The Biggest Contradiction

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

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

 

 

 

sub, you have not yet done the "study" and spade work you need to do to show that the many contradictions in the Bible are not contradictions.

 

I think you ignored my post, of which this is the last paragraph:

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.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

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

sub, you have not yet done the "study" and spade work you need to do to show that the many contradictions in the Bible are not contradictions.

Sub, just in case you are willing to consider unbiased biblical criticism I'd suggest reading a book such as Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus - The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why". It's relatively short and very readable. Ehrman was trained at the very conservative Moody Bible Institute and evangelical Wheaton College.

[Guest sub_zer0]

sub, you have not yet done the "study" and spade work you need to do to show that the many contradictions in the Bible are not contradictions.

Sub, just in case you are willing to consider unbiased biblical criticism I'd suggest reading a book such as Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus - The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why". It's relatively short and very readable. Ehrman was trained at the very conservative Moody Bible Institute and evangelical Wheaton College.

 

Basically NT Textual Criticism 101 for the first 4 chapters and then the other 3 are where it is at, I've read reviews about it, I don't think the content serves the title justice.

 

Some of the more prominent examples a passage in which Jesus is said to be angry (Mark 1:41), a text in which “even the Son of God himself does not know when the end will come” (Matt 24:36), and an explicit statement about the Trinity (1 John 5:7-8). None of which are to drastic or earth-shattering to be quite honest.

 

Concerning, firstly Mark 1:41 few ancient manuscripts speak of Jesus as being angry, most others speak of him as having compassion. Of course, context shows that in Mark 3:5 Jesus is said to be angry.

 

Secondly, regarding Matthew 24:36, other places speak of Jesus' lack of prophetic knowledge regarding the end-times and the in which only the Father knows.

 

Thirdly, as far as 1 John 5:7-8, that is already explained by me and there is no need to go into it anymore I feel.

 

sub, you have not yet done the "study" and spade work you need to do to show that the many contradictions in the Bible are not contradictions.

 

Indeed, there is no reason as others have done that job in full as I have posted their links on a post, here.

 

I think you ignored my post, of which this is the last paragraph:

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.

 

I think you are speaking for yourself more than me, you start without bias as well and do sluething. The only bias is that I believe in Christ as my Savior.

 

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.

 

Wrong...

 

"The Chicago Statement is the most widely accepted definition of biblicial inerrancy in the evangelical world. President Patterson and Dean Bush were a part of the group that formulated the document and both were among the original signers of the Statement. Only the Abstract of Principles stands as an official doctrinal confession of the Seminary, but by common consent and as a testimony to our students and our supporting churches, we publish and acknowledge the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy."

 

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.

 

Yes I know all this, but you are forgetting the Dead Sea scrolls and how they represent relibale translations.

[white_raven23]

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.

 

Yes I know all this, but you are forgetting the Dead Sea scrolls and how they represent relibale translations.

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls are NOT related in any way to the New Testament. Why do you keep referring to "evidence" for the wrong part of the bible?

 

This has been pointed out to you already.

[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

 

Ummm, actually 1 John 5:7-8, the way it was represented in the old KJV (1611), isn't the same in the NASB or the NIV.

 

Actually, my admission was number 2, but also the fact that 1 John 5:7-8 isn't the same as it was in the KJV back oh so long ago proves that modern, major Christian Bibles listened to the evidence. Sorry but your major points are null and void.

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls are NOT related in any way to the New Testament. Why do you keep referring to "evidence" for the wrong part of the bible?

 

This has been pointed out to you already.

 

Ummm, actually this was a conversation regarding the original documents, that means all the originals, the NT and OT as he didn't specify further. Also, note that I didn't specify the NT either and actually never was referring the NT.

 

My point stands that the Dead Sea scrolls can represent just what I said in regards to the Old Testament.

[Mythra]

Ummm, actually this was a conversation regarding the original documents, that means all the originals, the NT and OT as he didn't specify further. Also, note that I didn't specify the NT either and actually never was referring the NT.

My point stands that the Dead Sea scrolls can represent just what I said in regards to the Old Testament.

 

There are discrepancies between the OT and the Dead Sea Scrolls also. There are prophecies by Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel in the scrolls which are not found in the Bible.

 

And besides, that - when we're talking about accurate, faithful passing down of a text (or complete lack thereof), the Israelites were not in the same category as the Romans. The early christian church is absolutely famous for forgeries, pseudepigraphy, and changing the text to fit their preconceived dogma.

 

I can give you a half dozen quotes by CHRISTIAN founding fathers that complain about the texts being altered in the second through fourth centuries.

[Guest sub_zer0]

There are discrepancies between the OT and the Dead Sea Scrolls also. There are prophecies by Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel in the scrolls which are not found in the Bible.

 

Let's take Daniel.

 

The date indicated by the text has been questioned and generally dismissed by critical scholars who date the final composition of the book to the second century B.C. Specifically, it is argued that the tales in chapters 1-6 as they appear in their present form can be no earlier than the Hellenistic age (c. 332 B.C.).

 

And besides, that - when we're talking about accurate, faithful passing down of a text (or complete lack thereof), the Israelites were not in the same category as the Romans. The early christian church is absolutely famous for forgeries, pseudepigraphy, and changing the text to fit their preconceived dogma.

 

I can give you a half dozen quotes by CHRISTIAN founding fathers that complain about the texts being altered in the second through fourth centuries.

 

Most of that during the Roman times was from the apocrypha.

 

Give me one quote...

[white_raven23]

The Dead Sea Scrolls are NOT related in any way to the New Testament. Why do you keep referring to "evidence" for the wrong part of the bible?

 

This has been pointed out to you already.

 

Ummm, actually this was a conversation regarding the original documents, that means all the originals, the NT and OT as he didn't specify further. Also, note that I didn't specify the NT either and actually never was referring the NT.

 

My point stands that the Dead Sea scrolls can represent just what I said in regards to the Old Testament.

 

LIAR!

 

Either that, OR YOU aren't paying attention!

 

Beginning with post # 23 by Mythra.....

 

I'm just starting to read "Misquoting Jesus" by NT Scholar Bart D. Ehrman. In the intro to his book, he says this:

 

It is one thing to say that the originals were inspired, but the reality is that we don't have the originals - so saying they were inspired doesn't help me much, unless I can reconstruct the originals. Moreover the vast majority of Christians for the entire history of the church have not had access to the originals, making their inspiration something of a moot point. Not only do we not have the originals, we don't have the first copies of the originals. We don't even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later - much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, in many thousands of places. As we will see later in this book, these copies differ from one another in so many places that we don't even know how many differences there are. Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

 

To which YOU responded in post# 24...

Yep, and that is why there is Textual Criticism.

 

He forgot to mention that the copying of the originals is very reliable.

 

Thunderbolt proceeded in Post 25....

Prove it!

 

And then we've got YOU in POST 26

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.

 

If you want to bullshit people...try at least making it tricky by doing in OUTSIDE the very THREAD where the discussion referred to took place!

[Antlerman]

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?

No, the "authoritative" I should have be clearer, is in the sense that fundamentalists mean it: Absolutely authoritative and binding. Now... you just called these "supposed" errors. Do you accept that there are errors? You sound hesitant with the word "supposed". Having a hard time swallowing what it may mean?

 

And no... your explaination of "when studied" to have "reasonable answers" does not in any possible sense whatsover equate with "inerrant". Inerrant means without error. If it was this, it would not need you or anyone to find "reasonable answers" or explainations. No explaining necessary.. it's without error.

 

You have said it is innerant only in its original form, which no one has. If so, then it has not absolutely, god breathed, infallible, binding authority on any human being living or dead. If you feel otherwise, please justify this in light of your admission of it being an imperfect word of God.

 

Do you not see this? In this case it is a black or white issue. It either is inerrant, or it is not. You have said it is not, but just are not swallowing it yet. You have no choice.

[Mythra]

Here is the entire quote by Origen. Hopefully you know who that is.

 

"The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please."

 

 

Even outsiders knew what was going on:

 

From Origen's Contra Celsum:

 

"Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves, and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism."

 

 

These are quotes from Antiquity. Revealing.

[thunderbolt]

Ummm, actually this was a conversation regarding the original documents, that means all the originals, the NT and OT as he didn't specify further. Also, note that I didn't specify the NT either and actually never was referring the NT.

Sub, stop being a lair. My question to YOU specifically related to the NT scriptures, so don't invent stuff as you go along to back yourself out of your bullshit. You have sub_zero integrity.

[Guest sub_zer0]

No, the "authoritative" I should have be clearer, is in the sense that fundamentalists mean it: Absolutely authoritative and binding. Now... you just called these "supposed" errors. Do you accept that there are errors? You sound hesitant with the word "supposed". Having a hard time swallowing what it may mean?

 

Let me clarify. Here is what these so-called errors and contradictions mostly fall under, as in how the person came to think they were even that in the first place.

 

-he misunderstood the historical context

-he misread the text

-he misunderstood the Hebrew usage

-the texts are compatible with a little thought

-he misunderstood the author's intent

-these were merely copyist error

-he misunderstood how God works in history

-he misunderstood the Greek usage

-he didn't read the entire text

-he misquoted the text

-he misunderstood the wording

-he had too literalistic an interpretation

-he imposed his own agenda

-he confused an incident with another - 1 time

-we now have discovered an earlier manuscript - 1 time

 

And no... your explaination of "when studied" to have "reasonable answers" does not in any possible sense whatsover equate with "inerrant". Inerrant means without error. If it was this, it would not need you or anyone to find "reasonable answers" or explainations. No explaining necessary.. it's without error.

 

Inerrant is the autographs, I have made that clear, the originals are inerrant.

 

You have said it is innerant only in its original form, which no one has. If so, then it has not absolutely, god breathed, infallible, binding authority on any human being living or dead. If you feel otherwise, please justify this in light of your admission of it being an imperfect word of God.

 

Do you not see this? In this case it is a black or white issue. It either is inerrant, or it is not. You have said it is not, but just are not swallowing it yet. You have no choice.

 

Yes, exactly only inerrant by the autographs. Again the thing with all of these things that put the infallibility of Scipture in question can all be reasoned logically to make one conclude that through the thousands of years of transmission of the Scripture, we have somewhere around 98.999% inerrant.

 

 

Sub, stop being a lair. My question to YOU specifically related to the NT scriptures, so don't invent stuff as you go along to back yourself out of your bullshit. You have sub_zero integrity.

 

Be specific then, I have asked that from the beginning. How am I supposed to know when you don't tell me what you are talking about.

 

Also, as far as copying the manuscripts the mistakes made by scribes are as follows:

 

*Dittography - Writing twice what should have been written once.

A good example would be writing "latter" instead of "later." "Latter" means nearest the end. "Later" means after something else.

*Fission - Improperly dividing one word into two words.

Example: "nowhere" into "now here."

*Fusion - Combining the last letter of one word with the first letter of the next word.

"Look it is there in the cabinet... or Look it is therein the cabinet."

*Haplography - Writing once what should have been written twice.

A good example would be "later" instead of "latter." "Later" means after something else. "Latter" means nearest the end.

*Homophony - Writing a word with a different meaning for another word when both words have the exact same pronunciation.

Meat and meet have the exact same sound but different meanings. Also, there and their and they're are another example.

* Metathesis - An improper exchange in the order of letters.

Instead of writing "mast," someone writes "mats," or "cast" and cats."

 

 

Here is the entire quote by Origen. Hopefully you know who that is.

 

"The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please."

 

Addressed already in this post...

[SkepticOfBible]

 

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

 

 

When you don't have the orginal autograph, on what basis are you making this claim?

 

You have no idea what the authors wrote in the bible.

 

And since the current manuscript is correct(which you admit), therefore you can NEVER get a Objective(free from bias) exegesis from these mauscripts.

 

 

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.

 

Where is your evidence for the following?

 

(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.

 

Where is the manuscript of this "some Latin MSS", from the error was formed?

 

Since you claim that the catholic church was corrupt, it is most like the text was altered by the catholic priests who had access to these manuscripts, to promote their doctrine of trinity.

 

Second of all, if this was actually a genuine mistake(which is unlikely), then my question was

 

WHERE WAS THE HS TO GUIDE THE SCRIBE TO CORRECT TRANSMIT THE "TRUTH"?

[Guest sub_zer0]

When you don't have the orginal autograph, on what basis are you making this claim?

 

You have no idea what the authors wrote in the bible.

 

And since the current manuscript is correct(which you admit), therefore you can NEVER get a Objective(free from bias) exegesis from these mauscripts.

 

My basis is the OT and its faithful transmission and the fact that there are no differences or variances in the NT manuscripts that are of to much concern or that can't be reasoned logically.

 

Where is your evidence for the following?

 

(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.

 

Where is the manuscript of this "some Latin MSS", from the error was formed?

 

# It is found in only four Greek manuscripts, none earlier than the 14th century. 4 other Greek mss. offer it as a margin note. The remaining Greek mss., numbering in the hundreds, do not include it.

# The earliest attestation for it is in Latin mss., though not in the oldest Latin mss., and not in Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The only Latin mss. that do contain it are all of Spanish origin or influence.

# The earliest attestation at all comes from the work of a writer in 385 AD, in Latin.

 

Let's not forget that modern day NASB and NIV doesn't have what the KJV had 1 John 5:7-8 saying in 1611. That fact alone proves somewhat that it could be either one of my options.

 

Since you claim that the catholic church was corrupt, it is most like the text was altered by the catholic priests who had access to these manuscripts, to promote their doctrine of trinity.

 

Second of all, if this was actually a genuine mistake(which is unlikely), then my question was

 

WHERE WAS THE HS TO GUIDE THE SCRIBE TO CORRECT TRANSMIT THE "TRUTH"?

 

I never claimed the Catholic church was corrupt or that text was altered by the priests to promote their doctrine.

 

The guiding happened with Textual Criticism I suppose, an art that is at least 300 years old, hehe.

[Guest sub_zer0]

The NT has over 5000 supporting Greek manuscripts existing today with another 20,000 manuscripts in other languages. Some of the manuscript evidence dates to within 100 years of the original writing. There is less than a 1% textual variation in the NT manuscripts.

[SkepticOfBible]

 

 

My basis is the OT and its faithful transmission and the fact that there are no differences or variances in the NT manuscripts that are of to much concern or that can't be reasoned logically.

 

What you are saying now is very different from you earlier asserted

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...

 

Do you now admit that you made a false and misleading statement?

 

Ficino made very good point about "variances are of to much concern"

 

Nothing is trivial if it's an infallible and inerrant assertion of God to man.

 

I like you to rebut this point.

 

Do you realize how trivial those little things, like how many angels, at dawn, etc, etc are?

 

The birth, life and resurrection of Jesus is supposed to be the most important event that ever happened in the universe, and represents a "fact" upon which the entire Christian doctrine of salvation rests, one would expect God to see to it that this event was precisely and clearly recorded.

 

God had no problem taking time to inspire a high level of precise detail and information in the following areas:

 

*God devotes 36 verses of specific detail on how to decorate and furnish an important ceremonial tent in Exo 26.

*God devotes 42 verses of specific detail on how he wants priests to dress in Exo 28.

*God devotes 46 verses of specific detail on how priests are to be consecrated in Exo 29.

*God devotes 85 verses of specific detail on how offerings are to be made in Lev 1-Lev 4.

*God devotes 38 verses of specific detail on how to deal with mildew(yes, mildew) in Lev 13:47-59 and Lev 14:33-57.

*God devotes 39 verses of specific detail on how the Temple was furnished in 1 Kings 7:13-51.

 

It's certainly reasonable to expect that God would see to it that a far, far, more important topic than any of these would be recorded without gross inconsistencies and a confusing timeline

 

One would also expect also to ensure that his "Holy Word" is free from corruption(which is not the case

 

That's what would be expected of God if the Gospels were really his holy word. If they aren't, then that opens up a can of worms that fundamentalists don't want opened under any circumstances.

 

 

Let's not forget that modern day NASB and NIV doesn't have what the KJV had 1 John 5:7-8 saying in 1611. That fact alone proves somewhat that it could be either one of my options.

 

Ok, fine, but this proves the fact that bible was altered. And there is no way of knowing whether it was mistake or deliberate alteration?

 

I also raised two other verses. These two verses still exist in the NASB and NIV

 

 

I never claimed the Catholic church was corrupt or that text was altered by the priests to promote their doctrine.

 

Oh you may not have said it, but that was the basis of the protestant revolution

The guiding happened with Textual Criticism I suppose, an art that is at least 300 years old, hehe.

 

And what a failure that was. In the end your god failed to preserve his "holy word"

[Guest sub_zer0]

What you are saying now is very different from you earlier asserted

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...

 

Do you now admit that you made a false and misleading statement?

 

Ficino made very good point about "variances are of to much concern"

 

Perhaps a bit misleading but it is clarified now.

 

The birth, life and resurrection of Jesus is supposed to be the most important event that ever happened in the universe, and represents a "fact" upon which the entire Christian doctrine of salvation rests, one would expect God to see to it that this event was precisely and clearly recorded.

 

It is clearly recorded.

 

It's certainly reasonable to expect that God would see to it that a far, far, more important topic than any of these would be recorded without gross inconsistencies and a confusing timeline

 

It sure is, and that is exactly what it is.

 

One would also expect also to ensure that his "Holy Word" is free from corruption(which is not the case

 

That's what would be expected of God if the Gospels were really his holy word. If they aren't, then that opens up a can of worms that fundamentalists don't want opened under any circumstances.

 

All those corruptions you speak of can all be reasoned, etc, like I have said.

[SkepticOfBible]

It is clearly recorded.

Oh please, there are numerous contradiction in the Gospel that can never be resolved, without using some twisted logic and inserting unsupported assertions.

 

For one resolve the two/one donkey issue?

 

All those corruptions you speak of can all be reasoned, etc, like I have said.

But you will never be able to get OBJECTIVE(free of bias) exegisis, if the text is corrupted, then so will any interpretation from it.

 

The eyewitness analogy put forward by Archer is something you have not rebutted. If the bible is corrupted, then you can never be assured that

 

Scripture, we have somewhere around 98.999% inerrant.

 

How exactly did you get this figure, one can only wonder?

 

Your claim is rebutted here(I can't print table so please read it carefully

 

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/manufall.html#result1

 

And please address the other two verses that I mentioned.

 

If they don't exist in the original manuscript why do they appear in the NASB, KJV and NIV translation?

[Antlerman]

You have said it is innerant only in its original form, which no one has. If so, then it has not absolutely, god breathed, infallible, binding authority on any human being living or dead. If you feel otherwise, please justify this in light of your admission of it being an imperfect word of God.

 

Do you not see this? In this case it is a black or white issue. It either is inerrant, or it is not. You have said it is not, but just are not swallowing it yet. You have no choice.

 

Yes, exactly only inerrant by the autographs. Again the thing with all of these things that put the infallibility of Scipture in question can all be reasoned logically to make one conclude that through the thousands of years of transmission of the Scripture, we have somewhere around 98.999% inerrant.

(Emphasis mine). Beautiful! Thank you! Yes "reasoned logically to make one conclude". This is called interpretation.

 

Interpretation is not inerrant. Interpretation is not infallible. Interpretation is not absolute Truth.

 

Do you believe you have an infallible, inerrant interpretation? I don't think so. You believe you have the "best" interpretation. That I will accept is what you believe. Now, accepting that you in your fallible condition as a human being are making fallible interpretations of scripture, how in the name of all that is deemed honest, can you say to other Christians that if what they believe isn't what you believe, then they are not believing the absolute Truth?

 

You have just admitted you have "reasoned logically to make one conclude" it is the truth. Yet church #2 of the 30.000 Christian denominations have also "reasoned logically to make one conclude" what they feel is the truth, and on and on. Are you saying you are inspired infallibly in your "logical reasoning"? I don't believe you can honest admit that.

 

Moreover, even though you clearly feel that your interpretation that you have "reasoned logically to make one conclude" is the best interpretation because it's the one of the thousands out there that you have chosen to adopt (or maybe that was because it was the closet available at the time that made sense to where you were in your life, etc - more on that later), do you believe your interpretation is 98.999% accurate? Exactly how accurate would you actually estimate your interpretation to be?

 

BTW: This statement here is inerrant: If something is 98.999% inerrant ---- it is errant. The scriputre you have is errant.

 

Edit: Have you actually done a statistical analysis of the errors to conclude the figure you present that it is 98.999% inerrant, or is that simply "reasoned logically to make one conclude", in other words, subjectively and biasedly concluded this figure to suit your impressions?

[Jedah]

They aren't errors to begin with, they can all be justified with reasonable answers.

 

Are there no errors, or do you not want there to be any errors ? ANY book can be inerrent if you defend it as so as long as you dont take it literally. I could easily defend the Lord of The Rings as inerrent.

 

The contradictions in the bible are not answered with reason, they are answered with avoidance.

[Eponymic]

 

LIAR!

 

Either that, OR YOU aren't paying attention!

 

If you want to bullshit people...try at least making it tricky by doing in OUTSIDE the very THREAD where the discussion referred to took place!

 

Golly. You know Subby. If someone flat out called me a liar like this, I'd address it, immediately. Because to me it becomes more & more true the longer you fail to recognize that you're integrity has been called into question. This requires an answer, and not giving one only upholds her point.

 

All those corruptions you speak of can all be reasoned, etc, like I have said.

 

Yeah, they can only be reasoned, not back up with irrefutable facts.

[Mythra]

Some of the manuscript evidence dates to within 100 years of the original writing.

 

Sorry, sub. I can't let you get away with that. You're either ignorant or dishonest. Let's find out which.

 

Go ahead and make a list for us of all of the manuscript evidence that is thought to date to within 100 years of the original autographs.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

 

 

sub, you have not yet done the "study" and spade work you need to do to show that the many contradictions in the Bible are not contradictions.

 

Indeed, there is no reason as others have done that job in full as I have posted their links on a post, here.

 

I can't put things better than Eponymic has already put them:

 

I got links for days....

 

Okay, links only show that you're not thinking for yourself. We know about a majority of the arguments against the contradictions. But what is your reasoning? I haven't seen you give much on this site. You've been very much linked to usurping the thoughts of others & not forwarding your own.

 

You've already admitted to being brainwashed into Christianity. You're hardly proving you are at all credible, much less able to form original thought. I hope you can see that & learn how to think for yourself. Because right now, you're nothing more than a lemming or an automaton.

 

 

As to your request that I do similar sleuthing, I've been doing it for years, sub, in Greek and Hebrew, and I've posted many of my own conclusions about various biblical passages all over this site. You've posted a few, but I don't remember you've tackled biblical contradictions yourself. You content yourself with the knowledge that others have posted "refutations." This reminds me of my old days in the Assemblies of God. A guy in our church was an ex-Jehovah's Witness. He said that the leaders of Watchtower "have a refutation for everything" about doctrines like the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. It's easy when leaders of groups publish refutations. For your own sake, do the work yourself. And don't bore us with links to refutations on some website. We've been there already.

 

Some of the manuscript evidence dates to within 100 years of the original writing.

 

Sorry, sub. I can't let you get away with that. You're either ignorant or dishonest. Let's find out which.

 

Go ahead and make a list for us of all of the manuscript evidence that is thought to date to within 100 years of the original autographs.

 

Yes, I'm eager to know, too. Name the extant NT manuscripts copied before 133 A.D., sub, by shelfmark and library.

[Mythra]

I'll list one for you, sub. P52 - The Rylands Papyrus. 3 1/2" X 2 1/2". Conservatives date it at 125 CE. Other scholars date it as late as 170 CE.

 

Here it is :

 

 

 

 

Go ahead and give us the rest, sub.

[Taphophilia]

I'll list one for you, sub. P52 - The Rylands Papyrus. 3 1/2" X 2 1/2". Conservatives date it at 125 CE. Other scholars date it as late as 170 CE.

 

Here it is :

 

 

 

 

Go ahead and give us the rest, sub.

 

It seems to me that Sub has been off studying apologetics, which now were gonna have to deal with the not answering the questions until he's found the answer xtian motis operandi. Which is worse "Yes, it is/No it isn't - or - cut and paste?

 

Taph