Religion or Science - How do they compare?

The situation on transcripts seems to be that there are a lot of them but it is very hard to find one that would be relevant.However, I have looked for Sproul’s views. Apparently he holds the view that only strict logical contradictions count - which means that he can make up almost any nonsense he likes to explain them. He could explain the two accounts of Judas’ death by saying that Judas came back to life after the events described in Acts and then did as Matthew says (I am not saying that he did that - only that he could have, and that isn’t even the worst he could do).Choosing such an extreme standard at the least indicates an awareness that there is a real problem, that can’t be easily addressed. It’s an implicit admission that there are good reasons to doubt Biblical inerrancy just from disagreements in the text.

I should point out that I only provided that one as an example of what the demand for a strict logical contradiction allows. And I note that you didn’t address that point.Anyway, would you say that the solution to the two stories of Judas’ death is that Peter provided a distorted account to malign Judas?It’s certainly possible. And you need some explanation for the omissions which erase every sign of remorse in Matthew’s version

The list of contradictions would certainly be written down. If we can identify it, I can find some of the stronger examples and you can use the audio sermon to argue, since you intend to listen anyway.

You missed the fact that Matthew has the disciples head off to Galilee and see the resurrected Jesus there, without any hint of the meeting on the road to Emmaus or Pentecost. And more.There are other good contradictions, too.

According to the story they became like God in knowing good and evil (Genesis 3:22), just as the serpent said (Genesis 3:5).It’s not hard to find. There are plenty of online Bibles if you don’t have one handy.

quote:

---

"Who wrote the Bible?"

​

Answer: It is accurate to say that God wrote the Bible. According to 2 Timothy 3:16, Scripture is breathed out by God. Throughout the Bible, it is obvious that God is being quoted: over 400 times in the Bible, we find the words thus says the Lord (NKJV). The Bible refers to itself as the Word of God dozens of times (e.g., Psalm 119; Proverbs 30:5; Isaiah 40:8; 55:11; Jeremiah 23:29; John 17:17; Romans 10:17; Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 4:12). The Bible is said to proceed from the mouth of God (Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4).

---

As is typical of so-called inerrantists there is considerable misrepresentation of the Bible. For instance Isaiah 40:8 says: The idea that this refers to the Bible as a whole - as the author would have you believe - is simply not present in the text. There is nothing there to say which work is meant to be the word of our God.The Bible talks about the word of God in many places, but to say that the Bible is talking about itself when no such claim is present is simply dishonest.So a question. If the author truly believed that the Bible was the word of God, why would he misrepresent it so obviously ? And if he doesn’t believe it, why should anyone believe him ?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

At the time the quoted verses were written, the Bible as a whole, did not exist. The use of these verses to justify inerrancy fails in many ways.

---

Of course. But Isaiah 40:8 can’t refer to anything that is not already identified as the word of God. To claim otherwise is such an obvious misrepresentation that I think it worse than the obvious mistake.It’s all about fooling the gullible, and putting words into God’s mouth. I think that Christianity is confused. But Christianity - which is what we are dealing with here - is a fraud.

quote:

---

The very few contradictions are trivial and probably reconcilable.

---

I can think of one that poses some pretty serious problems. And the disagreements over the post-resurrection appearances are pretty damning to the idea of the Gospels as reliable history.

quote:

---

I have never ever said I read the Bible "literally." The word "inspire" means "God breathed" which is a clear statement of God's authorship.

---

No, it isn’t. Aside from noting that that statement doesn’t even clearly apply to the book it is found in, we can point out that when the Bible does attribute authorship it is always to a human author.
Why then should we read breathed as referring to authorship rather than to a more common meaning of inspired as the word is normally used ?

quote:

---

When the Biblical writers use the term "Word of God" it is not referring to the Scriptures. It is referring to the Logos and can be also translated as the "wisdom" of God. In Genesis it metaphorically talks about God speaking the world into existence, (such as in God said let there be light etc. ) and so it is in reference to that. The "Word of God" put another way is the essence, the wisdom and the power of God when used in the Bible.

---

Or it might refer to the words attributed to God in the Bible. While the Bible never claims divine authorship it does have sections that are claim to be God’s words, as set down by the human writers.

quote:

---

Because "God-brfeathed" is what it means in the original Greek.

​

theopneustos: God-breathed, i.e. inspired by God
Original Word: ,
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: theopneustos
Phonetic Spelling: (theh-op'-nyoo-stos)
Short Definition: God-breathed, inspired by God
Definition: God-breathed, inspired by God, due to the inspiration of God.

---

In other words it doesn’t mean inspired by God in the more usual sense - because it is explicitly listed as a possible meaning.Didn’t you even read the material you quoted ?

quote:

---

Of course. It is the meaning understood by all traditional Bible exegetes.

---

Where traditional means those who want to claim that the Bible was written by God. Since their view is clearly not supported by the Bible it is not surprising that they would resort to taking a strained reading of the one verse that comes closest.

quote:

---

But since you are among those so far above the traditionalists of course you must be right.

---

You mean since I dare to read the Bible for myself instead of worshipping your idols.

quote:

---

You can argue it with God when the time comes.

---

Because God has to worship your idols, too ? I hardly think so.

quote:

---

Traditional means the line through the Reformation to the present.

---

So more than a thousand years after the book was written. If your claim is even true. Please support it - if you can.

quote:

---

But we know they don't count because PaulK is the expert on all of it and he disagrees with them.

---

Your quotes list of meanings agrees with me. A plain reading of 2 Timothy agrees with me. The fact that both Bible and tradition attribute authorship to human writers agrees with me. The fact that the Bible contains sections where the authors claim to be repeating God’s words agrees with me.In short, my position is Biblical, and yours is not. But I guess your few hundred years of tradition outweighs the Bible, and God just has to accept that.

quote:

---

The claim that God spoke to them, is not the same thing as when the term "Word of God" is used as a noun.

---

If God spoke to them, then what he said would be the word of God. And surely the phrase every word of God fits better with that than with the idea of the Logos (itself an idea that postdates the books of the Tanakh)

If the Bible is your final authority, why do you quote men who misrepresent it ? Message 146I note that you haven’t answered this point.

quote:

---

What's to answer?

---

The fact that he misrepresented the Bible of course.

quote:

---

I quoted someone who gives the standard traditional understanding

---

So, misrepresenting the Bible is a tradition in Christianity. I’m not surprised. But it makes a mockery of your claim that the Bible is the final authority.

quote:

---

That doesn't matter to you. You like your own interpretations better.

---

I was raised Christian, so I am still a little shocked that people who claim to be Christians would care so little about the Bible. I would be more shocked if I hadn't seen it over and over again from so-called Bible-believing ChristiansEdited by PaulK, : No reason given.