Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[1robin]

All I'm hearing right now is the same old dogma. If you add all the times that specific events LIST numbers, you get that number for the OT. However apparently this person estimates it to be much higher, i would only go by tyhe sure numbers.

Dwindling In Unbelief: How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)

By the way, those figures were taken from the Bible, they have verses to back them up. read the verses it shows as saying an actual value and decide for yourself. The Bible itself records Yahweh as killing lots of people.

Many of those figures were made up. There are some of them in the bible the others are made up. Here is the first one I randomly chose. 14:9 And there came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian with an host of a thousand thousand, and three hundred chariots; and came unto Mareshah. 14:10 Then Asa went out against him, and they set the battle in array in the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah. 14:11 And Asa cried unto the LORD his God, and said, LORD, it is nothing with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power: help us, O LORD our God; for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go against this multitude. O LORD, thou art our God; let no man prevail against thee. 14:12 So the LORD smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled.
14:13 And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar: and the Ethiopians were overthrown, that they could not recover themselves; for they were destroyed before the LORD, and before his host; and they carried away very much spoil.
SAB, 2 Chronicles 14
Bolding mine.

These verse say that the Ethiopians had 1 thousand x 1thousand men. They also say they were defeated. It does not say there were 1 million casualties which is what that sight claims and certainly no where in the relm of 1 million deaths. Keep in mind this is 50% of what the total is which is 1/8 of Stalins total alone. Usually and I know very well that a unit that sustains 10% casualties is usually pretty used up and usually runs. There are exceptions of course but this is accurate. This includes wounded and killed. Usually wounded outnumber killed many times over. So the actual killed in this battle which the bible does not say but is probably around 50 - 150 thousand. This issue alone cuts the 2 million down to 1.15 million. That is the first claim I checked so the total is likely to be far less. Most of Israel's battles even the ones God did not approve of (and so are no indictment of him) concern only 50,000 or far less total people on both sides and had only a few thousand casualties.

Here is another factor that should be considered.
The Ethiopian invasion had a thousand, not a million, warriors (2 Chronicles 14: 9).
The Confusion of Hebrew Numbers
OR

The answer is that sources like Herodotus and the Bible are not counting soldiers on active duty -- they are counting the entire military muster of the nations in question. In that light, maybe we need to give the OT (and other sources) the same courtesy when it claims large numbers such as, in 2 Chronicles 14:9, where Zerah the Ethiopian brought one million men against 580,000 from Judah. Old Testament Military Numbers

Also keep in mind that much of the old testament is written in what was at the time a conventional style called apocolyptic literature. When the bible says destoyed it usually does not mean anihilation. It means to break the power of an enemy.
When blaming God for killing people I would require a little better scholarship than wishful thinking or outright fantasy.

 

[1robin]

I know that you do, but it's based on anachronistic dogma. Just like the prophecies about Jesus which are supposedly found in the Hebrew Bible. Both in the case of Jesus and the Christian devil it's simply not the case. The Hebrew Bible does not speak about Jesus nor does it make a linkage between Lucifer and Satan. These are all later interpretations, or rather reinterpretations. But yes, it's all known to be part of historical Christian beliefs... for what it's worth.

Can you produce an actual reason that the verses that say what I mentioned are unreliable? I mean specifics not generalised claims or appeals to opinion. Are the verses in Genesis not also in the Torah?

 

[jasonwill2]

Many of those figures were made up. There are some of them in the bible the others are made up. Here is the first one I randomly chose. 14:9 And there came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian with an host of a thousand thousand, and three hundred chariots; and came unto Mareshah. 14:10 Then Asa went out against him, and they set the battle in array in the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah. 14:11 And Asa cried unto the LORD his God, and said, LORD, it is nothing with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power: help us, O LORD our God; for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go against this multitude. O LORD, thou art our God; let no man prevail against thee. 14:12 So the LORD smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled.
14:13 And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar: and the Ethiopians were overthrown, that they could not recover themselves; for they were destroyed before the LORD, and before his host; and they carried away very much spoil.
SAB, 2 Chronicles 14
Bolding mine.

These verse say that the Ethiopians had 1 thousand x 1thousand men. They also say they were defeated. It does not say there were 1 million casualties which is what that sight claims and certainly no where in the relm of 1 million deaths. Keep in mind this is 50% of what the total is which is 1/8 of Stalins total alone. Usually and I know very well that a unit that sustains 10% casualties is usually pretty used up and usually runs. There are exceptions of course but this is accurate. This includes wounded and killed. Usually wounded outnumber killed many times over. So the actual killed in this battle which the bible does not say but is probably around 50 - 150 thousand. This issue alone cuts the 2 million down to 1.15 million. That is the first claim I checked so the total is likely to be far less. Most of Israel's battles even the ones God did not approve of (and so are no indictment of him) concern only 50,000 or far less total people on both sides and had only a few thousand casualties.

Here is another factor that should be considered.
The Ethiopian invasion had a thousand, not a million, warriors (2 Chronicles 14: 9).
The Confusion of Hebrew Numbers
OR

The answer is that sources like Herodotus and the Bible are not counting soldiers on active duty -- they are counting the entire military muster of the nations in question. In that light, maybe we need to give the OT (and other sources) the same courtesy when it claims large numbers such as, in 2 Chronicles 14:9, where Zerah the Ethiopian brought one million men against 580,000 from Judah. Old Testament Military Numbers

Also keep in mind that much of the old testament is written in what was at the time a conventional style called apocolyptic literature. When the bible says destoyed it usually does not mean anihilation. It means to break the power of an enemy.
When blaming God for killing people I would require a little better scholarship than wishful thinking or outright fantasy.

in those times too, defeat meant most of your guys were dead.

 

[1robin]

Wait, I just realized that Satan, according to Christian cannon, was able to kill billions by simply making some gullible woman eat a fruit, and that it will take Yahweh thousands of years to undo this.

Is it somehow ok to post false doctrine and satistics if you make a big graph or billboard? God's plan of salvation existed prior to what Satan did. It was in effect from the first day that Adam sinned. This cartoon theology is meaningless.

As I have already shown your statistics are no more accurate than your billboard. Here is the very next claim on your statistics I checked. The site and most bibles say God killed 500,000 men 2 Chron 13:3. It is a well known fact and I have consistently claimed that the bible is not perfect. It is about 95% accurate. Many of the errors are OT scrible errors concerning numbers. It is a well established procedure to scrutinise any numbers that are very large or very small. Many times a 0 is left out or added over the thousands of years. This is very likely the case for this claim. Here is a scholarly take on this verse:

2 Chronicles 13:3​

3And Abijah set the battle in array with an army of valiant men of war, even four hundred thousand chosen men: Jeroboam also set the battle in array against him with eight hundred thousand chosen men, being mighty men of valour. Abijah set the battle in array - The numbers in this verse and in the seventeenth seem almost incredible. Abijah's army consisted of four hundred thousand effective men; that of Jeroboam consisted of eight hundred thousand; and the slain of Jeroboam's army were five hundred thousand. Now it is very possible that there is a cipher too much in all these numbers, and that they should stand thus: Abijah's army, forty thousand; Jeroboam's eighty thousand; the slain, fifty thousand. Calmet, who defends the common reading, allows that the Venice edition of the Vulgate, in 1478; another, in 1489; that of Nuremberg, in 1521; that of Basil, by Froben, in 1538; that of Robert Stevens, in 1546; and many others, have the smaller numbers. Dr. Kennicott says: "On a particular collation of the Vulgate version, it appears that the number of chosen men here slain, which Pope Clement's edition in 1592 determines to be five hundred thousand, the edition of Pope Sixtus, printed two years before, determined to be only fifty thousand; and the two preceding numbers, in the edition of Sixtus, are forty thousand and eighty thousand. As to different printed editions, out of fifty-two, from the year 1462 to 1592, thirty-one contain the less number. And out of fifty-one MSS. twenty-three in the Bodleian library, four in that of Dean Aldrich, and two in that of Exeter College, contain the less number, or else are corrupted irregularly, varying only one or two numbers."
2 Chronicles 13 Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

It seems that the atheist potion is the bible is unreliable unless it gives a number or claim that is appealing to an atheist. What I provided in my two posts above is real scholarship and is what this subject deserves not billboards and giant graphics. The number you posted which is only a fraction of what Stalin alone did seems to be shrinking ever smaller very rapidly.

 

[1robin]

in those times too, defeat meant most of your guys were dead.

You can't save a false claim by making another one. I am an amateur historian (over 190 sem hours) and I specialise in warfare. I started military research over 30 years ago before I was saved. I know very well what the language in the bible means. I am currently reading a huge secular book on this subject. Defeat vitually never means everyone is dead. Destroyed on a few occasions (and they are obvious) means this but most times it means their power was broken. When the bible means anihilation it has no trouble making that clear like with the Cannanites and Moabites. God said specifically kill everything (men, women, children, even livestock and burn everything else). There was a very unique and compelling reason for this so I dare you to challenge it. If you can not provide reliable scholarly material I have no interest in this discussion. If it is necessary to appeal to rhetoric to justify your position is it a position worth adopting?

 

[jasonwill2]

Your wasting your breath with so much prose on a single point that could more concisely be stated. Perhaps he didn't kill all one million, but he still killed a lot of people that didn't deserve to die.

Your dogma is just that, dogma. Also you obviously do not get the humor of the picture.

It seems to me this is the basic attitude of Yahweh:

Also letting Satan run around before the judgment is like letting a crazed criminal out on bail... armed and exempt until the trial date.

 

[1robin]

Your wasting your breath with so much prose on a single point that could more concisely be stated. Perhaps he didn't kill all one million, but he still killed a lot of people that didn't deserve to die.

Your dogma is just that, dogma. Also you obviously do not get the humor of the picture.

It seems to me this is the basic attitude of Yahweh:

Also letting Satan run around before the judgment is like letting a crazed criminal out on bail... armed and exempt until the trial date.

I have had it with billboard philosophy based on nothing but bias. It is impossible for an finite fallable mind to meaningfully judge an infinate perfect one. You have an infinately small amount of information and you are using it to falsely judge a perfect being with every available scrap of info including the future. Do you even know what led up to any of the battles in the bible? The Cannanites for one walled live children up in the walls of buildings for luck. They also made them walk through fire for an evil false deity named Marduk. You make claims with no scholarly support (like the first one and last in this post) and you back them with easily proven false data from biased hate sites. Even when that is clearly shown you post more billboards making false claims. I am out at least for now. Also I do not regard false claims on graphs or billboards impuning the most beloved being in human history as humourus.
Peace.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The Bible never claims to be without error. In fact, it claims that only God is perfect.

It doesn't claim to be the Word of God either.

 

[gseeker]

The Bible never claims to be without error. In fact, it claims that only God is perfect.

It doesn't claim to be the Word of God either.

So on that not since the Bible is not accurate and can't be considered the word of God should I just discard it and seek God on my own?

 

[1robin]

So on that not since the Bible is not accurate and can't be considered the word of God should I just discard it and seek God on my own?

No, since there was no factual claim in that post, you should instead dig up the facts. They are the bible is the most accurate text in all of ancient literature. The bible is approx 95% accurate with the oldest texts. The errors are known and indicated in virtually all modern bibles. None of these minor errors concern doctrine. And yes the writers of the bible made it clear that God is the author. Since religion is the most important issue in human history it deserves thurough research.

 

[jasonwill2]

I have had it with billboard philosophy based on nothing but bias. It is impossible for an finite fallable mind to meaningfully judge an infinate perfect one. You have an infinately small amount of information and you are using it to falsely judge a perfect being with every available scrap of info including the future. Do you even know what led up to any of the battles in the bible? The Cannanites for one walled live children up in the walls of buildings for luck. They also made them walk through fire for an evil false deity named Marduk. You make claims with no scholarly support (like the first one and last in this post) and you back them with easily proven false data from biased hate sites. Even when that is clearly shown you post more billboards making false claims. I am out at least for now. Also I do not regard false claims on graphs or billboards impuning the most beloved being in human history as humourus.
Peace.

I'm not sure if this means I won or not... heck, I wasn't even trying to make an argument but make a point about good/evil. I didn't want to win this way o.0

 

[Scuba Pete]

So on that not since the Bible is not accurate and can't be considered the word of God should I just discard it and seek God on my own?

If you don't have the Spirit of God, then it will not be at all helpful. It will turn into another book or rules as it has for many.

It's really a matter of perspective here. Even the scriptures point out that the counselor will come and will guide us into all knowledge. Too many psuedo-Christians forgo that and substitute the scriptures instead.

I Corinthians 2:The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[c] 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for,

“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”[d]
But we have the mind of Christ. NIV

II Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. NIV

 

[Pegg]

Sorry, I was starting that thread thinking of the new testament of Jesus but you are correct it is 300,000 to 400,000 errors between the old testament and the new. Source book mis quoting Jesus.

whats the terms of reference for these errors?

 

[Curious George]

No, since there was no factual claim in that post, you should instead dig up the facts. They are the bible is the most accurate text in all of ancient literature. The bible is approx 95% accurate with the oldest texts. The errors are known and indicated in virtually all modern bibles. None of these minor errors concern doctrine. And yes the writers of the bible made it clear that God is the author. Since religion is the most important issue in human history it deserves thurough research.

what exactly do you mean by 95% accurate? Where did you get that figure? could you source it for me?

BTW I am not being contentious I am actually curious a quick internet search showed me various viewpoints. With all of those in disagreement it seems unlikely, though not impossible, that the bible is 95% historically accurate

 

[rusra02]

Due to 2000 years of scribe errors between 300,000 and 400,000 different errors between ancient manuscripts including entire sections of Scripture not even in the oldest manuscripts, "the adulteress woman and mark 16:9 onward", how much can you trust the Bible?

I think you are misrepresenting the Bible. Professor Julio Barrera, an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls said: "The transmission of the text of the Hebrew Bible is of extraordinary exactitude, without parallel in Greek and Latin classical literature." Bible Scholar F.F. Bruce stated: "The evidence for our NT writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning." Regarding variations in Bible manuscripts, Bruce states: "Variant readings..affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith." Indeed, we have every reason to be confident that the Bible has been accurately preserved and transmitted "not as the word of men, but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God." (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

​

​

 

[sojourner]

Wait, I just realized that Satan, according to Christian cannon, was able to kill billions by simply making some gullible woman eat a fruit, and that it will take Yahweh thousands of years to undo this.

Humor us and do just a skosh of scholarship, will ya? Just a bit? Huh?
Satan =/= serpent-in-the-garden. Never has, never will. The culpability (if you bothered to read the story) rests with Adam and Eve -- not the serpent.

 

[jasonwill2]

Humor us and do just a skosh of scholarship, will ya? Just a bit? Huh?
Satan =/= serpent-in-the-garden. Never has, never will. The culpability (if you bothered to read the story) rests with Adam and Eve -- not the serpent.

I agree, but that was according to Christian dogma which is supposed to make the irony.

 

[1robin]

what exactly do you mean by 95% accurate? Where did you get that figure? could you source it for me?

BTW I am not being contentious I am actually curious a quick internet search showed me various viewpoints. With all of those in disagreement it seems unlikely, though not impossible, that the bible is 95% historically accurate

I was not speaking historically. I meant that the text we have today is 95% accurate with what was originally written. With computers and bible research software you can even figure out the percentage and total errors yourself. This is greater than any other work of antiquity by many times over. The best source I could suggest would be The Dr James White vs Dr Bart Ehrman debate on you tube or google video. Both are great scholars and probably know as much about the biblical textual tradition as any one in the world. It is a detailed scholarly debate where the issue is well covered.
There are over 25,000 historical corroberations with the bible. The bible has been found correct and the scholars wrong many times. I am honestly unaware of any historical claim in the bible that can be verified that is factually incorrect. There are also 2,500 prohecies in the bible. Many are very detailed and specific. For instance there are 350 about Christ alone that contain vast numbers of details.
I understand there are a wide range of claims about the bible. It is well established that both sides over reach. IMO the critics over reach to a far greater extent. I have yet to find a claim that is very damaging to God or the bible made on those sites to be completly correct. If you will back up to post 61 in this thread and read from there forward you will see an example that is typical of the critics side. They make a big graph which they claim God killed 2 million people in the OT. I said that graph was wrong and so they gave the site where it came from. The very first two claims I researched were absolutely wrong. I quoted it step by step and it should be easy to follow. Like I said this sensationalism and deceit is the trademark of the critic.

That debate gives accurate numbers and is the most comprehensive I have seen and I have seen most. IMO 90% of bible critic sites on the net are purposefully or carelessly inaccurate. I would also admit that 50% of the info on Christian sites is over reach and some is just wrong. This subject deserves real scholarship not internet Hyperbole. These sites contain true scholarship from both sides.
The Reliability of the New Testament Text (Dr. James White) - YouTube
[youtube]jTNxLE65JWY[/youtube]
Bart Ehrman vs. James White 2_18 - YouTube
[youtube]FhT4IENSwac[/youtube]
Did Jesus Rise From The Dead -Bart Ehrman Vs William Lane Craig - YouTube
Bart Ehrman vs. James White Debate MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315
[youtube]LuiayuxWwuI[/youtube]

 

[waitasec]

all this without elaborating on the 95%
you are also conveniently leaving out
the gospel of thomas, mary, judas and many more.

 

[sojourner]

I agree, but that was according to Christian dogma which is supposed to make the irony.

No it isn't. This is twisted propaganda -- nothing more.