosophical perspective, there is a problem to me with viewing the miracle connotation of the virgin birth in light of today's medical technology.  To the authors of Matthew and Luke, a concept of a virgin woman becoming pregnant and giving birth is considered a miracle.  I'm not well-versed in this subject, but today, with in vitro fertilization, a woman who has never had sex can now become pregnant if one of her eggs is artificially inseminated and fertilized outside her body, to where she can then bring the resulting embryo to term during pregnancy.  It seems to me that IVF should have NEVER been possible for humans, if Mary being a virgin when she conceived Jesus was a miracle.  And just the idea of a God having sex with a human woman was not unusual during the 1st century.  In Greek mythology, I think it was common for Zeus to have sex with human women and produce his offspring.  Then, back in Genesis 6:4, the author describes how the sons of God came down and had sex with human women.  So that aspect of Mary becoming pregnant by God seems to lose its uniqueness. 

 

When I read those prophecies in their Old Testament locations, I really saw that many of them are taken out of context and did not have anything to do with a future Messiah or a future human sacrifice (including the virgin birth "prophecy" linked to Isaiah 7).  Citsonga, I also remember reading one of your posts where you showed how many of the Old Testamement prophecies that are supposed to point to Jesus were completely taken out of context - particularly many of those in the Gospel of Matthew. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

  Hey Ready...look at what I missed!

 

In Luke 21 some of Jesus' disciples ask him about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and he warns them about coming wars, earthquakes, famines, pestilences, fearful events and great signs from heaven.  Then he says this.

.

.

.

Luke 21 : 12 - 15, NIV.

 

12 "But before all of this, they will seize you and persecute you.  They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name."

13 "And so you will bear testimony to me."

14 "But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how to defend yourselves."

15 "FOR I WILL GIVE YOU WORDS AND WISDOM THAT NONE OF YOUR ADVERSARIES WILL BE ABLE TO RESIST OR CONTRADICT."

.

.

.

There it is.  In black and white. 

Jesus... H-I-M-S-E-L-F ...gave Stephen false words about Abraham, Joseph and Jacob! 

 

And you'll notice how verse 15 agrees perfectly with Acts 6 : 10..? 

"But they [the Jews who argued with Stephen] could not stand up against the wisdom the Spirit [of Jesus] gave him as he spoke."

.

.

.

Proof poz! 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Hey BAA, in the spirit of our trying to test hypotheses:

 

can't a Christian apologist say that Luke 21 portrays Jesus describing the "end times"? So his promise of giving people the words to say will be fulfilled fully only in the "end times"? Therefore Stephen spoke under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but Jesus' promise to give him words wasn't operative in Acts in the way that it will be operative during the "end times."

 

So can the inerrantist slip back to the minimal claim that because Acts is inspired, we have an accurate record of what Stephen said, and we know that he spoke w/ inspiration of the HS, but we don't have grounds to conclude that every assertion of Stephen was itself inerrant?

[bornagainathiest]

Ok F,

 

Let's compare Luke 21 with Acts 2 and see what happens.

 

Luke 21 : 5 - 28, NIV.

 

The Destruction of the Temple and Signs of the End Times

5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another;every one of them will be thrown down.”

7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”

8 He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them. 9 When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.”

10 Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.

12 “But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you. They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. 13 And so you will bear testimony to me. 14 But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16 You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17 Everyone will hate you because of me. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 Stand firm, and you will win life.

20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

25 “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26 People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27 At that time they will see the Son of Mancoming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

.

Acts 2 : 1 - 41, NIV.

 

The Holy Spirit Comes at Pentecost

2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.

5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken.7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans?8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontusand Asia,[b] 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”

13 Some, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine.”

Peter Addresses the Crowd

14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

17 “‘In the last days, God says,
    I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
    your young men will see visions,
    your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
    I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
    and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
    and signs on the earth below,
    blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
    and the moon to blood
    before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21 And everyone who calls
    on the name of the Lord will be saved.’[c]

22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d]put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. 25 David said about him:

“‘I saw the Lord always before me.
    Because he is at my right hand,
    I will not be shaken.
26 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
    my body also will rest in hope,
27 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
    you will not let your holy one see decay.
28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
    you will fill me with joy in your presence.’[e]

29 “Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
    “Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies
    a footstool for your feet.”’[f]

36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Jesus will only teach people what to say at a future time, then Peter was wrong to cite Joel and claim that the last days were upon them.  The last time I looked, the end times are yet to come.  Pentecost therefore wasn't a fulfillment of Joel because, two thousand years later, the end times still aren't upon us.  Thus the inerrantists have a problem.

 

If the Bible is inerrant, how can Peter be right to quote Joel to the amazed crowd and have three thousand of them added to the number of true believers - yet also be wrong, because his timing was out by at least two millennia?  If inerrantists want to go down the route you're suggesting Ficino, then they have to deal with the Peter/Joel problem of Acts 2 : 16.  When are/were the end times?  Back then or still to come?

 

So the claim that Jesus will only give words to those on trial at some future time can't be looked at until the Peter/Joel End Times problem is resolved by the inerrantists.  After all, they're the ones claiming that scripture is totally reliable on ALL matters.     

 

They need to put their house in order first!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

As you know, I think inerrantists are way off. But they can be slippery devils. I've seen people try to explain away the contradictions over the 30 pieces of silver and death of Judas by saying that Acts only reports accurately what Peter said, not necessarily that every part of Peter's report about Judas was accurate.

I agree with you that with Stephen described as speaking by the HS, his errors reflect on the HS.

As to "the last days," I think the scholarly take is that the NT writers thought that the judgment was coming soon, in the sense that most people use the word "soon." So "last days" means last days. Some inerrantists have two senses of last days, between which they dance as a given passage prompts, i.e.
1 - we have been in "the last days" since the first Pentecost, and the last days are the age of the Church
2 - then there will be the "last days" of the age, just before the rapture, beast, Armageddon, etc

 

Keep on exposing these problems, guys!  The pressure helps people to see the huge number of hoops that the inerrantist has to jump through.  Eventually, people can see how what is explained away as 'apparent contradictions' are in fact just contradictions. Period.

[bornagainathiest]

Hi BAA.  No problem at all!  Thanks for outlining your 10 points about how the Holy Spirit could not be perfect based off the content within the New Testament.  Very sound case you've laid out.  I really now recognize the broader implications of the errors in Stephen's speech in Acts even more fully, too.  Thanks for also pointing out the additional problem in Luke 21.  I think this is Jesus' speech to the discliples known as the Olivett Discourse.  I agree that verse 15 is a problem, especially in light of Acts 6:10.  And another indirect problem with Luke 21:15 would be the statement that "...none of your adversaries will be able to resist..."  If this were true, then when Stephen gave his speech in Acts, the Jewish authorities should have agreed with Stephen and never stoned him, because they should not have been able to resist the message of Stephen's speech.

 

Excellent point, Ready.

But please look at the difference between Acts 7 : 51 - 53 (where Stephen describes the resistance of the ancient Israelites to the Holy Spirit) and Acts 2 : 37 (where the three thousand Israelites listening to Peter did not resist the Holy Spirit).  In both cases, people were convicted of their sin by the Holy Spirit, but they reacted in very different ways.  

 

I think the crucial point that you might have missed here is that the Holy Spirit isn't a bulldozer that cannot be resisted and that forces people to accept the truth about themselves.  Rather, when Luke 21 : 15 and Acts 6 : 10 speak of people being unable to resist, these passages mean that they cannot deny the truth they are hearing, but they are still free to accept or reject this truth.  The personal responsibility of those hearing this truth is to either accept it or reject it.  

 

I spent a lot of time over the past couple of years contemplating on and closely examining your #5 (the virgin birth) and #6 (Old Testament prophecies that supposedly point to Jesus). 

 

With the virgin birth, beyond the problems with the prophecy, from a philosophical perspective, there is a problem to me with viewing the miracle connotation of the virgin birth in light of today's medical technology.  To the authors of Matthew and Luke, a concept of a virgin woman becoming pregnant and giving birth is considered a miracle.  I'm not well-versed in this subject, but today, with in vitro fertilization, a woman who has never had sex can now become pregnant if one of her eggs is artificially inseminated and fertilized outside her body, to where she can then bring the resulting embryo to term during pregnancy.  It seems to me that IVF should have NEVER been possible for humans, if Mary being a virgin when she conceived Jesus was a miracle.  And just the idea of a God having sex with a human woman was not unusual during the 1st century.  In Greek mythology, I think it was common for Zeus to have sex with human women and produce his offspring.  Then, back in Genesis 6:4, the author describes how the sons of God came down and had sex with human women.  So that aspect of Mary becoming pregnant by God seems to lose its uniqueness. 

 

Methinks you should speak to Ravenstar!  

She's our resident historian and knows a great deal about ancient history and comparative ancient religious beliefs.

 

When I read those prophecies in their Old Testament locations, I really saw that many of them are taken out of context and did not have anything to do with a future Messiah or a future human sacrifice (including the virgin birth "prophecy" linked to Isaiah 7).  Citsonga, I also remember reading one of your posts where you showed how many of the Old Testamement prophecies that are supposed to point to Jesus were completely taken out of context - particularly many of those in the Gospel of Matthew. 

 

I can see that you've done a lot of reading, Ready.

I can also see that you've chosen to look at the Bible in a critical and logical way, rather than just accepting X, Y and Z by faith.  Would that our 'resident' Christians could do that!

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

As you know, I think inerrantists are way off. But they can be slippery devils. I've seen people try to explain away the contradictions over the 30 pieces of silver and death of Judas by saying that Acts only reports accurately what Peter said, not necessarily that every part of Peter's report about Judas was accurate.

 

I agree with you that with Stephen described as speaking by the HS, his errors reflect on the HS.

 

As to "the last days," I think the scholarly take is that the NT writers thought that the judgment was coming soon, in the sense that most people use the word "soon." So "last days" means last days. Some inerrantists have two senses of last days, between which they dance as a given passage prompts, i.e.

1 - we have been in "the last days" since the first Pentecost, and the last days are the age of the Church

2 - then there will be the "last days" of the age, just before the rapture, beast, Armageddon, etc

 

Keep on exposing these problems, guys!  The pressure helps people to see the huge number of hoops that the inerrantist has to jump through.  Eventually, people can see how what is explained away as 'apparent contradictions' are in fact just contradictions. Period.

 

Ok F,

 

If these slippery devils want to be cute with their definitions of "last days" ... I'll be cuter.

Look back at Luke 21 and you'll see that Jesus gives his account of these future events in reverse order.  It all hinges on the first four words of verse 12.  "But before all of this..."  So this means that his answer to the disciples questions in verse 7 cannot be read in the sequence it is given.  Instead, this is the true order.

 

Verses 12 to 19 describe what must come before ALL of the other things.

These are the Last Days as per the age of the Church.

 

12 “But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you. They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. 13 And so you will bear testimony to me. 14 But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16 You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17 Everyone will hate you because of me. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 Stand firm, and you will win life.

 

Verses 8 to 11 and then 20 to 28 describe all that comes afterwards.

That is, chronologically after verses 12 to 19.  These are the End Times of the Beast, the Rapture and the Armageddon. 

 

8 He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them. 9 When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.”

10 Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.

 

20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

25 “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26 People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27 At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

Ok F,

So when does Jesus say that he will give words and wisdom to those bearing testimony about him?

 

In the first period, the Last Days of the age of the Church, not the second period, which are the Last Days and End Times.  And since the age of the Church began at the first Pentecost (see Acts 2), then Stephen's testimony to the Sanhedrin fits exactly the scenario Jesus was describing in Luke 21 : 12 - 19, Luke 12 : 11 & 12 and also in Mark 13.

 

Stephen was seized. (Acts 6 : 12)

He was persecuted, because false witnesses were brought against him. (Acts 6 : 11 & 13) 

A great persecution against the Christians began with his trial. (Acts 8 : 1 - 3)

He was brought before a local council and made to give his testimony.  (Acts 7 : 1)

His testimony hinged on their murder of Jesus. (Acts 7 : 52 & 53.)

And his declaration was that the God of Israel was not One, but three... Father, Son (verse 56) and Holy Spirit (verse 51). 

Stephen was hated. (Acts 7 : 54)

He was put to death. (Acts 7 : 57 - 60)

 

These events (seizure, persecution, trial and execution) are summarized and described by Jesus in the gospels of Luke and Mark.  As is Jesus' speaking thru his witnesses via the Holy Spirit.  With so much corroborating evidence Ficino,  I therefore submit that his promise to teach his witnesses what to say cannot apply only to the Last Days and End Times immediately before Armageddon.

 

Jesus was promising how his Holy Spirit would speak thru martyrs like Stephen, in the Last Days of the age of the Church - which began on the first Pentecost.  A promise to send a spirit of truth.  A spirit which didn't know when Abraham departed Harran.  A spirit which didn't know the true number of Joseph's household.  A spirit which made mistakes about who bought Jacob's burial plot and where it was.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Yes, BAA, your "before all this" argument is a good one.

 

Have you seen any inerrantists try to grapple with the contradictions between what Stephen says, inspired by the HS and speaking words from Jesus, and what the OT says?  I can think of what they might try to reply, but each reply seems pretty lame.  Perhaps their strongest strategy would be what I consider "sophisticated" inerrantism, by which they would try to do a riff on genre and complex contexts and the rhetorical strategies of the author and all that.

[bornagainathiest]

Yes, BAA, your "before all this" argument is a good one.

 

Have you seen any inerrantists try to grapple with the contradictions between what Stephen says, inspired by the HS and speaking words from Jesus, and what the OT says?  I can think of what they might try to reply, but each reply seems pretty lame.  Perhaps their strongest strategy would be what I consider "sophisticated" inerrantism, by which they would try to do a riff on genre and complex contexts and the rhetorical strategies of the author and all that.

 

Let them try.

The details in the early chapters of Acts are too good a match with the details in Luke and Mark for their lame strategies to work.  As always, the contradictory nature of scripture itself is the greatest enemy of Biblical inerrantism.  Which I find truly, madly and deeply ironic.  As I'm sure you do too?

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

I think we've talked about this on other threads.  There are some who try to be scholars and hold to a literalistic inerrantism.  I think they're only employed by literalistic denominations.  There are others who maintain that scripture is inerrant but who oppose what they call literalistic or fundamentalistic interpretation.  So this second group creates a lot of wiggle room by invoking factors like the ones I mentioned above.  This second approach is technically that of, for example, the Catholic Church, which has issued official pronouncements that say that scripture is without error in all that it affirms (this is spun in different ways by different theologians who in turn interpret the official pronouncements).  The RCs also denounce fundamentalistic interpretation.  They would say, for example, that the Book of Job is inspired fiction and without error in all it affirms - the rub being, what does it "affirm" if it's fiction?

 

I don't know how they handle the speech of Stephen, because I don't read biblical scholarship anymore.  I do know there are conservative protestants who are OK with taking things not literally but as effects of the writer's rhetorical strategy - the whole result, they say, being inspired and inerrant in what it affirms.

 

I could go on about the "what it affirms" qualification but then I'd have to go look up stuff.  The RCs tie this to what scripture affirms for our salvation.  That's how they get around problems with scientific and historical matters.

[♦ ficino ♦]

For what it's worth, here's my understanding of the RC take.  I mention it because it's an example of a conservative but sophisticated approach to inerrancy.  I think it fails.  Still, I post the following so that we can all consider the arguments better.

 

During the debates at Vatican II, Cardinal König of Vienna pointed out various contradictions among different scriptural passages. He brought up the question, does inerrancy extend to all assertions in scripture or only to those that pertain to salvific truth, i.e. to faith and morals. Eventually the resulting decree, Dei Verbum, committed Catholic exegetes to a middle position.  It included this:

 

"since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of [our] salvation."

 

Dei Verbum adds:

 

"To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms."

 

This is important for the whole genre issue.

 

"But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith." 

 

This is important for establishing context, like Thumbelina's scripture interprets itself.  Unlike Thumbelina, the Church adds that you have to follow tradition.

 

Later they add that the four gospels "faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1)."

 

So I think it is left vague what is entailed by the clause, "that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of salvation."  Doctrine demands that some historical events really occurred, e.g. the bodily resurrection, or Jesus' Ascension, or the giving of the HS at Pentecost. Doctrine perhaps doesn't demand that we believe all the historical details of the Exodus story.  I doubt many Catholic scholars take the whole Exodus story as fact.  As to Stephen's speech, I guess all Catholics are expected to agree that it does not err on what it says about our salvation.  They might say that discrepancies between it and the OT are irrelevant because they're only part of the casing of human thought and words and authorial strategies, in which the inerrant stuff is packaged.

 

What does the Catholic exegete do when BAA pushes him to the wall over the contradictions?  How to handle the implication that Jesus and the HS sprinkle error into the text?  I guess they can only try to reply that:

-- the stuff that is discrepant doesn't amount to "assertions" but to some other sort of speech act - maybe pseudo-assertion, as fictional utterances are often classified by literary critics;

or

-- the discrepancies are asserted only on the level of the story, which doesn't matter, and on the level that matters, the doctrinal level, there are no discrepant assertions

 

-----------

 

But there are discrepant assertions on the doctrinal level, too, and on the level of teaching about morals.

The more you explain away discrepancies by saying they aren't doctrinal/moral so they don't matter, the closer you come to that "tipping point" when one realizes that the entire shebang is man-made.

If the bible isn't reliable in areas where it can be tested, why should we take it (or the Church's word about it) as reliable in areas where it can't be tested?

[bornagainathiest]

For what it's worth, here's my understanding of the RC take.  I mention it because it's an example of a conservative but sophisticated approach to inerrancy.  I think it fails.  Still, I post the following so that we can all consider the arguments better.

 

During the debates at Vatican II, Cardinal König of Vienna pointed out various contradictions among different scriptural passages. He brought up the question, does inerrancy extend to all assertions in scripture or only to those that pertain to salvific truth, i.e. to faith and morals. Eventually the resulting decree, Dei Verbum, committed Catholic exegetes to a middle position.  It included this:

 

"since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of [our] salvation."

 

Dei Verbum adds:

 

"To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms."

 

This is important for the whole genre issue.

 

"But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith." 

 

This is important for establishing context, like Thumbelina's scripture interprets itself.  Unlike Thumbelina, the Church adds that you have to follow tradition.

 

Later they add that the four gospels "faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1)."

 

So I think it is left vague what is entailed by the clause, "that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of salvation."  Doctrine demands that some historical events really occurred, e.g. the bodily resurrection, or Jesus' Ascension, or the giving of the HS at Pentecost. Doctrine perhaps doesn't demand that we believe all the historical details of the Exodus story.  I doubt many Catholic scholars take the whole Exodus story as fact.  As to Stephen's speech, I guess all Catholics are expected to agree that it does not err on what it says about our salvation.  They might say that discrepancies between it and the OT are irrelevant because they're only part of the casing of human thought and words and authorial strategies, in which the inerrant stuff is packaged.

 

What does the Catholic exegete do when BAA pushes him to the wall over the contradictions?  How to handle the implication that Jesus and the HS sprinkle error into the text?  I guess they can only try to reply that:

-- the stuff that is discrepant doesn't amount to "assertions" but to some other sort of speech act - maybe pseudo-assertion, as fictional utterances are often classified by literary critics;

or

-- the discrepancies are asserted only on the level of the story, which doesn't matter, and on the level that matters, the doctrinal level, there are no discrepant assertions

 

-----------

 

But there are discrepant assertions on the doctrinal level, too, and on the level of teaching about morals.

The more you explain away discrepancies by saying they aren't doctrinal/moral so they don't matter, the closer you come to that "tipping point" when one realizes that the entire shebang is man-made.

If the bible isn't reliable in areas where it can be tested, why should we take it (or the Church's word about it) as reliable in areas where it can't be tested?

 

The RC's, Thumbelina and any other inerrantists can believe what they want, Ficino.

See if I care.  A closed mind remains closed until it's owner decides otherwise.  I've no wish to persuade anyone who's prepared to jump thru the above kind of doctrinal hoops to keep their precious and beloved scripture perfect.  

 

No.  My target audience are the lurkers, the deconverting Christians and the newbies who's minds are open to my arguments.  Provided they are persuaded that Jesus gave false words to Stephen, then that's all I really care about.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Interesting how the footnote in my Catholic Bible admits but brushes away the contradictions between Stephen's speech and Genesis. Re: Acts 7:2, where Stephen says that God appeared to Abraham when he was still in Mesopotamia and before he settled in Haran:

 

"the first of a number of minor discrepancies between the data of the Old Testament and the data of Stephen's discourse. According to Gn 12,1 God first spoke to Abraham in Haran. The main discrepancies are these: In 7, 16 it is said that Jacob was buried in Shechem, whereas G 50, 13 says he was buried at Hebron; in the same verse it is said that the tomb was purchased by Abraham, but in Gn 33, 19 and Jos 24, 32 the purchase is attributed to Jacob himself. The exactitude of detail achievable by modern scholarship was not a concern to ancient writers--who in any case were dealing with a variety of biblical and extra-biblical traditions."

 

The scholars who wrote this note clearly don't work from the assumption that we have the exact words of Stephen. Their concern lies solely in what the author of Acts wrote.  Unlike fundies, they don't try to claim that there are no discrepancies.  Instead, they airily dismiss them.  They don't explicate all the discrepancies, either - e.g. Stephen says with the Septuagint that 75 people went to Egypt, Acts 7:14, but the Masoretic Hebrew of Genesis has 70 people. 

 

BAA, if you're not interested in the following, that's quite all right!  But if you are --

 

it seems your question to exegetes such as the authors of the above note would have to be, not

 

"Why did Jesus inspire Stephen to make false statements?"

 

but rather,

 

"Why did the HS inspire the author of Acts to include discrepancies on minor details of the OT?  And if the HS--who is ex hypothesi OMNISCIENT-- is not faithful in little, why should we think the HS is faithful in much?"

 

I belabor this point because non-fundamentalist Christians like to dismiss a lot of atheist criticism of the Bible as applying only to fundies and not to sophisticated, non-fundy takes on scripture.  Non-fundies tend to be less crude than fundies, but they still promote and support structures that you and I and most of the other folks on here have struggled to set aside.  And when those non-fundies belong to churches that wield a lot of political power, like the RCs, they can still be dangerous, maybe more so.

 

That's why I try to consider how a critique of a given bible passage can stand up to sophisticated attempts to defend that passage as divinely inspired.  And if there's a more powerful rejoinder than what I sketched out in red above, I'd like to hear it!

[readyforchange]

 

Hi BAA.  No problem at all!  Thanks for outlining your 10 points about how the Holy Spirit could not be perfect based off the content within the New Testament.  Very sound case you've laid out.  I really now recognize the broader implications of the errors in Stephen's speech in Acts even more fully, too.  Thanks for also pointing out the additional problem in Luke 21.  I think this is Jesus' speech to the discliples known as the Olivett Discourse.  I agree that verse 15 is a problem, especially in light of Acts 6:10.  And another indirect problem with Luke 21:15 would be the statement that "...none of your adversaries will be able to resist..."  If this were true, then when Stephen gave his speech in Acts, the Jewish authorities should have agreed with Stephen and never stoned him, because they should not have been able to resist the message of Stephen's speech.

 

Excellent point, Ready.

But please look at the difference between Acts 7 : 51 - 53 (where Stephen describes the resistance of the ancient Israelites to the Holy Spirit) and Acts 2 : 37 (where the three thousand Israelites listening to Peter did not resist the Holy Spirit).  In both cases, people were convicted of their sin by the Holy Spirit, but they reacted in very different ways.  

 

I think the crucial point that you might have missed here is that the Holy Spirit isn't a bulldozer that cannot be resisted and that forces people to accept the truth about themselves.  Rather, when Luke 21 : 15 and Acts 6 : 10 speak of people being unable to resist, these passages mean that they cannot deny the truth they are hearing, but they are still free to accept or reject this truth.  The personal responsibility of those hearing this truth is to either accept it or reject it.  

 

I spent a lot of time over the past couple of years contemplating on and closely examining your #5 (the virgin birth) and #6 (Old Testament prophecies that supposedly point to Jesus). 

 

With the virgin birth, beyond the problems with the prophecy, from a philosophical perspective, there is a problem to me with viewing the miracle connotation of the virgin birth in light of today's medical technology.  To the authors of Matthew and Luke, a concept of a virgin woman becoming pregnant and giving birth is considered a miracle.  I'm not well-versed in this subject, but today, with in vitro fertilization, a woman who has never had sex can now become pregnant if one of her eggs is artificially inseminated and fertilized outside her body, to where she can then bring the resulting embryo to term during pregnancy.  It seems to me that IVF should have NEVER been possible for humans, if Mary being a virgin when she conceived Jesus was a miracle.  And just the idea of a God having sex with a human woman was not unusual during the 1st century.  In Greek mythology, I think it was common for Zeus to have sex with human women and produce his offspring.  Then, back in Genesis 6:4, the author describes how the sons of God came down and had sex with human women.  So that aspect of Mary becoming pregnant by God seems to lose its uniqueness. 

 

Methinks you should speak to Ravenstar!  

She's our resident historian and knows a great deal about ancient history and comparative ancient religious beliefs.

 

When I read those prophecies in their Old Testament locations, I really saw that many of them are taken out of context and did not have anything to do with a future Messiah or a future human sacrifice (including the virgin birth "prophecy" linked to Isaiah 7).  Citsonga, I also remember reading one of your posts where you showed how many of the Old Testamement prophecies that are supposed to point to Jesus were completely taken out of context - particularly many of those in the Gospel of Matthew. 

 

I can see that you've done a lot of reading, Ready.

I can also see that you've chosen to look at the Bible in a critical and logical way, rather than just accepting X, Y and Z by faith.  Would that our 'resident' Christians could do that!

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

BAA, thanks for pointing out how when Luke 21:15 and Acts 6:10 speak of people being unable to resist, the passages mean that they cannot deny the truth they are hearing, but they are still free to accept or reject this truth.  I probably had not taken into consideration that the personal responsibility of those hearing the truth from the H.S. to either accept or reject.  Appreciate your insights!

 

Thanks for referring me to Ravenstar.  I have read a number of her posts on here, too!  So, full disclosure:  I spent about 2 years reading posts and articles on Ex-Christian.net before I signed up a couple of weeks ago and made my first post.  This website has been of tremendous benefit to me.  Yes, I have done quite a bit of reading and now look at the Bible in a critical/logical way.  I always had a logical, rational mindset, and once I learned about the historical-critical method of reading the Bible and Biblical scholarship, that just really opened things up big time for me.  

[readyforchange]

Interesting how the footnote in my Catholic Bible admits but brushes away the contradictions between Stephen's speech and Genesis. Re: Acts 7:2, where Stephen says that God appeared to Abraham when he was still in Mesopotamia and before he settled in Haran:

 

"the first of a number of minor discrepancies between the data of the Old Testament and the data of Stephen's discourse. According to Gn 12,1 God first spoke to Abraham in Haran. The main discrepancies are these: In 7, 16 it is said that Jacob was buried in Shechem, whereas G 50, 13 says he was buried at Hebron; in the same verse it is said that the tomb was purchased by Abraham, but in Gn 33, 19 and Jos 24, 32 the purchase is attributed to Jacob himself. The exactitude of detail achievable by modern scholarship was not a concern to ancient writers--who in any case were dealing with a variety of biblical and extra-biblical traditions."

 

The scholars who wrote this note clearly don't work from the assumption that we have the exact words of Stephen. Their concern lies solely in what the author of Acts wrote.  Unlike fundies, they don't try to claim that there are no discrepancies.  Instead, they airily dismiss them.  They don't explicate all the discrepancies, either - e.g. Stephen says with the Septuagint that 75 people went to Egypt, Acts 7:14, but the Masoretic Hebrew of Genesis has 70 people. 

 

BAA, if you're not interested in the following, that's quite all right!  But if you are --

 

it seems your question to exegetes such as the authors of the above note would have to be, not

 

"Why did Jesus inspire Stephen to make false statements?"

 

but rather,

 

"Why did the HS inspire the author of Acts to include discrepancies on minor details of the OT?  And if the HS--who is ex hypothesi OMNISCIENT-- is not faithful in little, why should we think the HS is faithful in much?"

 

I belabor this point because non-fundamentalist Christians like to dismiss a lot of atheist criticism of the Bible as applying only to fundies and not to sophisticated, non-fundy takes on scripture.  Non-fundies tend to be less crude than fundies, but they still promote and support structures that you and I and most of the other folks on here have struggled to set aside.  And when those non-fundies belong to churches that wield a lot of political power, like the RCs, they can still be dangerous, maybe more so.

 

That's why I try to consider how a critique of a given bible passage can stand up to sophisticated attempts to defend that passage as divinely inspired.  And if there's a more powerful rejoinder than what I sketched out in red above, I'd like to hear it!

 

Great points, ficino!

[Joshpantera]

 

"Why did Jesus inspire Stephen to make false statements?"

 

but rather,

 

"Why did the HS inspire the author of Acts to include discrepancies on minor details of the OT?  And if the HS--who is ex hypothesi OMNISCIENT-- is not faithful in little, why should we think the HS is faithful in much?"

 

I'm sure that's where BAA was headed. His argument so far is more introductory and aimed at introducing the initial problem, which, as you've stated can evolve into a tough question for even non-literalists. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

My rabbi friend told me last night that he thinks perhaps Stephen's speech in Acts contains actual, alternative traditions, different from the traditions in Genesis but which were current in the first century.  He said there is a lot of interest in academia on this question, and he asked me to forward him some stuff, which I did. 

 

If it turns out that there is good reason to think that the author of Acts did not simply mess up but rather, incorporated alternative traditions about Abraham, Joseph, et al., that will be interesting to scholars, but I don't think it will get the inerrantist off the hook.  If some piece of tradition is incorporated into a biblical text, that piece itself becomes inerrant, acc. to the inerrantist position, so its propositions have to be true -- not because it's a tradition, but because God put it in the Bible.  So all the problems with the discrepancy still exist, whether the discrepant piece was dreamed up by the writer, dreamed up by a historical Stephen, dreamed up by some dude who created a tradition, or what.

 

My friend emphasized that for religious Jews, the literal meaning of the Torah is not what they engage.  Instead, they work with what rabbinic tradition says the Torah means.  After two thousand years of tradition, the result is that the literal meaning of the Torah is not necessarily its intended meaning.  The intended meaning is what the rabbis, or most of them, or your group's rabbi, say/s is the intended, normative meaning.

 

It's not really clear what is done with other books of the hebrew bible outside the Torah, but they'd follow tradition on those, too, even if there are things that historians say are historical errors. 

 

So, in answer to my question, does orthodox Judaism have a doctrine of inerrancy, my rabbi friend said, yes, but as interpreted by rabbinic tradition.  This set-up is closer to Eastern Orthodoxy than to Protestantism.

[♦ ficino ♦]

At this point I would say that inerrantists who limit scripture's inerrancy to its affirmations about faith and morals succeed in rendering their claims unfalsifiable.  In doing that, however, they remove their claims' credibility.  They reduce their claims to the category of "woo."

[Joshpantera]

Woo-ee-oo, baby baby...