The Biggest Contradiction

[Guest sub_zer0]

Prove it!

 

Well you see, we had manuscripts that were fairly old. Then we found the Dead Sea Scrolls, a thousand years older than anything we had. They were quite similar and the copying over the years was confirmed to be solid and reliable.

[SkepticOfBible]

 

 

There was no "massive editing" in the first place as you say, perhaps copyist errors.

 

if there are no "massive editing" then please explain why the following verses are not found in the earlier manuscript

 

1)I John 5:7-8 (KJV)

2)Mark 16:9-20

3)John 8:1-11(The story of the adulterous woman)

 

Before I address those, be specific. What is your specific question or contradiction you see in those verses. We will start with number 1, go....

 

You asserted that the bible has not been altered by the scribe nor as there been any addition or subtraction. On what basis are you making that claim, when the evidence shows the contrary? And how does your god allow variations to enter his manuscripts?

 

if the most earliest manuscripts don't have verses, what are they doing in a book that is supposed to represent the most reliable word of God?

 

And please don't say those verses are not important for doctrines

 

Here is another comment which was found on a discussion group between two christians in regards to Acts 15:24

 

Google Group

 

The words "saying that you must be circumcised and keep the Law" are not found in the earliest manuscripts.

 

Since you don't have the original manuscript you CANNOT say that which manuscript is the correct one.

 

Well you see, we had manuscripts that were fairly old. Then we found the Dead Sea Scrolls, a thousand years older than anything we had. They were quite similar and the copying over the years was confirmed to be solid and reliable.

 

I think somebody rebutted your claim regarding that, by saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls do contain variation from the Masorite Text.

 

In any case the Dead Sea Scrolls don't relate to the NT, what is the proof that the NT has not been altered?

[thunderbolt]

Well you see, we had manuscripts that were fairly old. Then we found the Dead Sea Scrolls, a thousand years older than anything we had. They were quite similar and the copying over the years was confirmed to be solid and reliable.

You are grasping for straws. The earliest NT manuscript we have dates from the fourth century. Try again.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

Yep, but if you dug deeper you would find out that a lot of those differences, or variations are minor in that they do not affect doctrinal elements.

 

 

sub, do you realize that you've just allowed the inerrantist position on scripture to be thrown out? Are you saying the Bible as we have it is only inerrant on matters of doctrine, but our text contains errors or variations or whatever on non-doctrinal matters? Do you see what a big trap door you've opened under your feet? Start with the contradictions in the Easter story - are you going to keep the doctrine of christ's resurrection but allow that our biblical text is infected with contradictions about the factual details of that resurrection - e.g. were there angels or men at the empty tomb, how many, were there soldiers sleeping or was there no one outside, did the women start out before dawn or at dawn or after dawn, etc. etc.

 

If the biblical text isn't reliable about simple matters of empirical fact, why should anyone pay attention to its claims about speculative matters that are not verifiable?

 

I think you are starting to slip away from biblical literalism. If that's so, I rejoice with you, dude!

[Mythra]

Well you see, we had manuscripts that were fairly old. Then we found the Dead Sea Scrolls, a thousand years older than anything we had. They were quite similar and the copying over the years was confirmed to be solid and reliable.

 

Methinks thou talkest from out thine rectum, my friend.

 

(This is the colliseum, so I gotta be nice.)

 

You are regurgitating christian jargon without knowing what you are talking about. Have you read the writings from the Qumran Library? Have you read Enoch? The Community Rule? The Damascus Document?

 

You'll be afraid to read this, (or - you'll take a cursory glance at it and scoff - and dismiss it) but I'll post it anyway for those of us who aren't threatened by truthful information.

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Crisis of Christianity

[Guest sub_zer0]

You are grasping for straws. The earliest NT manuscript we have dates from the fourth century. Try again.

 

Wrong, the scrolls were dated to be from around 200 B.C.E. to 68 C.E.

 

sub, do you realize that you've just allowed the inerrantist position on scripture to be thrown out? Are you saying the Bible as we have it is only inerrant on matters of doctrine, but our text contains errors or variations or whatever on non-doctrinal matters?

 

Nope, I am not saying that.

 

Do you see what a big trap door you've opened under your feet? Start with the contradictions in the Easter story - are you going to keep the doctrine of christ's resurrection but allow that our biblical text is infected with contradictions about the factual details of that resurrection - e.g. were there angels or men at the empty tomb, how many, were there soldiers sleeping or was there no one outside, did the women start out before dawn or at dawn or after dawn, etc. etc.

 

Do you realize how trivial those little things, like how many angels, at dawn, etc, etc are? The fact is He rose from the dead to conquer it, that is all we should be concerned about. Not saying that the Gospels can't be harmonized in those parts though however.

[jrmarlin]

Sub, you really should look up a thread on here that deals with trying to figure out when Jesus was born. The timing doesn't make sense... and that is not a trivial thing, for you if you can't decided when your savior was born and died... then how do you know your savior ever existed in the first place?

 

If he never existed then your whole religion is surely lost.

[Mythra]

Wrong, the scrolls were dated to be from around 200 B.C.E. to 68 C.E.

 

Well, you have the dating pretty much correct, at least.

 

And, now we can add one more contemporary source that never heard of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. (He is not present in any of the Qumran materials)...

 

However, many of Jesus' "original" teachings and doctrines are there. Elements of the gospel story existing 100 years before the "actual events" "happened".

 

No wonder it's taken 50 years for all of them to become available to the public. (And, even then it was against the Catholic Church's wishes)

 

Bolstering the faith has always been more important than revealing the truth.

[♦ ficino ♦]

You are grasping for straws. The earliest NT manuscript we have dates from the fourth century. Try again.

 

Wrong, the scrolls were dated to be from around 200 B.C.E. to 68 C.E.

Wrong, your dates apply to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thunderbolt is right about the manuscripts of the New Testament.

 

 

sub, do you realize that you've just allowed the inerrantist position on scripture to be thrown out? Are you saying the Bible as we have it is only inerrant on matters of doctrine, but our text contains errors or variations or whatever on non-doctrinal matters?

 

Nope, I'm not saying that.

 

Do you see what a big trap door you've opened under your feet? Start with the contradictions in the Easter story - are you going to keep the doctrine of christ's resurrection but allow that our biblical text is infected with contradictions about the factual details of that resurrection - e.g. were there angels or men at the empty tomb, how many, were there soldiers sleeping or was there no one outside, did the women start out before dawn or at dawn or after dawn, etc. etc.

 

Do you realize how trivial those little things, like how many angels, at dawn, etc, etc are? The fact is He rose from the dead to conquer it, that is all we should be concerned about. Not saying that the Gospels can't be harmonized in those parts though however.

 

Nothing is trivial if it's an infallible and inerrant assertion of God to man. The Gospels cannot be harmonized in those or many other parts without annihilating language (e.g. did Jesus sit on two donkeys or not on two donkeys?).

 

One of two things happened: 1. the original autograph copies written by the biblical writers were free from error, but copyists introduced errors that now infect all our copies. This would mean the Holy Spirit didn't safeguard the transmission of the text. We can hardly rely on textual critics to restore the original with certainty; we only have probability, which isn't enough to guarantee the inerrancy of the bible. 2. Or, the original writers introduced errors (e.g. messed up details about Palestinian history) or changed factual assertions to produce the appearance of fulfilled prophecy (Matthew did this a lot).

 

I go with 2. Even 1. undermines the trustworthiness of the bible, though, and you need to posit some other inerrant and infallible authority like Tradition or The Pope.

 

Finally, if the bible isn't trustworthy about little things like the time of the morning or presence of soldiers or Palestinian dates, it is not trustworthy when it makes hugely improbable claims like "Jesus rose from the dead." "He who is faithful in little is faithful in much." I'd turn this around and say, the book that is not faithful in little is not faithful in much.

 

There are many christians who have given up on historical inerrancy of the bible but who hold that it is trustworthy about doctrine. I don't think this position is coherent. If you hold it, though, sub_zero, you have much company. I got the impression you are a full-bore fundamentalist, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Please correct me if I have misconstrued your views about the range statements in the Bible to which "inerrant" applies.

 

Going out on a limb, as one human being to another, I'm adding that I don't think you have confronted all the biblical contradictions, one by one, objectively. I think you've had a converstion experience and from that, adopted the bible as inerrant as a blanket act of faith. You now take comfort in the notion that all biblical contradictions can be explained away. I suspect that's because various apologists have published refutations of the contradictions. Try stepping outside your life-framework if possible and pretend you're a scholar from some other religion, or of no religion, and look at all the contradictions afresh. I don't think you'll end up satisfied that apologists' method of refutation gives a plausible picture of what the biblical writers did. It's not plausible to think that on SO MANY occasions, Matthew correctly noted that there were two of something, while the other gospel writers only bothered to mention one. Why is this doubling in Matthew so consistent? Easier to believe it's the writer's strategy than to say the other writers kept reducing the numbers of things to no discernible purpose. Look at how Matthew misinterprets Hebrew poetry and makes "an ass, a foal of an ass" into two donkeys. Second, apologists' method of explaining away contradictions does not preserve the usual sense of words (e.g. "Mary Magdalene came to the tomb while it was still dark" (John) does not equal "just after sunrise" or "at dawn").

 

On this thread you have contented yourself with blanket statements like "the bible doesn't contradict itself when you look at context", etc. but you haven't shown that you've done the actual sleuthing yourself. Now that you're starting to dismiss the importance of some contradictions, I wonder whether your view of scripture is becoming more liberal. It's worth it for you to do the sleuthing without preconceptions; treat the text as a text and forget for the moment the things that you feel it's done in your life. Those things are part of a different topic.

[Mythra]

You are grasping for straws. The earliest NT manuscript we have dates from the fourth century. Try again.

Wrong, the scrolls were dated to be from around 200 B.C.E. to 68 C.E.

 

Sub_Zero: you really have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, do you?

 

There are no New Testament fragments present in the Dead Sea Scrolls. If you have been told that, you've been sold a bill of damaged goods.

 

At one time, it was claimed that a tiny fragment (7Q5) - which contained only one complete word, was from Mark chapter 6, versus 52 and 53. This has since been debunked as Christian wishful thinking.

 

By the way, the only complete word contained in this fragment is kai. Greek. It means "and".

 

 

 

The oldest extant copies of the New Testament do, indeed, date to the fourth century. They are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

 

There are no extant papyrus fragments of the New Testament (not even one word) that date to the first century. The oldest fragment that exists is P52, which dates to 125 CE - almost 100 years after the supposed death of Jesus.

[YDOAPS]

Do you realize how trivial those little things, like how many angels, at dawn, etc, etc are? The fact is He rose from the dead to conquer it, that is all we should be concerned about. Not saying that the Gospels can't be harmonized in those parts though however.

It is a fact? Isn't it odd how there were dead people walking about and NO ONE thought to write anything down about it????????

 

 

 

Go ahead, harmonize yourself to death. While you're at it, try Genesis 1 v. Genesis 2.

 

When was Jesus born?

[thunderbolt]

Sub_Zero: you really have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, do you?

That's why I have given up with him, because for him to even have claimed the NT copies were among them shows how utterly clueless he is.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

There is much of the New Testament that is in question. It's simply untrue to say that there are only a few discrepancies between the surviving manuscripts, or that the discrepancies that exist are unimportant. Here's an excerpt from an article that describes the manuscripts that are available and the number of variations that scholars must work with. (Bolding is mine)...

 

Fragment P52 is the oldest extant fragment of NT scripture. It dates to approximately 120-130CE, and contains five verses of JN:18; we have only a literal handful of manuscript fragments from the first centuries of Christianity; our oldest complete or nearly complete gospels do not date before the fourth century.

 

 

1) EXTANT MANUSCRIPTS

 

 

Fundamentalist apologists make much of the large body of manuscripts of the New Testament. Compared to many other ancient works, such as Josephus' Antiquities, Tacitus' Annals, or Homer's Iliad, for example, we do have huge bodies of manuscripts. However, it is obvious that this proves precisely nothing except that many people were interested in preserving it. If, for example, Iliad-ism had been the official state religion of Europe for the better part of the last two millenia, we would undoubtedly have such attestation for the Iliad. Or, as G.A. Wells pointed out, if there were Tacitus clubs in every town of the western world for the past two millenia, we would not be missing sections of the Annals.

 

Of these 'many' manuscripts, only a literal handful date to within a few centuries of the after the work's original composition (with John's gospel, attested almost in toto by manuscripts dating within one century of its authorship, providing a clear exception). None of the autograph manuscripts survive, and indeed no manuscripts from the first century survive. For the second and third centuries, there exists only a handful of manuscript fragments:

 

 

"Gospel manuscripts from the second century are very scarce, with only two fragments of John's gospel definitely written before A.D. 200 (i.e. P52 and P90)... of all the synoptic manuscripts which can be dated to the fourth century or earlier, only two (P45 and P75, both of the third century) contain more than a chapter" ('Novum testamentum,' p.111).

 

 

It might also be mentioned that we have only 35 manuscripts dating from before 400CE, only four of which were at any time complete, and only 80 manuscripts dating from before 800CE.

 

 

2) What is Text-Criticism all about?

 

 

The need for a critical comparison of texts arises from two indisputed facts. One, we have several manuscripts of the New Testament, and, two, those manuscripts often disagree with one another. Bart Ehrman, one of the world's foremost NT textual critics, notes:

 

 

"Interpreters of the NT are faced with a discomforting reality that many of them would like to ignore. In many instances, we don't know what the authors of the NT actually wrote. It often proves difficult enough to establish what the words of the NT mean; the fact that in some instances we don't know what the words actually were does more than a little to exacerbate the problem. I say that many interpreters would like to ignore this reality; but perhaps that isn't strong enough. In point of fact, many interpreters, possibly most, do ignore it, pretending that the textual basis of the Christian Scriptures is secure, when unhappily, it is not... It is difficult to know what the authors of the Greek New Testament wrote, in many instances, because all of these surviving copies differ from one another, sometimes significantly... No one knows for sure how many differences there are among our surviving witnesses, simply because no one has yet been able to count them all. The best estimates put the number at around 300,000, but perhaps it's better to put this figure in comparative terms. There are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the NT" (Text and Tradition, Lecture to Duke Divinity School, 1997).

 

 

For example, in regards to the gospel of "Luke," theologian D. Parker states that be "upwards of 30,000 variants for that Gospel, so that we have, for example, 81 in the Lord's Prayer" (qtd. in Wells, p. 230). With 81 variations in the "Lord's Prayer" alone, it hardly seems either honest or accurate to claim "uncanny" fidelity in textual transmission of the NT.

 

Of course, no one would expect any manuscript to be recopied so many times without error creeping in, as indeed they have. The next logical question is, Do the descrepancies affect important matters of doctrine? This depends upon whether or not any matter of doctrine is based upon disputed passages. J.K. Elliot, himself a textual critic of the NT, observes that many have "fondly argued that, of the myriad textual variants in our fund of extant mss., few affect key doctrinal matters." Elliot suggests, however, that anyone who would bother to consult Ehrman's work will find that:

 

"[the] text was regularly adjusted in such areas as the birth of Jesus, the agony in the garden, the institution of the Eucharist, Jesus' death, his cry of deriliction, resurrection and ascension... And these adjustments were not made by those who were labelled as heretics, but by the 'proto-orthodox,' to use Ehrman's term... Ehrman vividly shows how scribes have preserved or created within the MSS. they were copying reflections of early Christological debates that helped to shaped mainstream christianity" (Novum Testamentum 36, pp. 405-406).

 

 

Before moving on, it should be noted in all fairness that disputed passages account for only a small minority of the New Testament. In other words, the vast majority of the New Testament text is not disputed. For example, of the 200, 000 or so known variant readings, most occur in only about 10,000 places. As Dr. Gordon Fee puts it:

 

"It is noteworthy that for most scholars over 90 percent of all variations to the NT text are resolved, because in most instances the variant that best explains the origin of the others is also supported by the earliest and best witnesses" (The Expositor's Bible Commentary, I:430).

 

Hence, it is false to say that the text of the NT is a great unknown. In fact, the vast majority of that text IS known, and is not disputed by any significant number of witnesses. Therefore, as stated above, whether or not textual variants affect 'doctrine' must depend upon whether or not that 'doctrine' is based soley on a disputed passage.

 

On the other hand, given the long gap between the composition of the NT and their earliest witnesses, it can not be known with certainty that all disputed passages have been uncovered. There are strong indications that Mark, for example, had been altered significantly in the first century, even before Matthew and Luke utilized that Gospel when composing their own.

 

Much more (including several examples of important discrepancies) can be found here.

[Mythra]

There was no "massive editing" in the first place as you say, perhaps copyist errors.

if there are no "massive editing" then please explain why the following verses are not found in the earlier manuscript

1)I John 5:7-8 (KJV)

2)Mark 16:9-20

3)John 8:1-11(The story of the adulterous woman)

Before I address those, be specific. What is your specific question or contradiction you see in those verses. We will start with number 1, go....

 

Sub: you really need to study more. We know more about your bible than you do.

 

What do you think you're going to address? The fact is, those three portions of scripture do not belong in the bible. They are absent from all of the most ancient Greek manuscripts.

 

The significant thing about the 1 John quote is that it is the primary quote that people use to point to the trinity. And it's not even authentic to the bible. It's known as the Johannine Comma, and Desiderius Erasmus got into some deep shit in the 1500's for trying (rightfully) to remove it from the bible.

 

On the other two, whoever wrote John's gospel did not write that whole scene about the adulterous woman, and Jesus writing in the dirt, and whoever is without sin cast the first stone, and go and sin no more. That's the bottom line. It doesn't belong in that gospel.

 

And, whoever wrote Mark's gospel left the story with "the women were afraid". The whole thing about drinking poison and playing with snakes and preaching the gospel to all creation - was not written by the author of Mark.

 

These three are scribal interpolations (insertions) which have been perpetuated over time, and remain even in the most modern bible versions. But, some of them at least tell you (in the footnotes) that there is a problem.

 

 

Go ahead and resolve these for us. They've only been a problem for Christianity for the last 500 years.

[Guest sub_zer0]

The significant thing about the 1 John quote is that it is the primary quote that people use to point to the trinity. And it's not even authentic to the bible. It's known as the Johannine Comma, and Desiderius Erasmus got into some deep shit in the 1500's for trying (rightfully) to remove it from the bible.

 

For the sake of specifics we will go with what you are saying here about I John 5:7-8. That is not a primary quote to the trinity, it helps the case but isn't completely needed in the first place.

 

So the reasons for this added text to John are two-fold...

 

(1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Word, or;

 

(2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself.

 

Either way, we are aware of the problem, the reasons for and against it. We know the history behind it and frankly I choose to believe it was an honest mistake made by a scribe, or number 2.

[Mythra]

Hey Texasfreethinker: thanks for that link at the bottom of your post. That's a good one.

[SkepticOfBible]

You are grasping for straws. The earliest NT manuscript we have dates from the fourth century. Try again.

 

Wrong, the scrolls were dated to be from around 200 B.C.E. to 68 C.E.

 

 

Read what Thunderbolt is saying. Were the NT manuscripts written 200 years before Christ was born? I had advised you to pray for reading skills or atleast join a primary school, so that you can learn read people's post properly

 

And thanks for ignoring my post

[SkepticOfBible]

 

For the sake of specifics we will go with what you are saying here about I John 5:7-8. That is not a primary quote to the trinity, it helps the case but isn't completely needed in the first place.

 

Do you want me to point to the thousands of Christians Websites which use this wrong verse as a primary verse to prove the trinity?

 

If the Joahnine comma doesn't exists than I don't see how it helps your case.

 

Are you saying that you are willing to use deception to further your case?

 

So the reasons for this added text to John are two-fold...

 

(1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Word, or;

 

(2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself.

 

Either way, we are aware of the problem, the reasons for and against it. We know the history behind it and frankly I choose to believe it was an honest mistake made by a scribe, or number 2.

If it is mistake, then it shouldn't belong in the "Holy, Inerrant(free from Mistake) word of God".

 

Yet despite the evidence, it is there in the major christian bible, ie the NIV, NASB, KJV.

 

By your own admission by point no 1, the bible has been altered because it suited the theological whims of the men who were in control. Which goes contrary to your original claim

 

The word of God (or tome), was never refined or rapaired or altered through the thousands of years of copying the originals, then copying those, etc, etc...

 

Obviously by your own admission the word of God HAS BEEN refined and altered by those who were in control of the scripture.

 

If it was mistake by a scribe, then where was the HS to correct them? Does your god allows errors to enter his "Holy Word"?

 

Or was this unknown scribe was not a "true" christian. Afterall this scribe doesn't have access to the HS, who would guide him to the "truth" of the correct writing.

[SkepticOfBible]

Nothing is trivial if it's an infallible and inerrant assertion of God to man. The Gospels cannot be harmonized in those or many other parts without annihilating language (e.g. did Jesus sit on two donkeys or not on two donkeys?).

 

There is a excellent article which talks rebutts this whole "detail don't matter" arguement. Here is short excerpt from this wonderful article

 

It Doesn't Matter?

I am certainly no fan of Gleason Archer, but I believe that he was right on target when he argued in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties that an errant Bible could not be trusted. After pointing out that a witness in a court of law loses his credibility if he is caught lying in his personal testimony, Archer went on to apply the same principle to the Bible.

The same is true of Holy Scripture. If the statements it contains concerning matters of history and science can be proven by extrabiblical records, by ancient documents uncovered through archaeological digs, or by the established facts of modern science to be contrary to the truth, then there is grave doubt as to its trustworthiness in matters of religion. In other words, if the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested. As a witness for God, the Bible would be discredited as untrustworthy. What solid truth it may contain would be left as a matter of mere conjecture, subject to the intuition or canons of likelihood of each individual. An attitude of sentimental attachment to traditional religion may incline one person to accept nearly all the substantive teachings of Scripture as probably true. But someone else with equal justification may pick and chose whatever teachings in the Bible happen to appeal to him and lay equal claim to legitimacy. One opinion is as good as another. All things are possible, but nothing is certain if indeed the Bible contains mistakes or errors of any kind (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp. 23-24, emphasis added).

 

Although I have urged biblicists who take the errant-but-still-the-word-of-God view of the Bible to refute Archer's arguments, they have all evaded the challenge.

 

The problem is a simple one.

 

If the Bible errs in matters where there is available information, such as that which Archer mentioned above, to establish that errors were made, then how can anyone be sure that the Bible is right in what it says about matters that cannot be corroborated by extrabiblical records?

[Guest sub_zer0]

If it is mistake, then it shouldn't belong in the "Holy, Inerrant(free from Mistake) word of God".

 

Yet despite the evidence, it is there in the major christian bible, ie the NIV, NASB, KJV.

 

By your own admission by point no 1, the bible has been altered because it suited the theological whims of the men who were in control. Which goes contrary to your original claim

 

Nobody ever claimed that the manuscripts we have now are inerrant. Only the original autographs were/are.

 

You obviously didn't read what I wrote, I believe it was added by accident, by a scribe and only backs up claims already made by the Bible.

[Antlerman]

Nobody ever claimed that the manuscripts we have now are inerrant. Only the original autographs were/are.

Help me out here. I'm a little confused. If what we have is not inerrant, then how is it authoritative? You have just said that what you have is not inerrant, didn't you? What good is it to support the claims of infalliblity if what we have is not innerant? You understand the confusion? It seems almost a litlle overly-clear, doesn't it? Or have you backed down a bit on the claims of the one and only truth?

[Guest sub_zer0]

Help me out here. I'm a little confused. If what we have is not inerrant, then how is it authoritative? You have just said that what you have is no inerrant, didn't you? What good is it to support the claims of infalliblity if what we have is not innerant? You understand the confusion? It seems almost a litlle over-clear, doesn't it?

 

You see all of these supposed errors, contradictions, etc, etc, all have reasonable answers and outcomes when studied. Thus, inerrant.

 

So, according to you, the only way something can be authoritative is if it is inerrant?

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

Nobody ever claimed that the manuscripts we have now are inerrant. Only the original autographs were/are.

Interesting claim to make about documents that haven't existed for almost 2000 years and of which no one is certain of the actual text. The intellectual dishonesty or self-delusion required to make such a claim is staggering. Where's your integrity?

[Guest sub_zer0]

Interesting claim to make about documents that haven't existed for almost 2000 years and of which no one is certain of the actual text. The intellectual dishonesty or self-delusion required to make such a claim is staggering. Where's your integrity?

 

Documents that haven't existed for 2000 years? What does that mean?

 

There is an actual text, it is called the Bible.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

You see all of these supposed errors, contradictions, etc, etc, all have reasonable answers and outcomes when studied. Thus, inerrant.

I realize you need to believe this, but it's quite simply not true. There are many expert bible scholars who don't see honest ways to "rationalize" all the contradictions. Only people, such as yourself, who begin with the conclusion that the bible is inerrant are able to ignore the significant differences in both accounts and doctrine throughout the bible.

 

Interesting claim to make about documents that haven't existed for almost 2000 years and of which no one is certain of the actual text. The intellectual dishonesty or self-delusion required to make such a claim is staggering. Where's your integrity?

 

Documents that haven't existed for 2000 years? What does that mean?

 

There is an actual text, it is called the Bible.

The original documents (autographs) haven't been seen for almost 2000 years. The "actual text" / bible you read is composed of translations of copies of copies of copies (and in many cases the copies are just fragments rather than full books). No one knows what the original texts contained in full.