Bible Fails

[Galateasdream]

Well to be honest you simply ignored most of my post to you in post # 316 was there a reason fo

The reason was that my points covered all relevant statements.

So what your saying is that you do not believe the scriptures.

Correct.

Why do you not believe the scriptures in regards to the practice of Homosexuality?

Because if I don't accept the bible as inerrent, I am free to use reason to make independant moral judgements about its content. I can see no reasonable ethical argument for gay sex being sinful, so I conclude that the authors got it wrong, just as they did with many other things.

Are you Homosexual?

No, but I'm not straight.

I believe that you will remember me as the only person that loved you enough to be honest with you and to tell you the truth

I believe that you believe that what you're doing is loving and correct. I ascribe no bad motive to you. You're not the only person to have told me these things, though.

However, we fundamentally disagree on whether the bible is errant or not.

I should point out that unless you can convince me of the inerrency of the scriptures, proof texting accomplishes little.

For the sake of this argument I am happy to accept that the bible teaches that to be saved one must believe in Jesus and the bible and must also follow the biblical commands. But even if I accept that, I can simply say I disagree with the biblical theology.

 

[halbhh]

I've read those arguments and remain unconvinced by them, finding the work by Gagnon to be more convincing (and in line with majority interpretation for most of Christian history).

I think it would be somewhat mitigating to hold that homosexual sex acts can be permissible so long as they are not anal sex, but I don't think the exegetical case is as strong as you do.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this, at least for this thread.

Regarding what I think is a good candidate for the strongest biblical fail, I posted some pages ago about Matthews misquotation of Jeremiah, which I think a very good example of a clear internal error.

Besides that, I also think it quite telling that many things in the bible don't cohere at all well with what we know of the world, maths, science, or history. I also find many of the moral teachings quite immoral and barbaric. The issue of the canon, and the loss of original manuscripts, and later interpolations, are all also problematic.

Color me skeptical about long held prejudices and interpretations.

I'm curious about "Matthews misquotation of Jeremiah" -- could you point me to the section or your post, as I don't want to read pages to find it?

About this though, I can enjoy helping people on all sides with: "many things in the bible don't cohere at all well with what we know of the world, maths, science, or history."

Those are the kinds of popular misconceptions I've helped people see through more than a few times, and would be glad to try. My degree is in Engineering Physics, and also I've read fully through the bible, so I'm generally familiar.

 

[Galateasdream]

I'm curious about "Matthews misquotation of Jeremiah" -- could you point me to the section or your post, as I don't want to read pages to find it?

From page 12 onwards
Bible Fails

 

[3rdAngel]

The reason was that my points covered all relevant statements.



Correct.



Because if I don't accept the bible as inerrent, I am free to use reason to make independant moral judgements about its content. I can see no reasonable ethical argument for gay sex being sinful, so I conclude that the authors got it wrong, just as they did with many other things.



No, but I'm not straight.



I believe that you believe that what you're doing is loving and correct. I ascribe no bad motive to you. You're not the only person to have told me these things, though.

However, we fundamentally disagree on whether the bible is errant or not.

I should point out that unless you can convince me of the inerrency of the scriptures, proof texting accomplishes little.

For the sake of this argument I am happy to accept that the bible teaches that to be saved one must believe in Jesus and the bible and must also follow the biblical commands. But even if I accept that, I can simply say I disagree with the biblical theology.

Ok thanks this explains much and thankyou for sharing. There is nothing it seems to me that will make you believe the scriptures because you choose not to believe them because you do not want to give up your lifestyle. I believe you fit into both of the two point categories discussed earlier. 1. You pick your sources outside of the bible in order to seek to understand the bible and 2. You have sin in your life that the bible does not condone. The order as to how this has happened does not matter.

As shown in the previous posts to you according to the scriptures there is no salvation without faith in the scriptures or by living a life disregarding Gods' Word. The scriptures teach without faith it is impossible to please God and whatsoever is not of faith is sin. If you wish to go down a path that is against God you will find yourself with many others even fighting against God which I believe you are doing now. These are your fruit, perhaps you cannot see it.

Everyone is free to believe and do as they wish however we all answer to God come judgment day according to the scriptures *JOHN 12:47-48. According to the scriptures once we receive a knowledge of the truth of God's Word and we reject it in order to continue in willful sin there remains no more sacrifice for sin but a fearful looking forward to of the judgment to come. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God *HEBREWS 10:26-39.

I speak the truth to you as I believe it only in love because I care for you as does God who is calling all that have ears to hear and eyes to see.

Thankyou for the conversation. It was nice talking to you

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He seems to think that hand waving and grasping at straws is a valid defense of the errors in the Bible. It is the typical defense used by Christian apologists. Who are so aptly named since they try to apologize for the errors in the Bible.

I have no issue with what people want to believe personally. It doesn't matter to me and won't change my Christianity. But some aren't truly as secure in their beliefs as they want to appear and start judging others and making claims they have no way to back up. I view the state of Christianity without the paranoia. If it came to Christianity dwindling to handful of adherents, then so be it. Is it more important for a Christian to be in the biggest or the most popular religion or is it belief in God and living a good life in that belief. I don't see that it matters if the Bible isn't infallible, but whether I am doing my best to follow the moral lessons that exist in it. I think the literalist, fundamentalist approach has lost sight, but I would not be so stupid or arrogant to claim I know they are not Christian. How could I know that really?

 

[Galateasdream]

There is nothing it seems to believe the scriptures because you choose not to believe them because you do not want to give up your lifestyle

But this would be categorically incorrect and false.

I made no choice to not believe in scriptural inerrency, I moved from a belief in scriptural inerrency to one of errancy over time and study, becoming increasingly convinced that my previous position was false due to the growing evidence of biblical error. I actually wanted to retain my evangelical beliefs and tried hard to keep them, but the evidence and best argumentation led away from inerrency.

My lifestyle (I assume you really mean my sexuality) had nothing to do with it because I was straight and had a very good evangelical sexual lifestyle until after I changed my bibliology.

 

[3rdAngel]

Color me skeptical about long held prejudices and interpretations.

I'm curious about "Matthews misquotation of Jeremiah" -- could you point me to the section or your post, as I don't want to read pages to find it?

About this though, I can enjoy helping people on all sides with: "many things in the bible don't cohere at all well with what we know of the world, maths, science, or history."

Those are the kinds of popular misconceptions I've helped people see through more than a few times, and would be glad to try. My degree is in Engineering Physics, and also I've read fully through the bible, so I'm generally familiar.

Starts on page 12 reply given here.. in post 238 linked ; post # 241 linked, post # 247; post # 261; and maybe a few more here and there. May God bless you

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do no need to follow your practices but thank you for the invitation

Have you participated in any of the threads about science?

 

[sojourner]

Not I who is mistaken, but you, you, you.

The mythic tales were taken from the true accounts in the Bible. This is the way fiction works even today.

No. The Babylonian, Sumerian and Egyptian myths are older. They cannot have come from the Bible. That’s how mythic literature works.

 

[3rdAngel]

But this would be categorically incorrect and false.

I made no choice to not believe in scriptural inerrency, I moved from a belief in scriptural inerrency to one of errancy over time and study, becoming increasingly convinced that my previous position was false due to the growing evidence of biblical error. I actually wanted to retain my evangelical beliefs and tried hard to keep them, but the evidence and best argumentation led away from inerrency.

My lifestyle (I assume you really mean my sexuality) had nothing to do with it because I was straight and had a very good evangelical sexual lifestyle until after I changed my bibliology.

Perhaps we will agree to disagree. You claimed integrety and honesty and a better understanding of the scriptures earlier. This has not really been shown in our discussion this morning with the scripture proofs provided to you that show you claims that there is salvation outside of faith in God's Word (the scriptures) to be in error.

Your belief in my opinion has led you away from God and his Word this is also evidenced in your lifestyle changes. Through the wisdom of this world you will not find God because the world through wisdom does not know God. As it is written; For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He takes the wise in their own craftiness; And again, The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. There is only salvation in God's Word. Yet you turn your back on it. Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. At this time however it will be too late to return to God. Thanks for the conversation. I will pray for you. We can remain friends though feel free to PM me

 

[Galateasdream]

Perhaps we will agree to disagree

Its not really possible to agree to disagree on my personal life story; it happened as I said. That's just the truth.

We can, however, agree to disagree on biblical inerrency.

this has not really been shown in our discussion this morning

We will have to agree to disagree here also. I think I've been a pretty good model of integrity, restraint, patience and thoughtfulness, even in the face of somewhat rude provocation.

Your belief in my opinion has led you away from God and his Word this is also evidenced in your lifestyle changes.

We can part agree here. My beliefs led me away from biblical inerrency, which you see as tantamount to moving away from God whereas I see myself as having moved closer to God, and this permitted me to make various lifestyle changes, which again, you see as me moving away from God into sin, and I see as moving closer to God.

I appreciate you praying for me

 

[Dan From Smithville]

3rd angel is a man?

Don't know.

 

[halbhh]

One of the most interesting biblical errors I've come across is Matthew's misattribution of a prophecy. The author claims that a particular statement was made by Jerimiah, but it wasn't. At best it seems a paraphrase of Zechariah. Even early church fathers, like Augustine, felt that the best explanation was that it was a mistake.

I've read a variety of theories that attempt to explain the error, but none I've read so far seem as plausible as the straighforward idea that the author of Matt made a mistake.


Matt 27:

9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet,
saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him
that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
10 And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me

While it seems not really significant to me personally, this kind of question seems of interest to commentary writers, so here's a commentary one could look at for verse 9 if it's important to them:
Matthew 27 Pulpit Commentary
I thought #6 reasonable in the list under verse 9 there.
Reminded me of what Paul did in Romans ch 3 starting at verse 10.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't know.

If you click on his icon a window will open with some personal information. The sex he claimed is part of that information.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. The Babylonian, Sumerian and Egyptian myths are older. They cannot have come from the Bible. That’s how mythic literature works.

Your efforts and info are appreciated, but you may find you would get more rational, open responses talking to walls.

 

[PruePhillip]

I not only go to church; I’m a member of the clergy — been to seminary, done a lot of advance biblical study. The Bible (as I see it) is a collection of documents that deal with theological issues and religious history of Judaism and Xy. While not much may be historic fact, there is a lot of truth in them. They are part of the whole Tradition of those who worship God. For me, Xy is a living religion, that is, it changes to meet the needs of different cultures and times. It grows with our growth. It’s truth lies not so much in its factual veracity, but in how it helps us make meaning of our world and our spiritual experiences through the use of metaphor and allegory.

So I presume Xy means Christianity?
I see it like this - when you read some account in the Gospels
you need to ask, "Did this happen?" It's a straight yes or no.
You can nibble at the edges of the question due to translations
and such, but it either happened or it didn't.
And if it didn't then the document is a lie. And I don't want to
live a lie.

 

[PruePhillip]

That’s not how I see it. Luke made use of Mark (which was written post-70). Luke-Acts was originally a single story. Luke also post-dates Matthew, so around 80 is a good date.

I suspect that people give post AD70 dates to "explain away" how Jesus
could have known the temple would fall. Thus if a Gospel X has Jesus
warning about the imminent destruction of the temple then people will
say this is a firm indicator that X was written AFTER the temple actually
fell.
It's a shallow, essentially circular argument. It doesn't allow for the
possibility that fact can be stranger than fiction, and not everything is
as it appears in "reality." Furthermore, Jesus said the Jews would
return to Jerusalem and this is happening now - kind of like a 20th
and 21st Century Exodus. And Daniel also said that Rome would
destroy the temple, Jerusalem and the Messiah - and no "scholar"
would dare stretch the truth to saying Daniel was written after AD70.

 

[PruePhillip]

Maybe..

In the Catholic tradition, despite the claims of early Christian writers that Saint Luke was martyred, the earliest documents available to the church attest that the apostle settled in Greece, wrote his gospel and died peacefully at the age of 84 in Boeotia.

I hold the Catholic Church has no authority in any of this.
There's only one Catholic mentioned in the New Testament,
and that's the apostate Diotrephes, and early Bishop of the
Church.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So I presume Xy means Christianity?
I see it like this - when you read some account in the Gospels
you need to ask, "Did this happen?" It's a straight yes or no.
You can nibble at the edges of the question due to translations
and such, but it either happened or it didn't.
And if it didn't then the document is a lie. And I don't want to
live a lie.

I do not agree.

 

[PruePhillip]

Because the story of Shiloh was written AFTER Babylonian exile. These are stories not history..

In Jeremiah's day, about 600 years after Shiloh, God told him to go see Shiloh
and see what became of the chosen people when they disobeyed. The town
was a ruin, destroyed by the Philistines as recorded in 1 Samuel.
But unknown to Jeremiah, underneath the rubble could be found the alter,
the "horns of the alter" and evidence of the Leviticus sacrifices.
No scribe in Babylonian or Greek times excavated Shiloh and wrote 1 Samuel
on the findings - we would have found the excavations.
So sure, this proves the Shiloh story was not made up a 1,000 years later.