Summations Only

Sigh.

Oh yes I can keep "quitting in the middle." It's only the "middle" according to you anyway. To me it's the point where the discussion became too futile to continue.But one no doubt futile remark about the miracles comparison. Sigh. The miracles in the Bible are genuine God-wrought miracles, on a scale and with a power only God could accomplish including bringing people back to life who have died. The so-called "miracles" of other religions ARE puny little demonic tricks by comparison.Take it or leave it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I see no contradictions in the different accounts.

Yes, I didn't notice that at first but it's exactly the sort of discrepancy that is either the result of Paul's not knowing exactly what the other men experienced or forgetting it, which is not of any importance to the main message, or more likely he's saying in Acts 9 that they heard an undecipherable voice, and in Acts 22 that they didn't know what the voice said, which would be the same thing. The way I may hear voices outside my door in the walkway but not be able to make out what they are saying. You will of course insist on your reading and I on mine and there's no point in discussing it further.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not only puny little demonic miracles but totally made-up miracles that nobody witnessed but the person who claimed they happened. As opposed to God-sized miracles witnessed by many or by someone known for his many miracles such as Elijah or Elisha.What you mean by the "real world" is just what you personally have experienced. Some people have experienced miracles but you won't believe them because you haven't. But the miracles of the Bible were specifically given to prove that God is God, that's why they are there, so if you insist that they must be normal occurrences or you won't believe them you will of course miss the whole point.I don't see errors and inconsistencies, sorry. I see small discrepancies that rather tend to prove the honesty of the reports if they are really discrepancies, but most likely don't mean what the debunkers insist they mean anyway, such as the two and the seven which isn't a discrepancy at all; and otherwise I see accounts that are trustworthy testimonies to the realities of God.We are told to do two things: repent and believe. God didn't make it easy for people of a certain turn of mind to believe, did He?

You have sa very silly idea of what "inerrant" means. It just means that we can trust it to tell us the truth about God, and only the originals are considered to be perfectly inerrant anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Luke wrote Acts and Luke traveled with Paul and none of the accounts contradicts any of the others. And the Bible authors do not make things up or tell lies. As God will no doubt inform you on Judgment Day.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What you quote does not require the kind of inerrancy you claim. It says what I said it says: we are to trust its teaching, about God, about history, etc.

The four accounts are perfectly in accord with one another except for the one phrase about hearing or not hearing the voice which probably means hearing but not understanding. And this is such a secondary point, about what men with Paul would have told him they experienced, that has absolutely NO consequences for what Paul himself experienced, that you are just bending over backwards to smear the Bible and Bible believers, and you WILL be held accountable for that.

It's the TEACHING that's inerrant. The stuff that MATTERS.

The two versus seven isn't a small discrepancy, it is about clean versus unclean animals which is necessary teaching, not cruciall important but necessary teaching, but also it's just so patently obvious that the Church read it as we do from the beginning and only debunkers make the claims you do.

Among the strange mistakes jar keeps making is that he completely overlooked Paul's account to Agrippa in Acts 26. He also claimed that Paul himself didn't give the accounts in Acts but he did, in both Acts 22 and Acts 26; it is only in Acts 9 that Luke tells the story in his words rather than Paul's.

That is exactly how anybody would tell a story that had many parts to it, repeating it over and over for different hearers, with different details in each telling. How utterly ridiculous to expect a word for word account every time a person tells about an experience. The problem is that debunkers have no common sense.I happen to have an acquaintance who tells the story of her "near death experience" on Blog Radio to different audiences (No, she's not a Christian) and every time she tells it she either adds some new detail I'd never heard before or leaves out details or uses a phrasing that doesn't quite mean what she wanted to say. That's how things go in the Real World, jar, not in your ridiculous idea of what Inerrancy requires.Or pick something more mundane: some experience you had on a trip you took years ago that was worth retelling to a dozen different people. You think you included every detail in every telling, didn't think of new details occasionally etc? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What I actually did was show your utter lack of common sense or sense of reality in defining inerrancy according to some literalistic totally blockhedded principle that exists only in your head. Untold millions have read all those accounts and known they are in accord with one another and in accord with Biblical inerrancy, but you have the effrontery to put your own rigid suppositions above theirs.You don't know how to read, jar. Or you read at the level of a four year old.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, jar, you are deceiving yourself. You read what you think it says but deceive yourself that you're the only one who gets it right even though millions disagree with you, who know how to read correctly.