Summations Only

It's doubly hard when even the internal evidence does not support inerrancy.

Does Acts 9:7 say:quote:
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.Does Acts 22:9 say:quote:
9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.And
Act 9;7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.Act 26;14
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.Faith I am not sure but I believe if you asked a 4 years old they would say hearing a voice is the opposite of not hearing a voice.
And standing is the opposite to falling on the ground.Perhaps you can explain what exactly inerrancy is. Because it appears to be: that nothing can be inerrancy if opposites are not different to you. Like 2/7 debacle.Then perhaps in line with your uniqueness of your religion argument, you can explain why the bible has hundreds and hundreds of errors but the Quran has far fewer.
Is the increase in errors, contradictions and inconsistencies a unique quality to the bible that you refer to as an example of why it's the true religion? Does that uniqueness support your position?

And some other errors:
This is still just from the few verses Jar brought up earlier. So in the first post resurrection we have Paul saying 12, we have the unknown writer called John saying 10 and we have the unknown writer called Matthew saying 11.Do we get to see another 2/7 thing here in regards to 10, 11, 12 now?

I'm not sure "errors" is the right term for those examples rather I'd say they were contradictions. Errors are things that are patently false like there being a Biblical Flood or Young Earth or Special Creation or the Exodus or Conquest of Canaan.They are evidence that the Bible is not the Inerrant word of God and that it is just the word of men. It could even be inspired; God inspires several folk to write about the post resurrection pre-ascension period and each recounts the story as they remember it. We have no way of determining which version most accurately reflects reality or if any version reflects reality but that is not what I'd describe as an error, just different versions.Some examples might help. While the Biblical Flood never happened traditions of a great flood are not unusual and so can well just be enhanced and embellished accounts of a real event that developed in different communities and cultures and both are included for political reasons.But there is another significant example and that is the two mutually exclusive creation stories found in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3. There we see another example of contradictions, if one account is true then the other must be false. Of course both can also be false.That example gets even stranger when you consider that the story found in Genesis 2&3 is much older than the story in Genesis 1. Why include both stories since the two creation accounts are mutually exclusive and why place the younger, newer one first?Now the folk that Canonized these examples, that decided to include stories that were mutually exclusive were certainly not dumb; they were learned Jews building a liturgy.The likely answer is that the contradiction were just not that important and the creation stories were just a plot device used to explain something else.So if the Creation story is just a plot device what was the purpose served?Well Genesis 1 revolves around time and time division, defining a day (night and day). the week (seven periods of night and day) and the Sabbath, the day of rest and contemplation. That, the Jewish Sacred Week, was what was really important in the story.But what was important in the older Genesis 2&3 tale?It seems to be a "Just So" story meant to explain that world as seen, why we fear snakes, why we wear clothes, why we build moral societies with some standard of right and wrong, why we farm instead of just being hunter gatherers like the other animals, why childbirth for women seems more painful than for the other animals and perhaps most importantly, places men over women.We can see reasonable explanation for how the different traditional stories developed and how each of the tales serves a unique and important function but why include both and why place the younger story before the older one?Well there is one possible reason that would have been important when creating a liturgy and that is that the two stories present two entirely different descriptions of God that can encompass traits that would have been attractive. The Genesis 1 story presents an overarching, supremely competent God but also one that is aloof and does not interact directly with creation but the older God found in the Genesis 2&3 story is much warmer, human, perhaps bumbling and unsure but trying and considerate, directing interacting and controlling creation by hand. This is a God you wouldn't mind having as a next door neighbor.By including both stories in the canon and liturgy they present a composite image of God that cannot be found by looking at the two stories separately.

You're talking about a feedback loop. Nonetheless, you have to make that first leap of faith before you can get any feedback. That IS jumping to a conclusion, even if the conclusion is later confirmed.

They certainly weren't dumb, just superstitious and unknowing.
But the biblical Genesis can be traced back further to a Babylonian account. Which is similar.
Sort of like the flood account is similar.
So they had a bit of tendency to "copy" other accounts. Then add their own embellishments.

Likely true, but the point is that the Hebrews, the peoples Israel, were neither monolithic nor static, traditions evolved and different cultures as well. Remember that the beginnings of Canonization began during the period of the return from exile and involved a need to meld the traditional regional Palestine faction with the more secular cosmopolitan folk returning from exile.

quote:

---

Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

---

I wonder who the Preacher copied that from.

Not for me, but for all those from Noah to me, and for me to know what God required, what the mind of God is on such things.They aren't two traditions, they are one writing. They were written down by Moses around 1500 B.C.Yes you can use the Bible to prove the Bible. It's not "a book" but a collection of writings over 1500 years that bear a fascinating relationship to one another.

Too bad about other translations, they do make a mess of things, which is why I stick to the KJV. Sorry you don't accept the explanation of the two and the seven, we try.Yes you can learn a lot by starting from the position of trusting the Bible. It does bear such trust and build on such trust. If it weren't true it wouldn't.

22:9 means they didn't hear what the voice SAID. You do have to read in context.

"The twelve" is likely a generic term for the disciples as Paul uses it, but we can assume such small discrepancies can be explained whether we see the explanation or not. They aren't important. They are just an excuse for you to ignore what IS important.

The entire Old Testament as collected by the Jews is to be found almost complete in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Books of Moses were always treated by them as written by Moses in Moses' own time. (Orthodox) Christians accept their timing of the writings. The fragmenting done by the modern scholars, made up completely out of their subjective impressions without any historical warrant whatever, is evil and will be judged by God in due time. I can hardly wait. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I.e make stuff up. The passage explicitly and clearly tells us that they did not hear the voice.

It can't mean that because the Bible doesn't contradict itself.