Bible Fails

[halbhh]

The only import is to demonstrate clearly that the bible has errors in it. Theologically, that's kinda huge (at least if we are starting from an inerrentist position), which is why many commentators spend a lot of time trying to find solutions rather than admitting the error.

In the commentary you linked, you'll notice 2 of the 6 proposed solutions are simply accepting the error, and 1 is rejected by the commentary itself as implausible (again highlighting that there is no consensus even amongst those who would 'solve' the problem). The proposed solution of prominence prophet has been dealt with alread in my posts, as has the idea of Zechariah really speaking the prophecy. The only proposed solution offered here is the Targum theory, which is not very plausible given chapter 2 - the link to Grisly's paper I provided has more commentary on this solution.

Perhaps you didn't feel you had time to compare with Romans ch 3 with how Paul mismashed stuff starting with verse 10 (that same commentary, the same source I used before, is helpful on that as a quick overview). A "cento" they called it.

I gather a "cento" (was a new word for me yesterday) is a sort of creative new thing composed of pieces of older things.

So, since the "cento" ( I like having a new term here... ) is just a way to sorta....

....creatively reuse fragments from a variety of sources, it would be ok to list one prominent source among those, to me. (subjective, but that's "to me" I said)

So, as the commentary specifies:

a cento of passages derived from Jeremiah 18:2, etc.; Jeremiah 19:1, 2; 32:8-14, combined with the prediction in Zechariah, and attributed the passage thus formed to the most celebrated prophet.

That's only an simple, direct observation of just what it is.

It's...well, clearly what it is. I don't need it to be some odd big thing. It's a cento. And it's got plenty of company in scripture -- other centos. (or is it "centoes"?)

Now if it was the only cento, then it would stick out.... But it isn't.

 

[Galateasdream]

Perhaps you didn't feel you had time to compare with Romans ch 3 with how Paul mismashed stuff starting with verse 10 (that same commentary, the same source I used before, is helpful on that as a quick overview). A "cento" they called it.

I gather a "cento" (was a new word for me yesterday) is a sort of creative new thing composed of pieces of older things.

So, since the "cento" ( I like having a new term here... ) is just a way to sorta....

....creatively reuse fragments from a variety of sources, it would be ok to list one prominent source among those, to me. (subjective, but that's "to me" I said)

So, as the commentary specifies:

a cento of passages derived from Jeremiah 18:2, etc.; Jeremiah 19:1, 2; 32:8-14, combined with the prediction in Zechariah, and attributed the passage thus formed to the most celebrated prophet.

That's only an simple, direct observation of just what it is.

It's...well, clearly what it is. I don't need it to be some odd big thing. It's a cento. And it's got plenty of company in scripture -- other centos. (or is it "centoes"?)

So, the proposed solution is that Matthew mashed together and paraphrased multiple sources in a particular literary device and then referred to this cento as being Jeremiah (when it is almost entirely Zecheriah) because Jeremiah was the more prominent prophet, and expected his readers to understand that was what he was doing.

The difficulties with that proposed solution are mentioned in the link I referred to:
"However, the form of Matthew’s quotation, with or without an allusion to Jeremiah, does not fit this definition of a catena. So even if it was customary to mention the more prominent prophet in a quotation chain, such as Mark 1:2-3, the link with Matthew 27:9-10 would still be ill-advised.

However, the theory itself that the standard literary convention of the day was to cite the more prominent source should also be questioned, for referring to one particular source before a string of quotations is virtually unattested in the New Testament apart from the possibility of Mark 1:2-3. The normative practice of New Testament authors when quoting from more than one source is to refrain from mentioning any particular source. Instead, these quotations are typically introduced with phrases such as “it is written” (e.g., Matt 21:13; Rom 3:10-18; 11:26-27; 1 Cor 15:54-55)."

The key issue being that if this is a multiple source mash-up, it would be profoundly out of charcter for NT usage to have this sort of literary device introduced with the formula Matthew uses (which is the exact same formula he uses when actually quoting Jeremiah directly); and additionally it would be unlikely his readers would understand that what was he was doing (esp. given how early church father like Origen and Augustine noted the problem but didn't think it was a mash-up).

The problem isn't then, is it possible that this passage is a specialised use of a literary device, rarely employed in the NT, and left confusingly introduced with the same formula as a previously direct quote of Jeremiah from the same gospel - it's whether it is more plausible that it simply being a mistake.

Given how complex and arguable a proposal this cento solution is, and given how it is just one minority view amongst many proposed solutions by scholars, it seems obvious to me that one would only choose to accept it over the much more plain mistake hypothesis if one already had a pre-commitment to inerrency.

 

[PruePhillip]

I don't see how it's circular reasoning to say that a story depicting a historic event was written after that event.

One example goes like this.
"Well, Mark was written about AD80 - certainly after AD70 obviously as he mentions
the destruction of the temple which transpired that year. Now we can date Luke and
Matthew as they were written after Mark."

 

[halbhh]

So, the proposed solution is that Matthew mashed together and paraphrased multiple sources in a particular literary device and then referred to this cento as being Jeremiah (when it is almost entirely Zecheriah) because Jeremiah was the more prominent prophet, and expected his readers to understand that was what he was doing.

Well, instead, mostly Jeremiah, according to #6: "derived from Jeremiah 18:2, etc.; Jeremiah 19:1, 2; 32:8-14, combined with the prediction in Zechariah" So you'd have to write more accurately then, instead: "as it is significantly from Jeremiah" -- yes?

That thing about more prominent guy was the theory #5 tho, which I didn't rely on.

Which addresses this also then these paragraphs:

The difficulties with that proposed solution are mentioned in the link I referred to:
"However, the form of Matthew’s quotation, with or without an allusion to Jeremiah, does not fit this definition of a catena. So even if it was customary to mention the more prominent prophet in a quotation chain, such as Mark 1:2-3, the link with Matthew 27:9-10 would still be ill-advised.

However, the theory itself that the standard literary convention of the day was to cite the more prominent source should also be questioned, for referring to one particular source before a string of quotations is virtually unattested in the New Testament apart from the possibility of Mark 1:2-3. The normative practice of New Testament authors when quoting from more than one source is to refrain from mentioning any particular source. Instead, these quotations are typically introduced with phrases such as “it is written” (e.g., Matt 21:13; Rom 3:10-18; 11:26-27; 1 Cor 15:54-55)."

But this is an interesting thing to say:

The key issue being that if this is a multiple source mash-up, it would be profoundly out of charcter for NT usage to have this sort of literary device introduced with the formula Matthew uses (which is the exact same formula he uses when actually quoting Jeremiah directly); and additionally it would be unlikely his readers would understand that what was he was doing (esp. given how early church father like Origen and Augustine noted the problem but didn't think it was a mash-up).

Leaving aside the idea Matthew's writer introduced it prior to others using it, which seems pretty unlikely actually, but not of great importance, there is a more interesting or significant issue you bring up in your ideas here: "it would be unlikely his readers would understand that what was he was doing " -- I ask: why think that? My reading in the scriptures shows a amazing plethora of literary devices of great effect and quality throughout much of all the 66 books (with few exceptions) -- as I've been re-reading lately in the OT in the excellent more literal ESV lately.

So, instead of thinking readers wouldn't get it, I'd expect the opposite because of how they'd be used to powerful literary effects as already in so many books. It would be only par for the course.

Given how complex and arguable a proposal this cento solution is, and given how it is just one minority view amongst many proposed solutions by scholars, it seems obvious to me that one would only choose to accept it over the much more plain mistake hypothesis if one already had a pre-commitment to inerrency.

There's a majority view among bible scholars? That's an interesting thing to say. What is the majority view, and how do you know?

 

[PruePhillip]

It's not a "lie." It can only be a lie if it's history. It's not history though, it's a mythic story. Scholars have been trying to separate the historic Jesus from the mythic Jesus for a long time.

The accounts of Jesus resurrection don't say "And He rose again and is with us forever."
They say things like, "Now on the first day of the week... early in the morning...and Jesus
stood in the midst of them... showed them his hands..."
These accounts CLAIM TO BE HISTORY. In fact some consider Luke to be one of the
greatest historians of the Classic Age, particularly his account of the early Christian church.

So too with the Old Testament. Lots on this forum buy into the "argument" that it was all
written in Babylonian times or later to create a national narrative of the Jewish people.
But many of the places, kings, prophets etc are slowly turning up in archeological digs.
Meaning that the OT has a claim to history as well.

 

[Galateasdream]

So you'd have to write more accurately then, instead: "as it is significantly from Jeremiah" -- yes

No, because that presumes that I find the echoes to Jeremiah convincing, which at the moment I am undecided upon. Some of the connections appear to be a stretch. Eitherway, it is generally acknowledged that the ascribed quotation far more matches Zecheriah than Jeremiah. So at the moment I stand by what I said.

which I didn't rely on

The article just refers to your linked solution by a different name, combing the prominent author solution and the cento (which is here called a catena) under the same heading, So the part I quoted is relevant and argues against the proposed solution.

I ask: why think that?

Because, as I already explained a) Matthew had already used the exact same introduction formula for a direct non mish-mash quote, b) if it was a well established technique it would be found elsewhere in the NT, but it is very rare and when used doesn't fit the same introductory formula, c) if it was a known device in the ancient world early church father would have recognised it, but it seems they were just as puzzled by the misquotation as we are now, d) the plain reading would be that Matthew was claiming the quote was direct from Jeremiah.

There's a majority view among bible scholars?

I'm not sure what point of mine you're referring to here, or at least how it connects. Perhaps I need to re-phrase:
If the cento solution was more plausible than the mistake solution and didn't rely upon a prior commitment to inerrency we would expect the following:
A) a large degree of agreement amongst inerrentist scholars that this was the correct solution
B) that even some non-inerrentist scholars would accept it

But instead we see:
A1) some half dozen or more proposed solutions from evangelical scholars, who argue amongst themselves poo-pooing each other's theories, and expressing their own solutions tentatively
B2) I've yet to find a non-inerrentist scholar who agrees with this solution as more plausible than the mistake theory

This all suggests to me that accepting that Matthew just made a simple error is more likely than he used some rare literary device in an unusual manner for some highly complex and confusing reason.

 

[halbhh]

No, because that presumes that I find the echoes to Jeremiah convincing, which at the moment I am undecided upon. Some of the connections appear to be a stretch. Eitherway, it is generally acknowledged that the ascribed quotation far more matches Zecheriah than Jeremiah. So at the moment I stand by what I said.



The article just refers to your linked solution by a different name, combing the prominent author solution and the cento (which is here called a catena) under the same heading, So the part I quoted is relevant and argues against the proposed solution.



Because, as I already explained a) Matthew had already used the exact same introduction formula for a direct non mish-mash quote, b) if it was a well established technique it would be found elsewhere in the NT, but it is very rare and when used doesn't fit the same introductory formula, c) if it was a known device in the ancient world early church father would have recognised it, but it seems they were just as puzzled by the misquotation as we are now, d) the plain reading would be that Matthew was claiming the quote was direct from Jeremiah.



I'm not sure what point of mine you're referring to here, or at least how it connects. Perhaps I need to re-phrase:
If the cento solution was more plausible than the mistake solution and didn't rely upon a prior commitment to inerrency we would expect the following:
A) a large degree of agreement amongst inerrentist scholars that this was the correct solution
B) that even some non-inerrentist scholars would accept it

But instead we see:
A1) some half dozen or more proposed solutions from evangelical scholars, who argue amongst themselves poo-pooing each other's theories, and expressing their own solutions tentatively
B2) I've yet to find a non-inerrentist scholar who agrees with this solution as more plausible than the mistake theory

This all suggests to me that accepting that Matthew just made a simple error is more likely than he used some rare literary device in an unusual manner for some highly complex and confusing reason.

heh, I've been where you are at right now (I think where you are at) -- got a long thread with a lot of discussion, and answering several people and it's been a lot of time, and you start sorta at times answering what ya think they said mixed in with things they did say, and not including other things they said. heh heh I've been there. We could discuss another time, when you are less rushed/more rested. (or at least that's what I'd want in your place) Also, I think the best in the end is when we never really feel we have to defend a point. From my main background the normal routine is to try to disprove one's own favored theorem, and then other people are only my helpers. Have a good night!

 

[Galateasdream]

heh, I've been where you are at right now (I think where you are at) -- got a long thread with a lot of discussion, and answering several people and it's been a lot of time, and you start sorta at times answering what ya think they said mixed in with things they did say, and not including other things they said. heh heh I've been there. We could discuss another time, when you are less rushed/more rested. (or at least that's what I'd want in your place) Also, I think the best in the end is when we never really feel we have to defend a point. From my main background the normal routine is to try to disprove one's own favored theorem, and then other people are only my helpers. Have a good night!

No worries

Have a good night.

I'm more than happy to agree to disagree - if you think that the cento solution is more plausible than the mistake theory then fair enough.

I will look at this issue further in my own time since it interests me. I'll see if I can find more scholarly sources discussing it from both sides.

I guess it's easy in the one sense since I don't really have anything at stake here - if it turns out that Matthew didn't make a mistake it's not going to change my view on inerrency because of the hundred other errors I think are in the bible; whereas I understand that from the inerrentist side the burden is much heavier in that a single example of an error destroys that bibliology (which is why I fought so hard to find solutions back in my evangelical days).

 

[sojourner]

One example goes like this.
"Well, Mark was written about AD80 - certainly after AD70 obviously as he mentions
the destruction of the temple which transpired that year. Now we can date Luke and
Matthew as they were written after Mark."

Still don’t see how that’s circular reasoning. Matt. and Luke use Markan material. It stands to reason that they would be dated later.

 

[sojourner]

The accounts of Jesus resurrection don't say "And He rose again and is with us forever."
They say things like, "Now on the first day of the week... early in the morning...and Jesus
stood in the midst of them... showed them his hands..."
These accounts CLAIM TO BE HISTORY. In fact some consider Luke to be one of the
greatest historians of the Classic Age, particularly his account of the early Christian church.

So too with the Old Testament. Lots on this forum buy into the "argument" that it was all
written in Babylonian times or later to create a national narrative of the Jewish people.
But many of the places, kings, prophets etc are slowly turning up in archeological digs.
Meaning that the OT has a claim to history as well.

But the texts aren’t histories. They’re mythology. You can’t change the genre just because there are some historical facts. Harry Potter lives in England — Surrey to be exact. Harry Potter isn’t history just because Surrey, England exists.

 

[PruePhillip]

But the texts aren’t histories. They’re mythology. You can’t change the genre just because there are some historical facts. Harry Potter lives in England — Surrey to be exact. Harry Potter isn’t history just because Surrey, England exists.

True. And you can't have a Western movie without the backdrop
of the American landscape and 19th Century culture.
A better analogy would be the gods of other cultures - the Greeks
say their gods live on Mount Olympus. Fine, let's go look. But no
Greek would do that because the gods are stories, and as their
gods say, "If men don't believe us we cease to exist."

But you can look at some "historic" sort of account in the Old
Testament, say the existence of a king or a city, and go look for
it. There's a reasonable chance you are going to find these.
Certainly the accounts of miracles or nomads are not going to
be found. But again, the Jews did not take their Torah to be
myth but history. And for the most part I do too.

 

[3rdAngel]

I guess it's easy in the one sense since I don't really have anything at stake here - if it turns out that Matthew didn't make a mistake it's not going to change my view on inerrency because of the hundred other errors I think are in the bible; whereas I understand that from the inerrentist side the burden is much heavier in that a single example of an error destroys that bibliology (which is why I fought so hard to find solutions back in my evangelical days).

To me this is only evidence of you not wanting to believe no matter what solution has been shared with you IMO. There is no 100's of errors in the bible whatsoever that I have found, only misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the scriptures taken out of context to make scripture say things it is not saying for those looking for excuses not to believe.

As you have admitted here and elsewhere even the scholars do not agree among themselve. If this is the case why look for sources outside of the bible to try and find out what truth is?

All this seems to fit well with the two points that people fall into that lose their way in trying to understand God's Word. That is 1. trying to look for the truth of God's Word outside of the scriptures or 2. Living a lifestyle condemned by the scriptures. Both simply lead away from God according to the scriptures not closer to him IMO.

At the end of the day, saying the scripture are untrue and in error are only unproven claims that even scholars cannot agree on. This does not mean that the scriptures are not true or in error. It only means someone cannot understand them which proves the bible true. The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God neither can he know them because they are foolishness unto him.

Funny how I believe I can find solutions to your best so called errors, while you are free to disagree it is just as the scriptures teach. There will always be those who believe and follow God's Word and those who do not. Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. I would not want to wake up on the wrong side of the fence if the scriptures are true

 

[Galateasdream]

To me this is only evidence of you not wanting to believe no matter what solution has been shared with you IMO.

Wel, then you are wrong. I think you're seeing what you want to see.

There is no 100's of errors in the bible whatsoever

I disagree. I think the bible has many errors. Hence this thread.

If this is the case why look for sources outside of the bible to try and find out what truth is?

Because it is good to use the scholarly tools given us. Deliberate ignorance is most unbecoming. I mean, even you have used scholarly tools besides the bible in this very thread.

the end of the day, saying the scripture are untrue and in error are only unproven claims that even scholars cannot agree on

At the end of the day some people believe the bible has errors and some people don't. I believe that those who look with an open mind will accept that there are errors, whilst those pre-committed to inerrency will find ways to explain away errors no matter how implausible.

Funny how I believe I can find solutions to your best so called errors,

About as funny as how these solutions are all rather implausible and seem somewhat desperate ad hoc gymnastics to fit the texts into a faulty bibliology.

. I would not want to wake up on the wrong side of the fence if the scriptures are true

To be more precise: I would not want to wake up on the wrong side of the fence if your interpretation of the scriptures is true. And I agree. Under your paradigm many people will suffer (shall I assume in hell for eternity?), whereas under mine everyone is ultimately saved. Which means, I guess, that if you could simply choose which of our two paradigms is true it would be most logical to pick mine (unless you actually desire hell to be real?). So we can both agree that my theology is what is most desirable, even if you don't actually believe it to be true.

 

[sojourner]

the Jews did not take their Torah to be
myth but history. And for the most part I do too.

Except the ancient Judaic concept of “history” is much different from ours. Our history is fact-reporting of past events than can be verified. Their concept of history is stories — factual or not — that convey the hopes, dreams, aspirations, angst, fear, stress, etc. of their people. In terms of the texts, through a theological lens.

 

[PruePhillip]

Except the ancient Judaic concept of “history” is much different from ours. Our history is fact-reporting of past events than can be verified. Their concept of history is stories — factual or not — that convey the hopes, dreams, aspirations, angst, fear, stress, etc. of their people. In terms of the texts, through a theological lens.

You might need to give an example of this.
My view of Jewish history is that the Jews migrated to Canaan in the late
Bronze Age. At first this was a theocratic nation but by about 1000 BC
Israel became a Monarchy. This nation prospered during the times of
Solomon due to the decline of the great empires of the time. By about
mid 7th Century BC many Jews were taken in captivity and most of the
nation vanished into Assyrian exile. And then Israel was under Greek
and Roman rule. And this is where Jesus arrived on the scene and the
rise of Christianity followed.
THIS IS ACTUAL HISTORY, AND IT'S MOSTLY DOCUMENTED IN
THE BIBLE.

 

[sojourner]

You might need to give an example of this.
My view of Jewish history is that the Jews migrated to Canaan in the late
Bronze Age. At first this was a theocratic nation but by about 1000 BC
Israel became a Monarchy. This nation prospered during the times of
Solomon due to the decline of the great empires of the time. By about
mid 7th Century BC many Jews were taken in captivity and most of the
nation vanished into Assyrian exile. And then Israel was under Greek
and Roman rule. And this is where Jesus arrived on the scene and the
rise of Christianity followed.
THIS IS ACTUAL HISTORY, AND IT'S MOSTLY DOCUMENTED IN
THE BIBLE.

Actually, it’s not. There is nothing in he archaeological record to show an invasion into Canaan by an outside culture. There is record of Hebrews always having been in Canaan. The whole “promised land” migration is metaphoric. We all understand how that theologically brings meaning to them as “wanderers,” but we shouldn’t conflate the theological truth with historic fact. And the nation was never as powerful as the Bible would have us think. The archaeological markers simply aren’t present.

 

[3rdAngel]

Wel, then you are wrong. I think you're seeing what you want to see.

No you are wrong and only seeing what you want to see because 1. You seek to know the truth of the scriptures outside of the bible. You turn to the teachings of men instead of the teachings of God and because you simply choose to do so now in order to justify a lifestyle that the scriptures condemn.

I disagree. I think the bible has many errors. Hence this thread.

Perhaps that is what you believe because you seek to find the truth of God's Word outside of the bible and the scriptures from sources that do not even agree amoung themselves. How are you going to know what is right and wrong when even scholars cannot agree among themselves? Nothing will change your mind while you are seeking to practice a lifestyle the scriptures condemn. Every "so called bible error" that I have seen simply is a misinterpretation of the scriptures or scripture taken out of context to other scriptures. I disagree the bible has errors and have yet to find one that could not be reconciled to the claims of athiests. I believe you are simply wrong. So I guess you have your faith and I have mine.

Because it is good to use the scholarly tools given us. Deliberate ignorance is most unbecoming. I mean, even you have used scholarly tools besides the bible in this very thread.

It is good to use scholarly tools such as the original GREEK and HEBREW dictionaries, Lexicons, interlinears etc to study the scriptures in context, but your not using any of these tools as shown when we were talking about the scriptures earlier and you tried to claim you can have salvation outside of faith and belief in the scriptures while trying to justify homosexuality and denying what the scriptures teach regarding this lifestyle. You were shown to be in error here so your response now as before is to try to make look like the scriptures are in error when they are not.

This is simply dishonest IMO. Now your trying to argue for sources outside of the bible in the writings of scholars which cannot even agree among themselves? If the scholars cannot agree among themselves how are you going to know what is right and what is wrong when even the scholars do not know? You do not right that it was some of these so called scholars in the days of JESUS that helped to crucify JESUS right? Your looking for truth outside of the scriptures in order to find truth to justify a lifestyle condemned by the scriptures. If God is not our teacher no matter how smart we may be we will never know him according to the scriptures.

At the end of the day some people believe the bible has errors and some people don't. I believe that those who look with an open mind will accept that there are errors, whilst those pre-committed to inerrency will find ways to explain away errors no matter how implausible.

It is true some people will believe in the bible scriptures and some will not. I believe your claims to errors are not true and many try to use these claims because they have closed minds to God and the bible for one reason or another. You and other athiests claim there are 100's of error in the bible. My experience is different to yours. I have looked at many of these so called errors with an opened mind when people were first claiming there was errors because I was interested in learning about these claims. After doing some prayerful investigation I found these claims of biblical error to be false and simply the result of misinterpretation of the sciptures, taking scripture out of context and not undersanding the literature customs of the day. Most of these claims are also put foward by athiests and people that have an agenda against the biblical teachings. It seems to me now that you are simply one of them.

About as funny as how these solutions are all rather implausible and seem somewhat desperate ad hoc gymnastics to fit the texts into a faulty bibliology.

I would say about as funny as you claiming to be a christian with a homosexual agenda trying to deny the scriptures by looking for sources outside of the bible from men that do not even agree among themselves (so called scholars) in order to deny God's Word that condemns lifestyle you wish to participate in.

To be more precise: I would not want to wake up on the wrong side of the fence if your interpretation of the scriptures is true. And I agree. Under your paradigm many people will suffer (shall I assume in hell for eternity?), whereas under mine everyone is ultimately saved. Which means, I guess, that if you could simply choose which of our two paradigms is true it would be most logical to pick mine (unless you actually desire hell to be real?). So we can both agree that my theology is what is most desirable, even if you don't actually believe it to be true.

I do not believe in eternity in hell. This is a catholic teaching that is not biblical. The bible teaches no where in the scriptures that everone will be saved. It is only those who believe and follow God's Word that are his sheep. Those who do not hear and follow are not God's people or will they according to the scriptures enter into the kingdom of heaven *see HEBREWS 10:26-39; MATTHEW 7:21-28. If I did not care about you I would not tell you the truth but speak smooth things to you. I told you that you will remember me one way or the other as one of those who cared about you enough to tell you the truth. Wheather you believe me and what I have shared with you or not it is between you and God and we can agree to disagree. Forgive me for being honest but I do not see truth in your words and can see through you..

May you receive God's Word and be blessed. Ignoring it does not make it disappear *JOHN 12:47-48.

 

[PruePhillip]

Actually, it’s not. There is nothing in he archaeological record to show an invasion into Canaan by an outside culture. There is record of Hebrews always having been in Canaan. The whole “promised land” migration is metaphoric. We all understand how that theologically brings meaning to them as “wanderers,” but we shouldn’t conflate the theological truth with historic fact. And the nation was never as powerful as the Bible would have us think. The archaeological markers simply aren’t present.

Don't conflate lack of evidence for evidence of lack.
There's hardly any "evidence" for the greatest of all land empires - that of
Genghis Khan. He exists largely through documents, just as Israel does.
And Edom too was actually a great nation, yet hardly exists in archaeology.
The actual evidence of a Hebrew invasion of Canaan is mixed - but it's there.
And yes, when the great empires of the Middle East declined the new Monarchy
of Israel spread throughout Ammon, Moab, Syria - and Solomon had an alliance
through marriage with Egypt.
You ought to believe the Exodus because the bible states there will be another
one. And it's happening now as Jews return to Israel. The Second Exodus, if
you like, is much more remarkable than a migration of Hebrews from Egypt.

 

[Galateasdream]

No you are wrong

No, you are wrong . Are we going to do this forever?

You seek to know the truth of the scriptures outside of the bible.

I'm not sure this has any meaning, tbh.

to justify a lifestyle that the scriptures condemn.

What is it you think I'm doing that scripture condemns?

So I guess you have your faith and I have mine.

I guess so. I thought we'd earlier agreed to disagree? You do seem to like coming back repeatedly to say something else about me.

It is good to use scholarly tools

Yet you don't think I should use the works of scholars 'outside the bible'? You realise that not all textual critics and philologist so agree, yes?

you tried to claim you can have salvation outside of faith

I don't think I did. Mi think you've misunderstood me. As it happens, I actually think everyone will come to faith in God as revealed in Jesus.

I believe your claims to errors are not true

And I believe your claims to no errors are not true.

You and other athiests

I'm not an atheist. I believe in God.

After doing some prayerful investigation I found these claims of biblical error to be false

After doing years of prayerful investigation I found the claims of biblical error true.

claiming to be a christian

I am a Christian. Though I concur, not by your standard.

a homosexual agenda t

What homosexual agenda?

This is a catholic teaching that is not biblical.

Well, I've leave the Roman Catholics and Protestant infernalists to pick you apart on that one. But from my perspective it's nice we can agree that hell doesn't exist. And so I have nothing to worry about then

Forgive me for being honest but I do not see truth in your words and can see through you..

I forgive you for being honest. I even forgive you for being rude and disrespectful. It doesn't matter really, does it? I know you think you can 'see through me,' but you are wrong. No matter.

 

[PruePhillip]

What homosexual agenda?

We had a debate in Tasmania over the DECRIMINALIZATION of homosexuality.
Various groups denied "extremists" who said they wanted the promotion of
homosexuality, gay boy sex or even gay marriage. As soon as the law was
changed these groups began pushing these various things. And I suppose,
they won't stop with gay marriage.
THAT'S an agenda if I ever saw one.