Flaws in the Scriptures

PaulK,You defined Apostolos' statement as: This is not the claim of Scripture regarding itself. The Bible is said to have been written to convey wisdom to men. Therefore, it should be read in accordance with that purpose. In Proverbs 8:4-9, the Bible personifies wisdom as crying out to men. This is what that passage says about the commmunication of wisdom from God to man.

quote:

---

Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man. O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart. Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things. For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips. All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.

---

I would like to draw your attention to verse 9 specifically. There we find that the words of wisdom are "all plain to him that understandeth." Thus, it seems that the Bible claims to be written plainly not literally or figuratively but in a plain sense. Therefore, it should be interpreted plainly. This means that if a passage is obviously a metaphor, then it should be interpreted metaphorically; but if it is written as a narrative, then it should be interpreted as a narrative. In other words, the Bible was not written to be confusing or misleading; its intent is meant to become obvious and clear to those who increase their understanding.

PaulK,I see that, for once, we agree with each other. You stated, This is correct. The Bible is only reliable if its supposed errors can be reasonably explained. Any explanations which defy reason are not in keeping with the claims of the Bible regarding itself and thus prove to be errors themselves. In light of this allow me to refer you to several explanations which I have already provided for some of the supposed contradictions mentioned in this thread.First, Zhimbo mentioned the followed supposition: I provided an answer to a similar question here.Second, Yaro posted a question regarding civilizations that predate the flood. This question was brought up in this thread. If you will read through it you will find that no valid evidence could be provided for any civilization continuing through the flood.Third, Reason posted several questions regarding supposed numerical discrepancies. Answers to all three of these can be found in the recently published book Those So Called Errors, but I have presented the results of an independent study of Jehoiachin's age here.And finally I have also provided an answer to Sidelined's statement about the sundial of Ahaz. He stated: My initial statement in a lengthy discussion of this topic can be found here, and the conclusion of this discussion can be found here.These are just a few of the reasonable explanations that have already been proposed on this site.

PaulK,In regards to Jehoiachin's reign, please notice that while both II Kings and II Chronicles list him as reigning for only three months, they also both place a qualifier on that statement in that they both quote the three months as the length of time during which Jehoiachin reigned in Jerusalem. Thus while one book places the beginning of his reign at his coregency and the other presents it as his actual ascension to the throne, both books agree that he was sole regent for only three months.