Flaws in the Scriptures

w-fortenberryThen it is simply meaning whatever it means to the individual.The interpretation is up to the person reading it?

You are incorrect. I did not "define" Apostolos' statement. I speculate on what it was likely to be - clearly prefacing the statement with an "if". I do not dictate other's positions to them.However since you state that scripture can be read and understood wihtout going to such lengths it seems that the discrepencies must either be reasonably explainable or are genuine.Of course I would note that your claim that Proverbs 8:4-9 is speaking of the Bible is in itself an assumption. Are you stating htat the Bible was directly produced by the personified Wisdom appearing in Proverbs 8 ? If so, the relevance to this thread is that the same discrepencies would constitute evidence against that claim - it cannot be assumed as an argument against the existence of discrepencies.

Just so I understand, am I being given an equal voice in the debate or is my position being deemed unworthy before I have the opportunity to state it? Perhaps what I said was misunderstood.If you will go back and review the last paragraph in my first post (message #13), you will see the words "Biblical standpoint". Please note that I did not say rationalistic standpoint or any other such thing. This is not because I assume my position to be free from rationalism. Rather, it is because if there is any flaw in scripture, it must be considered within the context of scripture and the "spirit of the text" you seem to be so worried about defending.This principle is understood when developing a proper interpretation of any secular book. Why must it suddenly be strange and impossible when the book is a spiritual text? And as far as my perspective is concerned, if it is "implausible", then it will be clearly revealed to be so by a logically thorough examination. I have always understood this to be a normal part of debate ethic. Or am I asking for special priveleges?Russ

The reply I have seen to this argument is that the gospels have just enough differences to be considered not copied, but enough similarities to be considered reliable.Let me put it another way. If I gave a lecture to my class and asked them to write an essay about the lesson I will get as many stories as I have students. If the stories were all exactly the same I would rightfully say they cheated. But if they were listening I would expect the 25 or more different stories to be basically similar.

You seem to have misunderstood my point. I stated that a particular viewpoint - one that would likely be introduced with words very like yours was inappropriate to the thread. If you wish to argue from that viewpoint then you are wasting everyone's time with posts that contribute nothing to the discussion.I did not say that you did not have an equal voice in the discussion.I did not say that it was "strange and impossible" to consider the texts in context.All I said was that any argument that rested implicitly or explicilty on the assumption of inerrancy or grossly privileged the inerrantist view was inappropriate to this thread.Why is that so difficult to understand ? Is begging the question normal in the circles you "debate" in ?

These are obvious translation errors. That doesn't distract from the true meaning of the text any more than a spelling error would distract from yours.

Hi,I think that this poor analogy, the premises of both situations are entirely different.To begin with, we do not know for certain who wrote any of the Gospels, I assume that you would know who wrote your students essays.Next, The Gospels were written anytime up to 80 years after Jesus died, I assume you havent given your students that long a deadline.Next, all your students were present at your lecture, not all evangelists were present at these events. Mark did not know Jesus, Luke ceratinly didnt know Jesus, there are major disputes whether Matthew's gospel was written by Matthew Levi, and John's Gospel is far too late to have been written by an eyewitness.Next, although you would expect the stories to be similar, if any of your students handed in an essay that reproduced many sentences identical in places to ther students then you would surely query it, I certainly would.Also, in the Gospels there are stories about events that no one else was witness too, the temptations for example, or Jesus questioning by Pilate. Ths strongly suggests that these stories were copied from earlier texts, or passed on orally before being written down.The big problme is that 'Matthew', the only possible eyewitness, has reproduced 90% of Mark who was a non-eyewitness, why would an eyewitness do this? This is like a student of yours who attended your lecture, copying an essay from someone who wasn't, and since they fit in with the rest of the class' essays, where did the absent student get his information from?Finally, none of the evangelists were present at Jesus birth, his attending the temple at 12 years old, and many other events, so where did they get their information from?Brian.

Keith,I was only providing examples that there are in fact errors in the Bible. As the whole point of this thread was for Apostle to show that the 'BIBLE CANNOT ERR'.You yourself state, "These are obvious translation errors. That doesn't distract from the true meaning of the text any more than a spelling error would distract from yours." And I agree these are obvious errors of one form or another (and personally I agree with you that they are probably translation errors). However they illustrate my point perfectly, the Bible does contain errors. The problem is that God does not make errors.As far as any paper I write having a spelling error that would be fine, as I am not claiming to be God, nor have I ever written anything down that claimed to be the Word of God. And I make errors all the time.

I don't know how much this will support the validity of the Genisis Flood, but driving through Wyoming I am amazed at the geographical features that can be seen from the interstate. If I could rename the state I would call it "Aftermath" because it is plainly obvious that the whole region was once under water and the depostition lines run level while the topography slopes up and down.The way the land appears there is hauntingly similiar to how the river banks look on the Tutle River south of Olympia after St Helens. Scientifically, that doesn't hold any weight, but for my own discretion and eye, it appears to me that a violent event took place in the Wyoming area and the resulting geography seems to have been subjected to an enormous upheaval, mixing, resettling and molding in a short period of time. I don't know and won't say if it is from the Genesis Flood or some other event since I wasn't there but it is an amazing site.

There is a thread (or 3) for geology and the great flood. Perhaps you would like to take this up there.This one has about the right title but hasn't gotten a head of steam up yet.http://EvC Forum: Stratigraphy and Creationism -->EvC Forum: Stratigraphy and Creationism

I have just caught up on reading the various responses and challenges individuals have posted here. I intend to deal with the following as soon as possible. (Likely this will be around November 21).
I will respond to the following;
-The issues raised by Yaro in Message 4 regarding the flood
-The apparent historical errors made evident by the Gospel writers accounts of the Birth of Jesus. This was brought up by PaulK in message 7
-Whether or not Jesus was alive during the Passover, brought up by Zhimbo in Message 8
-The ressurection accouts brought up by chiroptera in Message10
-Numerical differences in the Old Testament pointed out by the Revenge of Reason in Message 12
To everyone else, as interesting as your messages were they were off topic. The purpose of this post is to highlight flaws in the Scriptures and either reconcile them or admit there was a mistake. I ask you to follow this gentle suggestion.
Apostle

RussOk I would like to argue for the things that I find impossible from a physical sense i.e.the laws of physics. Am I to take it that you are of the position that God can make or break the laws at anytime or do you at least acknowledge that if it does not specify so in the Bible then there is no reason to take that position?

I don't see how getting a consistent description of a supposed historical event is supposed to be "cheating". If I had students write papers describing an event that they were supposedly witnesses to and there accounts were this different, especially since they knew each other and had time to discuss it among themselves, this kind of differences would be disturbing.Remember, the question is whether we have any reason to believe the the Bible can be accepted literally, and can be considered inerrant.

Sidelined,I found your post to be thought provoking. My answer to your question will be complex rather than simple. Although, in the complexity of the answer I have in mind (if I properly understand the question) there is a profound simplicity. So now that I have been completely elusive, let me begin my answer.Could you provide a specific frame of reference, an event in the scriptures that meets your criteria, which may serve as a medium for this discussion?Russ

I'll knock down your first premise assuming you believe that Jesus spoke for God(which is another question). Jesus supposedly says in two gospels(I don't remember which ones right now) that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds (when making a point about faith). He, or the idiot who wrote that in his name was WRONG! Poppy Seeds are smaller! Therefor your premise that "God" cannot err is trashed!
However that does not mean that the Bible doesn't contain some truth.