Flaws in the Scriptures

Often those who believe in Creation, believe because the Bible says so. If one is able to discredit the Bible than one also dismiss creationism. However if one can defend the Bible's accuracy than it makes it easier to belive what the Bible says about Creation.
The purpose of this post is do establish the following;
'GOD CANNOT ERR'
'THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD'
These two premises lead to the conclusion that the 'BIBLE CANNOT ERR'
Help debate this conclusion by bringing up what you feel are mistakes in the Bible. I will do my best to answer those mistakes, and together we will discover whether or not the Bible is Inerrent.
Sincerely
Apostle

ApostleI think you first need to establish that God exists before you can establish that He does not err and that the bible is God's word. It would also be proper to do so without using the bible as source forthe establishment of God.

Because this is my thread I can set the conditions. The goal of this paper is do discuss what some view a flaws in the Bible. If you have some to bring up, do so, but this is my topic and my discussion is on flaws in the Bible. Thanks for the tip, but you have missed on what I thought I make clear in Post 1. I am not discussing God's existence, but the Bible's supposed inerrency.
Apostle

Alright, Lets discuss the flood.Now I know, the flood has been beaten to death on these forums, but come on. It's the bigest white elephant in the inerantist room!So, if the Bible is litteral, and inerrant, how is the flood possible?If the flood really happend as the bible said it did, then the following impossibilities arive (out of pure logical deduction!)a) How did other cultures like the Egyptians and the Chinese pick up right where they left off before the flood? How was their ethnicity preserved? How were the dark skinned affrican ethnicities preserved?b) How did all the animals survive in the Ark? How did Leopard slugs, madascar 2 toed sloths, cain toads, all somehow migrate to the middle east, let alone survive cooked up in a big ark for months? (Lets not get into how stuff fit in the ark).c) How did the world repopulate so quickly? How did the Native americans get back to america and pick up where their culture left off? How did the Aboriginies pick up where their culture left off?I think the flood story itself disproves an inerrant bible.

ApostleOkay I will abide by that however for purposes of clarity do we consider the bible to be literal if it is to be inerrant?

There are plenty of discrepencies - a number of which have been discussed here in other threads.But the question is how to deal with everything in a single thread ?I mean I can point out that Matthew has Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great, while Luke puts Jesus birth during a Roman census which occurred ten years later, when the Romans absorbed Judaea into Syria. I'm sure you can find plenty of apologetic sites that offer assorted excuses - often misinformation. But rather than take up a whole thread on one discrepency let settle for the facts.There is no record of the Romans taxing subject kingdoms, like Judaea. Those paid tribute and it was for the rulers of the state to gather the money however they saw fit.Quirinius oversaw the census of 6 AD. There is no record placing him in Judaea prior to that time. Nor is there any record of a tax census of Judaea prior to that time.If Judaea had - contrary to all the evidence we have - been part of the Roman tax system before 6 AD, then it would not have been necessary to hold a census as soon as Judaea was annexed.That there is a discrepency between Luke and Matthew on this point is the only reasonable conclusion.

In 3 out of 4 Gospels, Jesus is alive during Passover (in fact, the Last Supper is a Passover meal). In John, Jesus is dead before Passover starts.

I have reordered the premises.1) 'THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD' - The Bible might be God's word, but the physical presentation of this word has gone through that fallible hands of man. The "word of God" has suffered the "editing of man".2) 'GOD CANNOT ERR' - I seems to me, that even if you accept the Bible as being "The Truth", it does document the failings of God. God created the earth to be a paradise, and that paradise failed to last. God erred.3) These two premises lead to the conclusion that the 'BIBLE CANNOT ERR' - I think this conclusion breaks down, because premise 1 breaks down. Precise 2 is irrelevant.I, in making the above comments, in no way mean to discount the value of Christianity.Moose

Or you will no doubt take your marbles and ... what? The Bible errs in asserting God(s).

quote:

---

Because this is my thread I can set the conditions.

---

Actually, once it was posted here it became everyone's thread. But I agree with your point - you have a certian purpose to the thread, and an idea of what you want to converse about, and so we should respect that.My serious flaw is the different resurrection accounts in the Gospels: Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary come to the tomb, an earthquake rolls the stone away, an angel sits on it, the guards faint, and the angel speaks to the women outside the tomb. Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary, and Salome come to the tomb, the stone is already moved, an angel is sitting inside the tomb. Luke: Several women, identified later as Mary Magdalen, Mary, Joanna, and at least two others, unnamed, came to the tomb, the stone was already rolled away, two men appear to them. John:Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb alone, sees the stone rolled away, leaves and tells Peter, Peter and another disciple come to the tomb, leave, and two angels then appear to Mary, as does Jesus himself.Now, for the Biblical literalists, this is supposed to be a recent historical event, the most important in Christianity, and even, according to the Christians, in the history of the world, and they can't get this story straight? Even with God guiding the writers? Even though Matthew, Mark, and John knew each other and spoke to each other afterwards?[This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 11-16-2003][This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 11-16-2003]

I think the cut and dry proof for the flood account would come from accounts of the flood from other civilizations. What did the Egyptians say of it? How about the Yao Dynasty of China? There were other civilizations too, but none of these civilizations seem to have noticed.Anyway, to add a couple for Apostle:1)Jehoiachin’s Age
(2 CHR 36:9) Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began his reign
(2 KNGS 24:8) Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he began his reign2)1,700 or 7,000 Horsemen
(2 Samuel 8:4, 1 Chronicles 18:4) Samuel says that David captured 1,700 horsemen and Chronicles says he captured 7,000 in the exact same battle.3)40,000 or 4,000 stalls
(1 Kings 4:26, 2 Chronicles 9:25) Kings says that Solomon had 40,000 stalls and Chronicles says he had 4,000 stalls.Here are 3 errors that there are no way around, except to admit that an error was made in the writting/organization of the Bible. Someone made mistakes here, either the "God inspired original writters" or the "God inspired organizers/redactors". You pick!

Apostle, you there?[This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-17-2003]

Although I am very interested in seeing this discussion played out and having some part, I must admit there is some hesitance due to the potential confusion. It should be obvious, but in case not, I am "apostolos" a greek word meaning sent one, not "Apostle" the english transliteration of that word. Also, I always include my first name at the end of my posts.Now, jumping right in I would like to deal with a quote and make one observation.

quote:

---

Okay I will abide by that however for purposes of clarity do we consider the bible to be literal if it is to be inerrant?

---

The answer is yes, most times. Please understand I do not seek to confuse you or undermine the authority of the text of the Bible. I think it would be understood, however, that saying the Bible is to be taken literally can be taken to a literal extreme. For example, my name is not really "apostolos", rather I am expressing some part of my self by taking on that name. So with scripture, there are portions that are figurative examples, or poetic devices, or prophetical utterances. The point is that I think the answer to your question is that in making an interpretation of the scriptures, one must apply a practice conservative investigation which rests heavily on context. Mind you that is not just the context of the passage, the book or the whole Bible, but can go further to mean historical and cultural contexts at the time the events took place or were recorded (because the two are often not one). Thinking about this post, I am fearing it has been somewhat confusing thus far. I hope that will be cleared up over time if it is not clear now.My one observation is that I have read much assumption from the (if you will grant me the term) anti-Bible side. I know that is an inaccurate term to use, so please excuse my lack of grammatical efficiency and provide for me a more appropriate term to use. Now, I mean that the "conclusions" that are being stated so far concerning the Bible's errancy seem to be very much based on some kind of assumption. I would list them here but it would honestly be too long, I feel, for an introductory post. My point is just to call this to the surface of everyone's attention.Before you say I am like the "pot calling the kettle black", let me say that Genesis 1:1 begins with God's pre-existence. Some may call that an assumption. That's fine, I do not for some very logical reasons that I will not expand on at this time. The point is that the person beginning this thread, while it is "all of ours", is willingly taking on questions concerning discrepancy from a Biblical standpoint (at least that is my hope). I don't know how much help I will be to this whole matter, but at least grant us the priveledge of answering questions from the perspective of belief that is ours.Russ

It seems to me that the whole point of this discussion is ot see where the eivdence points.If your perspective is the one I have seen before - that the Bible is literally true no matter what, and all you have to do is come up with some excuse - no matter how implausible, no matter what violence it does to the spirit of the text to rebut any discrepency then there just is no point. Such arguments clearly beg the question posed by the initial post. So, whether your perspective is allowable depends on the extent to which it is compatible with the purpose of the thread.

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.