Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Re: Skeptics being wrong about the Bible. The Bible skeptics errancy list
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 58 (89273)
02-28-2004 2:54 PM


The recent Oxford Bible Commentary edited by John Barton and John Muddiman declares that they take a "chastened historical criticism" approach to their Bible commentary (Please see Oxford University Press (OUP) - Academic Publishing - Homepage ).
I believe it is fair to say then that the Bible's critics have made at least several errors in their commentary regarding the Bible. Below is an excerpt from a fable of Aesop's called "The Boy Who Cried Wolf":
"There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, "Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!"
The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.
"Don't cry 'wolf', shepherd boy," said the villagers, "when there's no wolf!" They went grumbling back down the hill."
Now I have learned from experience that there are a lot of bored skeptics crying wolf in regards to the Bible having an error in it. And while I have read of many examples where a skeptic or skeptics made a claim against the Bible that was very poor I have never seen a list of them although I read one article that mentioned 3 or 4 of them.
The purpose of this post is to create what I wish to call a "Bible skeptics errancy list." In short, I am looking for cases where the skeptics made against the Bible or where they made spurious notions of how the Bible came to be but they were later shown to be false through later evidence. I am not looking for instances where a skeptic thinks the Bible is in error, however, and I want to make that clear. I would also ask that if Skeptic Z say there is a problem with John 16:3 in some respect and Skeptic Y says there is a problem with John 16:3 in the same respect that this not be counted twice.
I will be the first contributor to the "Bible skeptics errancy list".
Here is the first example taken from a website:
"Luke in Acts 18:12, calls Gallio Proconsul, this was questioned by critical scholars but Luke was proven correct. When the Delphi inscription was found it verified some very specific history which before had been questioned. On the inscription it read:
As Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the Proconsul of Achaia[1]
taken from: Is the New Testament Historical?
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-29-2004]
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-29-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Brian, posted 02-29-2004 3:26 AM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 3 by Tamara, posted 02-29-2004 11:53 AM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 02-29-2004 12:26 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 37 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-06-2004 8:13 PM kendemyer has replied
 Message 58 by fnord, posted 04-28-2004 2:28 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 2 of 58 (89366)
02-29-2004 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by kendemyer
02-28-2004 2:54 PM


More sub-Standard Websites
Hi Ken, hope you are well.
Regarding the information from the website, I have a few questions that need answering.
Luke in Acts 18:12, calls Gallio Proconsul, this was questioned by critical scholars but Luke was proven correct.
I disagree, no one ever said that this was an error, this is pure unsupported propaganda. Oh, unless you can reference a critical scholar who questioned this verse of course, then I would have to admit that I was wrong.
Gallio only held the post of Proconsul for one year from July 1, 52 AD
No he wasn't, your source has just picked a number out of the air. Then again, maybe he was Proconsul for a year, all you would have to do is provide evidence to support this and I would be wrong again.
In short then, this claim against this particular verse in the Bible is a work of fiction by your source. He cannot name a single critic so why should we believe him?
Next.
Brian.
[This message has been edited by Brian, 02-29-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kendemyer, posted 02-28-2004 2:54 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Tamara
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 58 (89404)
02-29-2004 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by kendemyer
02-28-2004 2:54 PM


2 errors
Here are two errors I know of:
Rom 16:7. Junias has been used for many centuries and recently shown to be a tendentious correction by an ancient scribe who apparently could not stomach that a woman would be identified and honored as an apostle.
Luke 2:1-4. People are taxed in the domicile where they reside, not where their ancestors lived. The reason given for Joseph's travel to Bethlehem cannot be the taxation census. Web sites that give reference to an Egyptian document showing otherwise are being dishonest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kendemyer, posted 02-28-2004 2:54 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 4 of 58 (89409)
02-29-2004 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kendemyer
02-28-2004 2:54 PM


You want errors? Genesis chapters 1 to 6, just for starters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kendemyer, posted 02-28-2004 2:54 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
AdminBrian
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 58 (89411)
02-29-2004 12:41 PM


Not what Ken wants guys
Hello peeps.
I don't think that Ken wants a list of Bible errors. I think Ken wants a list of alleged errors that skeptics held up against the inerrancy of the Bible but evidence discovered later meant that the skeptic had to eat their words.
I am pretty sure this is what Ken is looking for, if it isn't Ken then let me know.
AdminBrian.

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 58 (89413)
02-29-2004 1:27 PM


skeptics
To the moderator Brian:
I made it quite clear what I wanted discussed and what I did not want discussed in my initial post. I do not know why you are even asking that question. Here is what I said:
"The purpose of this post is to create what I wish to call a "Bible skeptics errancy list." I am not looking for instances where a skeptic thinks the Bible is in error, however, and I want to make that clear."
Sincerely,
Ken

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by AdminBrian, posted 02-29-2004 1:37 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
AdminBrian
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 58 (89415)
02-29-2004 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by kendemyer
02-29-2004 1:27 PM


Re: skeptics
Hi Ken,
I must be in sleep mode today.
I apologise if I have misunderstood your post, I thought I had read it correctly.
Could you, or anyone else, clarify what it is you are looking for here?
My take on it is this.
You say: The purpose of this post is to create what I wish to call a 'Bible skeptics errancy list'.
I interpret that to mean that you wish to compile a list consisting of errors that skeptics believe are in the Bible.
But then you say I am not looking for instances where a skeptic thinks the Bible is in error.
What exactly is it you are looking for Ken?
More than likely I have read your post incorrectly but please humour me and explain in simpler terms what you are looking for.
Best Wishes
AdminBrian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by kendemyer, posted 02-29-2004 1:27 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 58 (89421)
02-29-2004 2:45 PM


skeptics
To the moderator Brian:
While I would have been a little more diplomatic, I would say you are entirely accurate when you say:
"I think Ken wants a list of alleged errors that skeptics held up against the inerrancy of the Bible but evidence discovered later meant that the skeptic had to eat their words."
I also have also updated my initial post to clarify things. I wrote:
"The purpose of this post is to create what I wish to call a "Bible skeptics errancy list." In short, I am looking for cases where the skeptics made against the Bible or where they made spurious notions of how the Bible came to be but they were later shown to be false through later evidence."
I would welcome though statements from experts in various fields who may have made pronouncements that were at variance of the Bible inadvertently but later the Bible was shown to be true with later evidence. I may include some examples myself.
I was searching the internet on Biblical matters and I happened to see your essay that you published on the internet. It was titled "The Bible and the Hittites, Exploding another 'Biblical Archaeology' Myth."
You wrote in your essay:
"How many times have you heard it? I am sure many more than you care to remember. I am talking about the bog standard reply from Bible believers when you mention archaeology and the Bible.
Countless times I have heard ‘well archaeology confirms everything in the Bible, look at the Hittites!’ I swear if I hear about the Hittites and the Bible again I will scream LOL.
I think it is time that that misinformed people stopped spreading this untruth and that this misconception was finally laid to rest."
Well it seems you may be doing some screaming soon because an archaelogical find that is currently in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem plus the information published by Lehman, Tucker, and concerning Forrer's find may help cause this the Hittites to be another example of the skeptics being wrong. I think the data is not yet definitive at this point but I believe your title of the essay was misplaced. I wrote my response to your essay in your string and titled it: "the report of an "archaeology myth...explosion" was greatly exaggerated." I would agree though that the Hittites could be the "sons of Heth" as one of your sources said, however.
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-29-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 03-01-2004 8:24 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 58 (89426)
02-29-2004 3:36 PM


an example
TO ALL:
Here would be an example of what I am looking for:
The Bible has Jesus stating:
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away." - Mark 13:31
A website declares concerning Voltaire:
"Sidney Collett in "All About the Bible" says, "Voltaire, the noted French infidel who died in 1778, said that in one hundred years from his time Christianity would be swept from existence and passed into history. But what has happened? Voltaire has passed into history; while the circulation of the Bible continues to increase in almost all parts of the world, carrying blessing wherever it goes."
Concerning Voltaire, Geisler and Nix point out that "only fifty years after his death, the Geneva Bible Society used his press and house to produce stacks of Bibles" (ref.8, p.123). What an irony of history!"
Uniqueness of the Bible
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-29-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Trixie, posted 03-01-2004 4:30 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 10 of 58 (89620)
03-01-2004 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by kendemyer
02-29-2004 3:36 PM


Re: an example
That's not an example of a skeptic saying that something in the Bible was wrong and it was subsequently proved right. All it tells you is that Voltaire was wrong, but not that The Bible was right. Now, if in the Bible, Jesus had said "Christianity will outlive Voltaire" and Voltaire had said "I will outlive Christianity", then you would have an example of what you seem to be looking for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by kendemyer, posted 02-29-2004 3:36 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 11 of 58 (89624)
03-01-2004 5:10 PM


Inerrancy exposed.
I have mentioned this one to kendemeyer before and all he does is supply the LAMEST excuse from tektonic.org that you can ever see.
Bible cannot be inerrant because it says grasshoppers have FOUR (that's right FOUR) legs!
Grasshoppers are insects, they have SIX (that's right kendemeyer SIX) legs.
END OF STORY - GAME OVER - ERRORS 1 BIBLE 0.
No rematch. No ties. No whining. No lame excuse of not counting the big back legs because they are big. Whine whine whine. GAME OVER.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by AdminBrian, posted 03-01-2004 5:27 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 58 (89627)
03-01-2004 5:17 PM


I would ask that the moderators step in because Eta Carinae
is off topic.
If Eta Carinae has proof that the Israelites considered the back appendages which cause jumping "legs" or that the whole race of ancient Jews was blind he should open a new thread.
The EVC Forum declares two important things regarding their board:
"Dedicated to helping develop a better understanding of both sides of the issue, the EvC Forum plays host to the ongoing debate."
Discussion Guidelines
These are in effect at at all times:
1. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
EVC Forum, says that rule #1 is in effect at ALL times.
I would ask that this be honored if EVC Forum truly wants both sides discussed.
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-01-2004]

  
AdminBrian
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 58 (89630)
03-01-2004 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Eta_Carinae
03-01-2004 5:10 PM


Re: Inerrancy exposed.
Hi Eta,
I do think that Ken has a point, this is not what Ken was looking to discuss on this thread, and therefore is off-topic.
I myself wasn't sure exactly what Ken was looking to discuss, that is why I intervened earlier.
Although I am quite happy to allow one or two off topic posts, (I myself am probably the most persistent offender in this regard) I would not like that thread to drift too far off-topic.
I personally don't think that anyone who has really studied the Bible believes for a second that there are no errors in it, but that is not what the thread is about.
Ken is specific in what he is looking for.
Thanks for your help here Eta.
AdminBrian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-01-2004 5:10 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 58 (89637)
03-01-2004 5:40 PM


thank you and...
Dear Brian:
Thank you for keeping the post on topic. EVC Forum clearly states they want both sides discussed and so your help is appreciated I am sure.
By the way, I have studied the Bible for more than a second and every addtional second I study it makes me more convinced of its inerrancy.
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-01-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by MrHambre, posted 03-01-2004 6:07 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 15 of 58 (89644)
03-01-2004 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by kendemyer
03-01-2004 5:40 PM


The Inerrancy-go-round
Kendemyer,
I absolutely agree about inerrancy. For example, many skeptics decided that the discrepancies among the details in the Gospels concerning Christ's resurrection pointed to some flaw in the theory of inerrancy. How many women and which women went to the tomb? Which day? Was it before or after sunrise? What did they see? How many angels were there? Were the angels inside the tomb or outside? These sorts of discrepancies are just what we'd expect to see, after all, if the Bible were, well, errant.
Luckily, people like us who know the Bible is inerrant can use this indisputable fact to defend the theory of inerrancy. Since the Bible is God's word and thus can never be anything but the Absolute Truth, the discrepancies pointed out by doubters must be explained as follows:
1) God wants us to believe that the Bible is His word.
2) Accepting something that truly makes literal sense can be done by anyone, whether a Christian or not.
3) Thus, the only people who would believe that the Bible is the literal truth are those who have been blessed with the subtle, profound understanding that can reconcile these obvious contradictions.
I'm glad we worship a God who is so sure of the rational faculties of His followers that he fills His book with things that seem cruel, nonsensical, or allegorical to those who don't have faith. Only those of us blessed with holy insight can see what He intended, because the contradictions wouldn't be there if God didn't intend them to be there. So it seems they're not contradictions after all, because they're in the Bible.
regards,
Esteban "So There" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by kendemyer, posted 03-01-2004 5:40 PM kendemyer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-01-2004 7:07 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024