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

[Dmartin2651]

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.

Copying another’s words can easily be taken as cheating using their words in/for the answer to try to get the right answer. Anyway, you used I copied that to point out how I didn’t support that. That was in vain. Scripture alone shows it supports my words that Paul wrote 2Timothy.

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.

I repeat my statement above Scripture alone shows that it did not make a flaw/error. It can’t do that. If you say it did that’s perverting it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Scripture alone shows it supports my words that Paul wrote 2Timothy.

I believe the consensus of Biblical scholarship is that Paul did not write 2 Timothy.

 

[F1fan]

I speak the truth in Christ, I don’t lie, all my words are credible. I’m of God-I’m of the truth.

From a rational mind that doesn't assume religious claims are true, your statements here are just religious dogma that you happened to adopt for some reason. No believer, like yourself, comes to a rational conclusion that these ideas are true. The idea "truth in Christ" is incoherent, and has no objective meaning. At best it is a phrase that believers recite to convince themselves their belief is true.

OK, so you believe all this. Is there any chance you are mistaken? Or are you perfect in your judgments as if you are God yourself?

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.

What facts do you have that this claim is true in reality, and not just religious jargon that you adopted without critical thought? Can you demonstrate any God exists As a fact? And then that it has the proteries you are claiming in open debate?

No one else can do His things/works-be omnipotent. Another god as/like Him is not possible.

OK, Hindus disagree with you. What facts do your beliefs have that invalidate Hindu ideas about their gods? Use facts, not your dogma, nor belief. Just facts, and a coherent explanation of the facts that your God exists in reality, and that it's impossible that any other gods exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Copying another’s words can easily be taken as cheating using their words in/for the answer to try to get the right answer. Anyway, you used I copied that to point out how I didn’t support that. That was in vain. Scripture alone shows it supports my words that Paul wrote 2Timothy.

I repeat my statement above Scripture alone shows that it did not make a flaw/error. It can’t do that. If you say it did that’s perverting it.

No, I didn't. I said that the author of 2 Tim copied the well known opening of many of Paul's letters. That opening is very very poor evidence that Paul wrote it.

And you can't judge scripture by using scripture. That is circular reasoning. When we test the Bible against history it fails, when tested against science it fails, when tested morally it fails, when tested by prophecies it fails. Even when tested against itself it fails.

 

[Dmartin2651]

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

Read John 5:19-20. Jesus doesn’t say, nor is it written, there is another like Him seeing and doing His Father’s works. There are no gods that can be like Him. It doesn’t matter how many there are or ever been they are all in falsehood and lies. Read Isaiah 45:5-6 it is still exactly as the LORD says there is none besides Him-there is NONE (emphasis). They are untrue, thus, none truly exist.

 

[Dmartin2651]

I believe the consensus of Biblical scholarship is that Paul did not write 2 Timothy.

I’ve heard that. Is their consensus then Paul wrote 1Timothy the book before 2Timothy and he wrote Titus the book after it, his name is on them too. Or did he not write all three? Which is it they made Paul not write he has a son in order to have a copier write it because he never married? That way he didn’t do wrong and he still looks good in their understanding. It’s all ridiculous. God’s own thoughts and ways are above all theirs and all the other ones ever been.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read John 5:19-20. Jesus doesn’t say, nor is it written, there is another like Him seeing and doing His Father’s works. There are no gods that can be like Him. It doesn’t matter how many there are or ever been they are all in falsehood and lies. Read Isaiah 45:5-6 it is still exactly as the LORD says there is none besides Him-there is NONE (emphasis). They are untrue, thus, none truly exist.

That does not really help you. Of all of the gospels the least accurate one is probably John. You seem to not be aware of the fact that all of the gospels are anonymous. We do not know who they were written by and scholars are fairly sure that none of them were written by the people that they were named after.

Do you have a why you believe? Why do you think that the Bible is inaccurate? Even worse, why do you think that it is inerrant when it is so easy to show that it is wrong if one believes that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’ve heard that. Is their consensus then Paul wrote 1Timothy the book before 2Timothy and he wrote Titus the book after it, his name is on them too. Or did he not write all three? Which is it they made Paul not write he has a son in order to have a copier write it because he never married? That way he didn’t do wrong and he still looks good in their understanding. It’s all ridiculous. God’s own thoughts and ways are above all theirs and all the other ones ever been.

Once again, he never wrote that he had a son. He called Timothy "son". If a Catholic priest calls a young man in his church "son" is he admitting to being the father? It was a term of endearment. It was not an attack. He was also not calling him his son. Nor is that a lie when one uses a word in that fashion.

And most modern scholars believe that all of those three that you mentioned were written after Paul's death:

First Epistle to Timothy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've heard that.

And presumably dismissed it as being, shall we say, inconvenient.

An overview of the Pastoral epistles can be found here.

 

[1213]

I already mentioned the myths of Genesis.

Genesis is not refuted by real history. It is disagreed with modern beliefs of history.

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

How?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Genesis is not refuted by real history. It is disagreed with modern beliefs of history.

How?

Genesis is refuted by the sciences. The Nativity myths are refuted by history.

If you want answers you need to quit being so rude. No "real history" claims when you do not even know what history is. If you agree I will explain how. Since it is a historical problem you can only refute it with historical sources. No quoting from Liars for Jesus, also known as apologists. I will take that as as an admission that you are wrong.

 

[Dmartin2651]

Once again, he never wrote that he had a son. He called Timothy "son". If a Catholic priest calls a young man in his church "son" is he admitting to being the father? It was a term of endearment. It was not an attack. He was also not calling him his son. Nor is that a lie when one uses a word in that fashion.

And most modern scholars believe that all of those three that you mentioned were written after Paul's death:

First Epistle to Timothy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sorry I’m behind on replies, I’ve been researching and studying the link you provided with Scripture. Thanks, it helped me to find two errors most modern scholars have in this. First one, you’ve all been connecting Paul never had a son because he never married. Instead you say he called Timothy son in endearment. Neither is correct. Paul having a son/calling him his son is not at all connected with a woman or himself… 2Timothy 1:2a, “To Timothy a beloved son,” 1Timothy 1:2, “To Timothy, a true son in the faith:” 2:1-2 “You therefore, my son (my son-a beloved son- same son), be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to the faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” It is just as Paul wrote/says how Timothy is a beloved son/his son-Timothy is a true son in the faith (itself) which is not at all a/about woman or him.

The second error all you modern scholars have is that 1 Timothy, 2Timothy, and Titus were not written Paul and that all three were written after his death. Again, I researched further in the link you provided:

Authorship:
“The authorization of First Timothy was traditionally attributed to the Apostle Paul, although in pre-Nicene Christianity this attribution was open to dispute. He is named as the author in the letter in the text (1:1). Nineteenth-and twentieth-century scholarship questioned the authenticity of the letter, with many scholars suggesting that First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not the work of Paul, but to an unidentified Christian writing some time in the late-first to mid-second centuries. Most scholars now affirm this view.
As evidence for this perspective, they put forward that the pastoral epistles contain 306 words that Paul does not use in his unquestioned letters, that their style of writing is different from that of his unquestioned letters, that they reflect conditions and a church organization not current in Paul’s day, and that they do not appear in early lists of his canonical works. Modern Scholars who support Pauline authorship nevertheless stress their importance regarding the question of authenticity: I.H. Marshall and P.H. Towner wrote that the key witness is Polycarp, where there is a high probability that 1 and 2 Timothy were known to him. Similarly M.W. Holmes argued that it is virtually certain or highly probable that Polycarp used 1and 2 Timothy. Scholars Robert Grant, I. Howard Marshall, and Hans von Campenhausen believe that Polycarp was the actual author of First Timothy, which would date its composition to c.140.”

Next quote:
“Irenaeus; Greek (c.130-c.202AD) was a Greek bishop noted for his role in guiding and expanding Christian communities in the southern regions of present day France and, more widely, for the development of Christian theology by combating heterodox or Gnostic interpretations of Scripture as heresy and defining proto-orthodoxy. Originating from Smyrna, he had seen and heard the preaching of Polycarp, who in turn was said to have heard John the Evangelist, and thus was the last known connection with the Apostles.”

Last quote:
“Irenaeus cited the New Testament approximately 1,000 times. About one third of his citations are made to Paul’s letters. Irenaeus considered all 13 letters to the Pauline corpus to have been written by Paul himself.”

So, Irenaeus clearly learned Scripture from Polycarp. He knew all 13 letters Acts through Titus were written by Paul himself. This proves all you modern scholars have erred about Paul not writing 1Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus. If you don’t agree with Paul did write these 3 letters too then what would you do keep the last known connection with the Apostles lost from you? Don’t you see this proves they were not written by an unidentified Christian?

I will try to get caught up on other posts. Thanks for understanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry I’m behind on replies, I’ve been researching and studying the link you provided with Scripture. Thanks, it helped me to find two errors most modern scholars have in this. First one, you’ve all been connecting Paul never had a son because he never married. Instead you say he called Timothy son in endearment. Neither is correct. Paul having a son/calling him his son is not at all connected with a woman or himself… 2Timothy 1:2a, “To Timothy a beloved son,” 1Timothy 1:2, “To Timothy, a true son in the faith:” 2:1-2 “You therefore, my son (my son-a beloved son- same son), be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to the faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” It is just as Paul wrote/says how Timothy is a beloved son/his son-Timothy is a true son in the faith (itself) which is not at all a/about woman or him.

The second error all you modern scholars have is that 1 Timothy, 2Timothy, and Titus were not written Paul and that all three were written after his death. Again, I researched further in the link you provided:

Authorship:
“The authorization of First Timothy was traditionally attributed to the Apostle Paul, although in pre-Nicene Christianity this attribution was open to dispute. He is named as the author in the letter in the text (1:1). Nineteenth-and twentieth-century scholarship questioned the authenticity of the letter, with many scholars suggesting that First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not the work of Paul, but to an unidentified Christian writing some time in the late-first to mid-second centuries. Most scholars now affirm this view.
As evidence for this perspective, they put forward that the pastoral epistles contain 306 words that Paul does not use in his unquestioned letters, that their style of writing is different from that of his unquestioned letters, that they reflect conditions and a church organization not current in Paul’s day, and that they do not appear in early lists of his canonical works. Modern Scholars who support Pauline authorship nevertheless stress their importance regarding the question of authenticity: I.H. Marshall and P.H. Towner wrote that the key witness is Polycarp, where there is a high probability that 1 and 2 Timothy were known to him. Similarly M.W. Holmes argued that it is virtually certain or highly probable that Polycarp used 1and 2 Timothy. Scholars Robert Grant, I. Howard Marshall, and Hans von Campenhausen believe that Polycarp was the actual author of First Timothy, which would date its composition to c.140.”

Next quote:
“Irenaeus; Greek (c.130-c.202AD) was a Greek bishop noted for his role in guiding and expanding Christian communities in the southern regions of present day France and, more widely, for the development of Christian theology by combating heterodox or Gnostic interpretations of Scripture as heresy and defining proto-orthodoxy. Originating from Smyrna, he had seen and heard the preaching of Polycarp, who in turn was said to have heard John the Evangelist, and thus was the last known connection with the Apostles.”

Last quote:
“Irenaeus cited the New Testament approximately 1,000 times. About one third of his citations are made to Paul’s letters. Irenaeus considered all 13 letters to the Pauline corpus to have been written by Paul himself.”

So, Irenaeus clearly learned Scripture from Polycarp. He knew all 13 letters Acts through Titus were written by Paul himself. This proves all you modern scholars have erred about Paul not writing 1Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus. If you don’t agree with Paul did write these 3 letters too then what would you do keep the last known connection with the Apostles lost from you? Don’t you see this proves they were not written by an unidentified Christian?

I will try to get caught up on other posts. Thanks for understanding.

It appears that you did not find any errors. Do you really think that you know more than people that have really studied this? You haven't. You did a few Google searches. And highly biased ones. That does not help you.


Also, when you quote someone you need to link the source as well. Otherwise your quotes are worthless. You may have even made the gross error of going to Liars For Jesus for answers. That is what you probably did. Please tell me that you did not do that and give the links that show it.

 

[Dmartin2651]

It appears that you did not find any errors. Do you really think that you know more than people that have really studied this? You haven't. You did a few Google searches. And highly biased ones. That does not help you.


Also, when you quote someone you need to link the source as well. Otherwise your quotes are worthless. You may have even made the gross error of going to Liars For Jesus for answers. That is what you probably did. Please tell me that you did not do that and give the links that show it.

Yes, I did. I didn’t use Google Search at all. I told you I researched and studied (only in) that link you provided “First Epistle to Timothy - Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org.” And I also used Scripture. That link is the only place I used to quote from (and Scripture also). I clicked on it (I read and studied what I clicked on) and read “Authorship” then I clicked on “Polycarp” ( lit in blue) there and used that quote from there, last I clicked on “Irenaeus” (lit in blue) and I used that quote from there. Follow in the link what I quoted the words all match. You really studied this a lot, huh? You seem clueless to having studied this. Can you do that, then (only) address what I’ve shown from Scripture and these quotes the two errors I found most scholars have made? If you won’t do that without figuring out what you think I did wrong then don’t reply. I know what I’m doing and I know to search toward God for my answers. I tell you I do not go to men for answers and that includes liars for Jesus. I let God be true. I let every man be a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I did. I didn’t use Google Search at all. I told you I researched and studied (only in) that link you provided “First Epistle to Timothy - Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org.” And I also used Scripture. That link is the only place I used to quote from (and Scripture also). I clicked on it (I read and studied what I clicked on) and read “Authorship” then I clicked on “Polycarp” ( lit in blue) there and used that quote from there, last I clicked on “Irenaeus” (lit in blue) and I used that quote from there. Follow in the link what I quoted the words all match. You really studied this a lot, huh? You seem clueless to having studied this. Can you do that, then (only) address what I’ve shown from Scripture and these quotes the two errors I found most scholars have made? If you won’t do that without figuring out what you think I did wrong then don’t reply. I know what I’m doing and I know to search toward God for my answers. I tell you I do not go to men for answers and that includes liars for Jesus. I let God be true. I let every man be a liar.

Then you did nothing. You did not refute anything. You simply misunderstood sources that you tried to use.

 

[1213]

Genesis is refuted by the sciences. The Nativity myths are refuted by history.

"Science" and "history" can be wrong.

Since it is a historical problem you can only refute it with historical sources. No quoting from Liars for Jesus, also known as apologists. I will take that as as an admission that you are wrong.

I think it is quite biased way to think that your sources are real history and others are not.

 

[Doc Helpful]

Please show one error in the Bible?

Since the Bible is God's Word in human words, for God AND man wrote the Bible, human "error" reflects the humanity of the Word of God. For example, Mt 2:23 "There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazorean.” This prophesy is found nowhere in the Old Testament.
Another example is Mt 1:17 "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations." If you count the generations from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, there are only thirteen generations instead of fourteen. Again, this demonstrates the humanity of the Word of God.

 

[Audie]

"Science" and "history" can be wrong.

I think it is quite biased way to think that your sources are real history and others are not.

Stating that somethjng " can "
be wrong may seem dreadfully
clever and definitive but it is not.

Unless you can provide drfinitive
evidence that something is incorrect
your objections are just blather.

Like so much of your precious " bible"
that is so readily and irrefutably proven
to be as phony as goldilocks and the three bears.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Science" and "history" can be wrong.

I think it is quite biased way to think that your sources are real history and others are not.

They are not "my sources". That is a false accusation. The science sources that I use are the world's science sources. They follow the scientific method. Yours do not. And I can show that.

For history I do the same. I follow sources where the author's work is checked and verified by others. Apologist sites only care if one supports the Bible. They do not care about the truth.

 

[Audie]

Since the Bible is God's Word in human words, for God AND man wrote the Bible, human "error" reflects the humanity of the Word of God. For example, Mt 2:23 "There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazorean.” This prophesy is found nowhere in the Old Testament.
Another example is Mt 1:17 "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations." If you count the generations from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, there are only thirteen generations instead of fourteen. Again, this demonstrates the humanity of the Word of God.

Since you BELIEVE it is " Gods word "
you mat feel justified in stating this as fact.

However, stating opinion as fact is inherently
dishonest as youd soon learn in coutt where
perjury is viewed quite hsrshly.

Just why anyone would presume that god who is said the value character in people would want his sycophannts to lie on his behalf is something I'd like you to explain.

You must have it worked out, else something so
fraught would be approached with great trepidation.
Or avoided utterly even unto death.