Is it possible that Christianity is true, yet the Bible contains errors?

[1213]

No,no, no. That is not true and you know it. It is based upon scientific evidence and you know it.

That something is based on evidence, doesn't necessary make it truth.

And didn't you lose the debate about the date of Jesus birth and run away?

I don't think so. Why do you think so?

Science shows that the Bible is full of errors.

That is not true.

You can't claim that the Bible is scientific and then run away from the sciences. That is just you admitting that you were wrong. History shows that the Bible is full of errors. You can't claim that the Bible is historically accurate and then run away from the history. That is just you running away again. Morality shows that the Bible is full of errors. Hmm, have you run away from a moral argument yet?

All you have shown is that you disagree with it. But, no good reason to think your opinions are correct.

 

[1213]

If that was the case, then why both both authors leave out these pertinent details?

I think there are several reasons why it may be so:
1) Didn't hear/know that.
2) The part has been lost from the writings.
3) Thought it was not necessary to mention it....

The point is that there's no reason to invent explanations for contradictions when the prophetic texts tell a different story to the accepted Christian narrative.

If people claim there is contradictions, I think it is necessary to show that it is only their interpretation that can be wrong.

The simplest explanation is the Islamic account is correct - Yeshua (Jesus) was not crucified but it appeared that he was.

I thought we were speaking of Judas. Islam was founded long time after the event, why believe it?

 

[Dmartin2651]

You automatically lose all credibility when you say that you "know" that there is only one true and living God. That is just a mere belief. It is an attempt at dodging the burden of proof as well. Also it is rather clear that you did not make a serious study of the Bible. I am betting that you based your study only on your reading of the Bible. Did you read any studies of the history of the Bible? Do you know when the various books were probably written (probably not).

And the Timmy mockery came about because of your attitude. You needed to be knocked down a peg or two. I did not see you acknowledging your errors that were brought up, even the one that you really should have known was an error. Once again, Paul himself wrote that he never married. That makes any supposed children of his highly unlikely. He used figures of speech. There is nothing wrong with that. But it is terribly wrong to interpret them literally. You refute your own Bible when you are too literal in your interpretations.

I speak the truth in Christ, I don’t lie, all my words are credible. I’m of God-I’m of the truth. I have a few times or so understood something wrong as I was only understanding the person’s understanding in it. I have an unction in the Holy Ghost to know all things He corrected my understanding every time and was returned to the understanding of it in the truth. It can happen on this forum as well so if I need to be knocked down a peg or two He only does it. It’s always right and good to be understanding the truth in its context in the Holy Scriptures. As I said I know the one true living God even the Christ His Son Jesus. I have been in Their presence weather in me in the world or in His Kingdom. So when I say know it’s always I continue knowing or I will/can know something I haven’t yet.

As to what you said about Timothy it did not come about because of my attitude. It came about because you doubt he’s Paul’s son. That’s what was in the context of your words, my attitude wasn’t, yours was. What matters is Paul calls Timothy his son. He knew his mother and grandmother and their sincere faith and his was as well. He wrote to him as his son and Scripture has it too so it is in agreement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I speak the truth in Christ, I don’t lie, all my words are credible. I’m of God-I’m of the truth. I have a few times or so understood something wrong as I was only understanding the person’s understanding in it. I have an unction in the Holy Ghost to know all things He corrected my understanding every time and was returned to the understanding of it in the truth. It can happen on this forum as well so if I need to be knocked down a peg or two He only does it. It’s always right and good to be understanding the truth in its context in the Holy Scriptures. As I said I know the one true living God even the Christ His Son Jesus. I have been in Their presence weather in me in the world or in His Kingdom. So when I say know it’s always I continue knowing or I will/can know something I haven’t yet.

As to what you said about Timothy it did not come about because of my attitude. It came about because you doubt he’s Paul’s son. That’s what was in the context of your words, my attitude wasn’t, yours was. What matters is Paul calls Timothy his son. He knew his mother and grandmother and their sincere faith and his was as well. He wrote to him as his son and Scripture has it too so it is in agreement.

I didn't say or imply that you lie. You just do not know what you are talking about. By the way, it sounds as if you are just using confirmation bias and not proper testing of your knowledge. Most Christians do not know how to properly test their beliefs.

And no, the context is not that he is Paul's son. Paul was never married. Do you not understand that? He himself admitted that. Back then it was quit common for Christians to call each other "brother" when they were of the same age, or in Paul's case where he was significantly older he referred to Timothy in a loving way as "son". If I called you "son" as in "Listen hear son" that would not mean that you were my son. That would be me misusing my (very probable) older age to insult you. It also seems that you now realize that error but cannot admit that. You clearly stated that he was "Paul's son" in the genetic sense.

It was not uncommon in those days for someone to write for someone that he was affiliated with and use that person's name. The thought being that even if it was not by the author that it would reflect his beliefs. But for biblical scholars the works of some people clearly stand out. One can recognize the author of works by their writing styles and 2 Timothy does not match the writing style of Paul. For a while I was really into classical music and could recognize who was the likely composer of a piece, even if I had not heard it before. If someone put Mozart's name on a piece of Beethoven's you would not fool any fan of classical music.

 

[Audie]

I speak the truth in Christ, I don’t lie, all my words are credible. I’m of God-I’m of the truth. I have a few times or so understood something wrong as I was only understanding the person’s understanding in it. I have an unction in the Holy Ghost to know all things He corrected my understanding every time and was returned to the understanding of it in the truth. It can happen on this forum as well so if I need to be knocked down a peg or two He only does it. It’s always right and good to be understanding the truth in its context in the Holy Scriptures. As I said I know the one true living God even the Christ His Son Jesus. I have been in Their presence weather in me in the world or in His Kingdom. So when I say know it’s always I continue knowing or I will/can know something I haven’t yet.

As to what you said about Timothy it did not come about because of my attitude. It came about because you doubt he’s Paul’s son. That’s what was in the context of your words, my attitude wasn’t, yours was. What matters is Paul calls Timothy his son. He knew his mother and grandmother and their sincere faith and his was as well. He wrote to him as his son and Scripture has it too so it is in agreement.

So...you are self proclaimed to be infallible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That something is based on evidence, doesn't necessary make it truth.

Correct, but ideas that are refuted by evidence have been shown to be wrong.

I don't think so. Why do you think so?

Because it was a history based debate and you could not find any historical sources that supported you. You cannot claim that the Bible is supported by history when you ignore the parts that are refuted by history.

That is not true.

Don't be silly. Of course it is. You show that you know that quite often too.

All you have shown is that you disagree with it. But, no good reason to think your opinions are correct.

No, I can and have supported my claims with real history, with real science, and with far better morals than the Bible has. You have to pretend that those arguments do not exist since you have no answer for them, except to deny and then run and hide.

 

[Dmartin2651]

Sorry for assuming, "sis." I usually don't, but I think the "martin" threw me off.

That’s ok. No problem. Yeah, that’s probably what happened.

I see you've already gotten into some feisty debates!

Yep, that’s me! And it’s usually me trying to straighten out people trying to mix in their ideas with what I’m saying! Lol. I couldn’t begin to count how many I’ve had.

It's interesting that you (seemingly) don't agree with inerrancy. I think we may agree that it is a "human doctrine," but feel free to elaborate if that is a mischaracterization of your view.

Even more interesting is the idea that God has his own set of (true) doctrines, and that humankind has another set of (presumably flawed) doctrines. That's a fascinating idea, and something I think I'd be more prone to hear from a Hindu rather than a Christian. Would you mind sharing more about that?

God is inerrant-He is incapable of being/doing wrong even His words are incapable of being/saying wrong. Men in their doctrines in times before and in this time put their own/others understanding in with the context of the scriptures to mean it’s correct/inerrancy to them, but some/ others may not agree with that and have their own/others understanding also and so on. I’m not likeminded with any of them anymore. See how… Galatians 1:6-7, “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.” Verses 11-12, “But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

It’s not just that men have flawed doctrines (some have more flaws than others whether in Christianity or other religions). They also have tried to change His being as if to be a part of of this world too. Such as including Him on money, Ten Commandments or if anything else of His in buildings or anywhere else even on Christmas cards and so on. God is not of this world neither are the things of God, He and His things are of His Kingdom and Him. See, God has His own place of living and His things are with Him, and humankind has another place for Him and His things-this world. Yes, I’m not a Hindu. I’m a Christian who hasn’t had anyone likeminded with me that includes also being an inward Jew.

 

[Dmartin2651]

So...you are self proclaimed to be infallible.

No. I’m able to make mistakes and I’m able to be corrected by God. If I was infallible I would never make a mistake. Only God is infallible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s ok. No problem. Yeah, that’s probably what happened.

Yep, that’s me! And it’s usually me trying to straighten out people trying to mix in their ideas with what I’m saying! Lol. I couldn’t begin to count how many I’ve had.

God is inerrant-He is incapable of being/doing wrong even His words are incapable of being/saying wrong. Men in their doctrines in times before and in this time put their own/others understanding in with the context of the scriptures to mean it’s correct/inerrancy to them, but some/ others may not agree with that and have their own/others understanding also and so on. I’m not likeminded with any of them anymore. See how… Galatians 1:6-7, “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.” Verses 11-12, “But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

It’s not just that men have flawed doctrines (some have more flaws than others whether in Christianity or other religions). They also have tried to change His being as if to be a part of of this world too. Such as including Him on money, Ten Commandments or if anything else of His in buildings or anywhere else even on Christmas cards and so on. God is not of this world neither are the things of God, He and His things are of His Kingdom and Him. See, God has His own place of living and His things are with Him, and humankind has another place for Him and His things-this world. Yes, I’m not a Hindu. I’m a Christian who hasn’t had anyone likeminded with me that includes also being an inward Jew.

God may be inerrant, but the Bible clearly is not.

 

[Dmartin2651]

I didn't say or imply that you lie. You just do not know what you are talking about. By the way, it sounds as if you are just using confirmation bias and not proper testing of your knowledge. Most Christians do not know how to properly test their beliefs.

Lol. So, it’s not either telling the truth or lying to you it’s either telling right or wrong. That you (always) know what you are talking about is right. You use proper testing of your knowledge. That is if you’re a Christian and you know how to properly test your belief. If you’re not a Christian then you know whether any Christian has done that or not. Because you (always) know what you are talking about is right. Why don’t you try addressing what I said just with Scripture without your thoughts? See if Scripture proves what I said is right. Let it be right.

And no, the context is not that he is Paul's son. Paul was never married. Do you not understand that? He himself admitted that. Back then it was quit common for Christians to call each other "brother" when they were of the same age, or in Paul's case where he was significantly older he referred to Timothy in a loving way as "son". If I called you "son" as in "Listen hear son" that would not mean that you were my son. That would be me misusing my (very probable) older age to insult you. It also seems that you now realize that error but cannot admit that. You clearly stated that he was "Paul's son" in the genetic sense.

You use Paul never married to speculate (loving way as son-Listen hear son) he could not had an actual son he called his son. People adopt or raise a child as their own (a parent/s died, they couldn’t raise them, didn’t want them or whatever reason). That happened quite often in the south many years ago they were too poor. I can also speculate. As I said what matters is he calls him his son, my son is written, the context follows in that meaning. If it wasn’t right, he wouldn’t have called him son it wouldn’t have been written either.

It was not uncommon in those days for someone to write for someone that he was affiliated with and use that person's name. The thought being that even if it was not by the author that it would reflect his beliefs. But for biblical scholars the works of some people clearly stand out. One can recognize the author of works by their writing styles and 2 Timothy does not match the writing style of Paul. For a while I was really into classical music and could recognize who was the likely composer of a piece, even if I had not heard it before. If someone put Mozart's name on a piece of Beethoven's you would not fool any fan of classical music.

Ephesians 1:1a, “PAUL, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God,” 2Timothy 1:1a, “PAUL, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God,”. Thus, Scripture and Paul prove he’s the true author of 2Timothy. I repeat my question above, Why don’t you try addressing what I said with Scripture without your thoughts? You should easily see Scripture proves what I said is right. It’s clearly over me. Let it be right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol. So, it’s not either telling the truth or lying to you it’s either telling right or wrong. That you (always) know what you are talking about is right. You use proper testing of your knowledge. That is if you’re a Christian and you know how to properly test your belief. If you’re not a Christian then you know whether any Christian has done that or not. Because you (always) know what you are talking about is right. Why don’t you try addressing what I said just with Scripture without your thoughts? See if Scripture proves what I said is right. Let it be right.

I addressed what you said about "scripture". Once again you made several mistakes. "Scripture" is never defined in the Bible and you are assuming that it means the Bible. Second, your verses only said that all scripture is inspired by God. That does not say that it is without flaw. It does not even imply it. Look at how your version of God screwed the pooch at least twice in Genesis.

And like I said, you do not seem to know how to test your beliefs properly. You do not get to assume that the Bible is inerrant until you demonstrate that it is. So you need another test then merely reading the Bible and interpreting it in the manner that you wish.

You use Paul never married to speculate (loving way as son-Listen hear son) he could not had an actual son he called his son. People adopt or raise a child as their own (a parent/s died, they couldn’t raise them, didn’t want them or whatever reason). That happened quite often in the south many years ago they were too poor. I can also speculate. As I said what matters is he calls him his son, my son is written, the context follows in that meaning. If it wasn’t right, he wouldn’t have called him son it wouldn’t have been written either.

No, please do not make false accusations. If you use the term "speculate" you put the burden of proof upon you. That Timothy was not his son is a rational conclusion based upon Paul's own writings. And now you are grasping at straws with the rather silly "well maybe he adopted him". The far more rational conclusion is that just as they would call each other "brother" a much younger Christian would be called "son". Why are you so set on refuting your Bible by being overly literalistic?

Ephesians 1:1a, “PAUL, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God,” 2Timothy 1:1a, “PAUL, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God,”. Thus, Scripture and Paul prove he’s the true author of 2Timothy. I repeat my question above, Why don’t you try addressing what I said with Scripture without your thoughts? You should easily see Scripture proves what I said is right. It’s clearly over me. Let it be right.

So what? Yes, do you know how easy it is to copy that? Do you need links form scholars on why 2 Timothy was probably not written by Paul?

I need to remind you that you are nowhere near being a scholar of the Bible. Neither am I by the way, which is why I rely on the experts.

 

[1213]

Correct, but ideas that are refuted by evidence have been shown to be wrong.

Please give one example.

Because it was a history based debate and you could not find any historical sources that supported you. You cannot claim that the Bible is supported by history when you ignore the parts that are refuted by history.

What part is refuted by history?

 

[Audie]

No. I’m able to make mistakes and I’m able to be corrected by God. If I was infallible I would never make a mistake. Only God is infallible.

Cute, predictable, but still dissembling.

You make statements that ( iyo)
cannot possibly be incorrect. Despite zero
evidence that you are not just making things up.


THAT is your pose of infallibility.

Why deny it now? You are very upfront about it.
( god corrects me...)

 

[Audie]

That’s ok. No problem. Yeah, that’s probably what happened.

Yep, that’s me! And it’s usually me trying to straighten out people trying to mix in their ideas with what I’m saying! Lol. I couldn’t begin to count how many I’ve had.

God is inerrant-He is incapable of being/doing wrong even His words are incapable of being/saying wrong. Men in their doctrines in times before and in this time put their own/others understanding in with the context of the scriptures to mean it’s correct/inerrancy to them, but some/ others may not agree with that and have their own/others understanding also and so on. I’m not likeminded with any of them anymore. See how… Galatians 1:6-7, “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.” Verses 11-12, “But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

It’s not just that men have flawed doctrines (some have more flaws than others whether in Christianity or other religions). They also have tried to change His being as if to be a part of of this world too. Such as including Him on money, Ten Commandments or if anything else of His in buildings or anywhere else even on Christmas cards and so on. God is not of this world neither are the things of God, He and His things are of His Kingdom and Him. See, God has His own place of living and His things are with Him, and humankind has another place for Him and His things-this world. Yes, I’m not a Hindu. I’m a Christian who hasn’t had anyone likeminded with me that includes also being an inward Jew.

Youve quite the list of things an " omnipotent"
" god" cannot do. Things i can do.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I'm sure this has been asked before. But not since I joined. I'm mainly concerned with Biblical authority and/or inerrancy. What's the verdict so far as you can tell?

Is Christianity true because the Bible says so?

Or does the Bible say so because it describes the truth of Christianity?

I suppose it would depend on what one means by Christianity being true.

Aspects of things can be “true”. Entire concepts about anything are seldom wholly “true”.

Then, there’s the question of whether something is a question about “truth” at all, of course.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please give one example.

What part is refuted by history?

I already mentioned the myths of Genesis. If you do not understand why the flood never happened you need to relearn your science lessons from 5th grade on.

As to what is refuted by history, that shows that the two Nativity myths contradict each other.

 

[Dmartin2651]

So what? Yes, do you know how easy it is to copy that?

I don’t cheat. I didn’t copy that. I studied that it was revealed and given to me by the Comforter in me therefore it is light. I rely on God and His words alone. Anything else you want to try to accuse me of doing coming to that conclusion? Do you want to pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ? Do you want to use your works or experts (too)? It doesn’t matter which one you rely on. Would you not start over like a little child knowing nothing? Would you not sit down and count the cost? Would you not learn Scripture new apart from your/mens understanding?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t cheat. I didn’t copy that. I studied that it was revealed and given to me by the Comforter in me therefore it is light. I rely on God and His words alone. Anything else you want to try to accuse me of doing coming to that conclusion? Do you want to pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ? Do you want to use your works or experts (too)? It doesn’t matter which one you rely on. Would you not start over like a little child knowing nothing? Would you not sit down and count the cost? Would you not learn Scripture new apart from your/mens understanding?

Wow! You appear to have a very difficult time understanding others. I did not accuse you of cheating. I was pointing out how you didn't support your belief that Paul wrote 2 Tim.

And what do you mean by "pervert the gospel"? Pointing out its flaws and errors is not perverting it. Arguably denying those flaws does do that.

 

[Dmartin2651]

Youve quite the list of things an " omnipotent"
" god" cannot do. Things i can do.

Wrong. I did not whatsoever imply that. The only one who has and can do God’s things is His Son Jesus Christ-They are both omnipotent. No one else can do His things/works-be omnipotent. Another god as/like Him is not possible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong. I did not whatsoever imply that. The only one who has and can do God’s things is His Son Jesus Christ-They are both omnipotent. No one else can do His things/works-be omnipotent. Another god as/like Him is not possible.

No one doubts that you believe that. The question is why?