Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[1robin]

I dont.

*I hear the collective thud of 10,000 dropping christian jaws as they hit the floor in that admission... *

No matter how many times an error is corrected just wait a day or two and another critic will make the same one. There are 400,000 errors in THE ENTIRE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION of the bible not in any single bible. I have covered the numbers before in detail but it works out to about a 5% error rate for a particular bible. Which by the way is astronomically better than any other work of ancient history. It does include the adultress woman and another chapter in Mark or Mathew I believe within that 5% but even according to Bart Ehrman does not effect a single verse of essential doctrine. In the end the bible is almost supernatuarally accurate and more than suffecient for faith and more reliable than could possibly be expected from a work that old. No jaws hitting any floors.

 

[s2a]

No matter how many times an error is corrected just wait a day or two and another critic will make the same one. There are 400,000 errors in THE ENTIRE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION of the bible not in any single bible. I have covered the numbers before in detail but it works out to about a 5% error rate for a particular bible. Which by the way is astronomically better than any other work of ancient history. It does include the adultress woman and another chapter in Mark or Mathew I believe within that 5% but even according to Bart Ehrman does not effect a single verse of essential doctrine. In the end the bible is almost supernatuarally accurate and more than suffecient for faith and more reliable than could possibly be expected from a work that old. No jaws hitting any floors.

You omit an important caveat with your apologetic...

Adherents of the Bible claim it to be the revealed word of God... His "dairy" if you like. a justified and dictated verbatim repository of ulitimate and revealed "truth" as lent by the Almighty Himself.

People get a little touchy (and even more skeptical) when any presented "truth" has a +/- 5% accuracy rate.

Just for fun, a favored citation...

"IF 99% IS GOOD ENOUGH, THEN ...
Source

- 12 newborns will be given to the wrong parents daily.

- 268,500 defective tires will be shipped this year.

- 103,260 income tax returns will be processed incorrectly this year.

- 811,000 faulty rolls of 35mm film will be loaded this year.

- 14,208 defective personal computers will be shipped this year.

- 2,488,200 books will be shipped in the next 12 months with the wrong cover.

- Two plane landings daily at O' Hare International Airport in Chicago will be unsafe.

- 3,056 copies of tomorrow's Wall Street Journal will be missing one of the three sections.

- 18,322 pieces of mail will be mishandled in the next hour.

- 291 pacemaker operations will be performed incorrectly this year.

- 880,000 credit cards in circulation will turn out to have incorrect cardholder information on their magnetic strip.

- $761,900 will be spent in the next 12 months on tapes and CDs that will not play.

- 55 malfunctioning automatic teller machines will be installed in the next 12 months.

- 20,000 incorrect drug prescriptions will be written in the next 12 months.

- 114,500 mismatched pairs of shoes will be shipped this year.

- 107 incorrect medical procedures will be performed by the end of the day today.

- 315 entries in Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language will be misspelled.

- $9,690 will be spent every day on defective, often unsafe sporting equipment.

- 2,000,000 documents will be lost by the IRS this year.

- 22,000 checks will be deducted from the wrong bank accounts in the next 60 minutes.

- Homes would be without electricity, heat, water, and telephone service for 15 minutes every day.

- Every page of the telephone directory would contain four wrong numbers.



And those "1% error rate" results above are circa 1991...hmmm, repeat, 1991.

You know.. everyday, ordinary circumstantial happenstances that claim nothing of providing ultimate "truths".

I give modern day Christian Biblical apologetics about a 94.675% chance of just being sad...

 

[InfidelRiot]

To believe in the infallibility of the bible is to relinquish all reason.

 

[gseeker]

There are over 774,000 words in the Bible. At a 5% error rate you are seeing 38,700 words wrong.If you say that the Bible is gods word but you don't care that it has almost 39 thousand error then something is seriously wrong.

 

[1robin]

You omit an important caveat with your apologetic...
Adherents of the Bible claim it to be the revealed word of God... His "dairy" if you like. a justified and dictated verbatim repository of ultimate and revealed "truth" as lent by the Almighty Himself.
People get a little touchy (and even more skeptical) when any presented "truth" has a +/- 5% accuracy rate.

First a 5% error rate far exceeds any other text in ancient history. Combined with it's textual tradition it exceeds them all combined. Since Caesar, Socrates, Plato, Xerxes, and other characters of ancient history are taught as fact in colleges around the world based on texts not even remotely as reliable as the bible your double standard is showing. Another point to add is that every error is indicated in modern bibles. Another would be that the errors are additions and so what we have after they are removed is about 99.9% accurate to the original. Another would be the only thing claimed or promised was that the original revelation would be provided. If you decided to make a version of the bible and misspelled a word are you suggesting God should send Michael to kill you? There is simply no standard by which the bible fails unless one is invented using double standards or irrational requirements that are derived from preference and are not used for anything else. Another point is that not a single error effects core doctrine.
Here are what some experts say about the subject and are a little more meaningful than unrelated statistics:
The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."
John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet."
Clifford Herschel Moore, professor at Harvard University, well said, "Christianity knew its Savior and Redeemer not as some god whose history was contained in a mythical faith, with rude, primitive, and even offensive elements...Jesus was a historical not a mythical being. No remote or foul myth obtruded itself of the Christian believer; his faith was founded on positive, historical, and acceptable facts."
Benjamin Warfield of Princeton expressed in his article, "The Resurrection of Christ an Historical Fact, Evinced by Eye-Witnesses":
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2
Many more can be found at that site
Another thing about your statistics. The claim that 5% error rules out the existence of God is no more meaningful than the fact that if there are 5% errors in surgery does not rule out doctors.
Summary:
1. The bible is usually claimed to be 99.5 % accurate however I use a very conservative 95% accuracy.
2. That is greater than any other work of antiquity by a long shot.
3. The only work close is The Peloponnesian War by Thucydides and it has something like a thousand year gap between the events and the oldest copies.
4. There is no actual standard theological, academic, or legal requirement that the bible fails.
5. If you invent an arbitrary standard that it does fail that says more about your preferences than the evidence.
6. To reject the bible as unreliable and accept the existence of any other ancient historical work or character is hypocritical.
7. Your statistics have no connection or relevance to the issue.
8. The information within the bible meets or exceeds Hebrew or modern legal standards. In Hebrew culture two witnesses were needed. The bible has twice that for Christ alone. The experts I cited plus Simon Greenleaf possibly the greatest expert on evidence presentation in human history confirms the textual evidence in the bible meets all modern standards.
There will never be proof for God until it is too late for that proof to help. That is why it requires faith. There is far and away enough evidence for that. That is why 2 billion plus people claim to have found a spiritual treasure right where the bible said it would be. Many things in life and science are believed on far less evidence.
I didn't need to say any of this because the fact that the errors are known and indicated renders your contentions null alone.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You omit an important caveat with your apologetic...

Adherents of the Bible claim it to be the revealed word of God... His "dairy" if you like. a justified and dictated verbatim repository of ulitimate and revealed "truth" as lent by the Almighty Himself.

You omit an important caveat with your apologetic ...

Only some adherents make this claim. Your petty distortion does a disservice to the rest.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To believe in the infallibility of the bible is to relinquish all reason.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[1robin]

To believe in the infallibility of the bible is to relinquish all reason.

Is that why some of the most intelligent people in human history have believed that the original revelation was perfect and the modern bible is extremely close? It looks like after two thousand years plus all these terrible errors would have swayed the argument. Instead Christianity just keeps on growing. That growth includes experts in evidence presentation, scientists that pioneered entire fields of science, great philosophers, even modern genetacists. Your statement has more to do with emotion that any academic issue. Only irrational if you have no idea what biblical infallability even means. Read the Chicago statement of faith if you actually want to know what is meant by the terms.

 

[1robin]

There are over 774,000 words in the Bible. At a 5% error rate you are seeing 38,700 words wrong.If you say that the Bible is gods word but you don't care that it has almost 39 thousand error then something is seriously wrong.

Since every error is known, indicated, and explained in modern bibles and the original revelation is still contained in the tradition, there simply isn't a problem at all. The fact that you need one and so must create one where it doesn't exist has no explanitory power or scope.

 

[waitasec]

Since every error is known, indicated, and explained in modern bibles and the original revelation is still contained in the tradition, there simply isn't a problem at all. The fact that you need one and so must create one where it doesn't exist has no explanitory power or scope.

how can anyone explain an interpretation of an interpretation from a copy of a copy of a copy?

 

[sojourner]

Adherents of the Bible claim it to be the revealed word of God... His "dairy" if you like.

The claim of "dairy," as you put it, seems a "moo-t" point, indeed...

 

[1robin]

how can anyone explain an interpretation of an interpretation from a copy of a copy of a copy?

I have already covered this. Since computers exist it is possible at the very least to compare modern bibles to the oldest copies or codexes. They go back to various times some very very early and others less so but still earlier than just about any comparable ancient text. Scholars say that the original text of the revelations can be reliably known and is contained in the traditions. I would explain how they do this but don't know everything involved. I do know that only with the unparalleled proliferation of early texts and copies is it possible. If fact I think the Amplified bible or another went straight from the oldest texts in existance straight to modern English which eliminated your contentions. Case closed. See it again in a few weeks.

 

[waitasec]

I have already covered this. Since computers exist it is possible at the very least to compare modern bibles to the oldest copies or codexes. .

doesn't matter....the oldest known codex is an interpretation of an interpretation

 

[1robin]

doesn't matter....the oldest known codex is an interpretation of an interpretation

You do realize that early scribes had many many ways to make absolutely sure that texts were copied accurately. Mistakes were punishable by death and there was a whole class of people who's only purpose and training was devoted to accurately copying texts. That is why the dead sea scrolls were over 99% percent accurate with modern bibles. You can even do that comparison test yourself online if you actually were interested.

I have already said that textual critics say that with a very early, very prolific, and diverse texual tradition (which the bible has in spades) it can reliably be established as to what the original texts say. I am not qualified to walk you through this, James White is a very good source for that (and so will never be researched by you).

Please answer honestly. Is there any person who lived before the time of Christ that you feel their existance and some level of detail is reliably known?

 

[waitasec]

You do realize that early scribes had many many ways to make absolutely sure that texts were copied accurately.

:biglaugh:

wait, they had computers back then?

 

[1robin]

:biglaugh:

wait, they had computers back then?

What in the heck are you talking about now? I didn't say they did, doesn't have anything to do with anything, and reveals a lack of knowledge concerning textual criticism on your part to the extent that this is what had to be resorted to as a desperate but futile attempt at a counterclaim to something that has no counter. I can't justify participating in a discussion so unchallenging and just plain silly with not a single indicator of sincerety. A statement that has begun to appear to me to be almost divinly accurate is: To give truth to one who loves it not only increases the opportunity for meaningless and groundless contention.

 

[gseeker]

You do realize that early scribes had many many ways to make absolutely sure that texts were copied accurately. Mistakes were punishable by death and there was a whole class of people who's only purpose and training was devoted to accurately copying texts. That is why the dead sea scrolls were over 99% percent accurate with modern bibles. You can even do that comparison test yourself online if you actually were interested.

I have already said that textual critics say that with a very early, very prolific, and diverse texual tradition (which the bible has in spades) it can reliably be established as to what the original texts say. I am not qualified to walk you through this, James White is a very good source for that (and so will never be researched by you).

Please answer honestly. Is there any person who lived before the time of Christ that you feel their existance and some level of detail is reliably known?

Ah, you do know it is a sin to lie right? Lol The fact is that in the early church there were many cults, Christianity was not unified and multiple altered manuscripts were made, the earliest manuscripts are at least from 40 years after death of Christ, and the earliest Christians were very illiterate even many scribes just copied from one manuscript to the next being unable to read what they were actually writting creating multiple errors. Please try again.

 

[1robin]

Ah, you do know it is a sin to lie right? Lol The fact is that in the early church there were many cults, Christianity was not unified and multiple altered manuscripts were made, the earliest manuscripts are at least from 40 years after death of Christ, and the earliest Christians were very illiterate even many scribes just copied from one manuscript to the next being unable to read what they were actually writting creating multiple errors. Please try again.

Prove any of this except the 40 years claim because you disagree with every textual scholar I am aware of and that even includes Ehrman. In fact even if you were correct (and your not) it would be impossible to know what you claim. Do not accuse me of lying again if you want to discuss anything with me. To assert lying it is necessary to know intent, which you do not. To insinuate the accusation anyway is dishonorable. For some reason the past few days this word is flying around like crazy without any validity, from and about many people.

 

[s2a]

You omit an important caveat with your apologetic ...

Only some adherents make this claim. Your petty distortion does a disservice to the rest.

My bad then.

[Secondary caveat: First caveat only applies to those that make such claims, as they tend to be the most vocal and insistent in their earnest faith and proclamations of "truth". Ok?

Never meant to be petty ya know]

 

[s2a]

What in the heck are you talking about now? I didn't say they did, doesn't have anything to do with anything, and reveals a lack of knowledge concerning textual criticism on your part to the extent that this is what had to be resorted to as a desperate but futile attempt at a counterclaim to something that has no counter. I can't justify participating in a discussion so unchallenging and just plain silly with not a single indicator of sincerety. A statement that has begun to appear to me to be almost divinly accurate is: To give truth to one who loves it not only increases the opportunity for meaningless and groundless contention.

Not to be obstinate in refutation alone, as I have little interest in either falsifying or in lending corroboration of partial copies of written works some 3000+ years ago...

...but let's at least be realistic in noting that the more revisions any anecdotal accounting sustains, the greater level of claimed "accuracy" it may be likely to endure from critics.

If each successive revision works to reconcile previous notable inaccuracies/inconsistencies in effort to present the best available story of alleged incidence/fact, that's ok. It's what copy editors do every day

The difference between copy editors and historical revisionists are quite marked however in what each is earnestly attempting to present as fact, or perhaps preserve as self-prophecized myth.

One seeks to insure that the narrative provided reflects only the facts.

The other seeks to insure that the "facts" reinforce the crafted and inextricably conclusive narrative.

The difference here is also evident.

One narrative offers no accounting/claim of any philosophical "truth".

The other one has no other claim but "truth".

Some get their news from legitimate journalists.
Some "decide" watching FoxNews.

Skeptics, start your engines