The Bible - Why Trust It

[nPeace]

For a little balance--

Historical errors and inaccuracies in the Bible

• What Are the Bible's Biggest Scientific and Historical Errors?
• Historical Errors in the Gospels.
• More Historical Inaccuracies In The Bible

--

Thank you for this contribution.
I can't consider every point, as it is long, and some of them have already been dealt with, or are petty, imo, but feel free to isolate any you feel are too important to leave out.
My comments will follow each claim.

From What Are the Bible's Biggest Scientific and Historical Errors?
Claim :
#1 - Many base their entire religious ideology around the presumption that the Bible is free from errors or mistakes

It's not a presumption, but a careful examination of the facts, give evidence that the Bible is reliable and authentic, despite minor errors, and alleged contradictions.

#2 - We can find errors and mistakes everywhere we look in the Bible because it's a collection of texts written centuries and millennia ago. Not all of the writers agreed and they were all ignorant of things humans have learned since then.

Circular reasoning - We can find errors and mistakes everywhere we look in the Bible because it's a collection of texts written centuries and millennia ago. The Bible is a collection of texts written centuries and millennia ago. Therefore we can find errors and mistakes everywhere we look in the Bible.
Unreasonable.

#3 - tatements that conflict with facts about reality we have learned through scientific investigation — can be found throughout the Bible because the biblical texts were written at times when human knowledge about our world was quite limited.

I don't find any conflicts with true scientific discovery. Can you name one, and explain how it conflicts?

#4 - One might expect an ancient text to have an accurate record of ancient events, but historians, as we know, have not always been completely honest with their representation of events.
In the past, records were written with an ideological agenda behind them, not for the sake of pure actual accuracy. Historical mistakes and errors are only to be expected.

It is true that some historians are not honest, but that's no reason to brand all historians as dishonest. People today are dishonest.
Should we label all scientists dishonest, because of the ones who were dishonest?
Not reasonable.

From Historical Errors in the Gospels.
#5 - New Testament is filled with events that never actually happened, they are episodes of mythology that get played over and over in the lives of sun-gods like Mithras, Horus, and Bacchus, etc.

I suppose the one making that bold claim, intends to back it up.

#6 - The darkness at the crucifixion, the rising saints of Matthew, the earthquake, resurrection, and the “crucifixion” itself are mythological events, they were NOT recorded by historians who lived during that period of time. Philo Judaes lived around 50 CE and never mentions the Gospel events; the Roman records of Pilate DO NOT mention Jesus. Thousands of criminals were crucified by the Romans, but no record exists of Jesus, simply because the Pilate did not crucify him. He was saved by God according to Psalms 20:6, Hebrews 5:7, and Al-Quran 4:157. Regarding the alleged “darkness and earthquake in Matthew”, there is not a shred of evidence to support the Gospel story.

Did Philo mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE? Therefore it never happened, otherwise he would have mentioned it.
What an unreasonable argument!

There were Jaws living from before 30 BCE to beyond 70 CE, and none have been known to mention the destruction of the city. That does not mean it never happened.
Historians don't mention everything.

The darkness, and earthquake were recorded.
This darkness was a miraculous event, caused by God. It could not have been caused by a solar eclipse, which occurs at the time of the new moon. This was Passover season, so the moon was full. And the darkness lasted for three hours, far longer than the longest possible total eclipse, which lasts less than eight minutes.
In Luke’s account, the observation that “the sunlight failed” is included. Luke 23:45

#7 - We have explicit quotations from scholars to substantiate that “Herod’s slaughter of the innocents” is just another recapture of pagan mythology. The sun-gods of ancient Greece, Rome, and Egypt were threatened at birth, and the order was made to kill all the “new-born infants”. The same episode was replayed in the life of Jesus, who is considered a ‘sun-god’ by modern Secular scholars.

These are claims, based on opinions, I'm sure.
Details could change that though. Do you have any?

#8 - Jesus was not the Son of God but the ‘Sun of God’. Amazing isn’t it? God would never defy His own creatures, even to the slightest extant. Hence, the titles of “Lamb of God” and “God the Son” are reversions to paganism. The “God the Son” implies the pagan trinity. The title “Lamb of God” is also not unique; it was applied to Krishna as well, the Hindu savior who lived hundreds of years before Christ was born.

More claims. No supporting facts.

 

[firedragon]

Try this post, until I return.
Then I will share how we know the author is John.

Clement of Alexandria making that statement is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Its a belief statement, not evidence.

 

[nPeace]

Did Herod slaughter the innocents?
#9 - There are two problems with this alleged messianic prophecy: it is not a prophecy about children being killed and it is quite doubtful that there ever was such a slaughter of innocents by Herod.

"Rachel weeping for her children" refers to the mother of Joseph and Benjamin (and wife of Jacob) weeping about her children taken captive to Egypt. In context, the verse is about the Babylonian captivity, which its author witnessed. Subsequent verses speak of the children being returned, and thus it refers to captivity rather than murder. The slaughter by Herod is also in doubt because the writer of Matthew is the only person who has noted such an event. Flavius Josephus, who carefully chronicled Herod's abuses, makes no mention of it.

Common sense tells us that such an order was impossibility in any case. Did Herod intend to kill the children of his friends, his soldiers, his civil servants, tourists passing through, and so on? You know for certain the whole matter is symbolic once you realize that an attempt to slaughter a holy child appears in all the ancient hero myths, from Moses to Horus to Sargon to Hercules. As noted earlier, the threat to the newly born Horus, the Egyptian Christ, came from Herut, the serpent. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 126)

This massacre is not mentioned in any non-biblical sources, however, and is very probably apocryphal.

Again, this does not prove these claims true.
Historians did not record everything.
It can also be speculated that these children were not slaughtered by soldiers charging into homes like raging madmen, killing children.
It could have been done conspicuously, and selectively. The account does not say.

Geographical Errors
#10 Jewish scholar Joseph Leidner points out that because Gadera is actually several kilometers away from the sea, the whole incident is evidence of either ignorance or total lack of concern with veridical history. Citing other similar examples, he writes, “From the evidence…the blunt conclusion emerges that the Gospel writers did not know the geography and customs of the Holy Land, and did not know Judaism itself. They were working with source material having nothing to do with historical data of any kind. (ibid, p. 163)

This is a straw grabber, imo.

Exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac - Wikipedia
Mark
The earliest account is from the Gospel of Mark (Mark 5:1-20), in which Jesus goes across the sea into the "region of the Gerasenes" (Other textual variations include "Gadarenes" and "Gergesenes").

Matthew
The location is also changed to the region of the "Gadarenes" (Gadara) as in most Bible translations. The King James Version in (Matthew 8:28) has the location as "Gergesenes" which corresponds to the modern "Kursi" (Kheras), the most plausible location of the Gospel event.

Exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac - WikipediaCommentary
Gerasa, Gadara, or Gergesa?
As to the candidate for the location of the Gospel event, the most common consensus is that the miracle to took place near the town of Gergesa, the modern Kursi, close by the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, and therefore in the country of Gergesenes

The last link is the best one.
More Historical Inaccuracies In The Bible
Question
I have a question concerning biblical historicity. First, there are clear historical inaccuracies in the New Testament. One such example is that of Acts 5, where Luke writes of the Pharisee Gamaliel's speech (vv. 34-39). This speech would have taken place around AD 35-40, yet it refers to Theudas' revolt of AD 46-47 as a past event. Furthermore, Gamaliel is made to say that "Judas the Galilean" raised a revolt which followed that of Theudas - but Judas' revolt was in AD 6 or 7! We know these dates from Josephus, most notably, as well as from other records.

Answer
There are a number of explanations given for this, but I can't honestly say which is right. I will do some research on it, and get back to you. In the meantime...

Theudas - Oxford Biblical Studies Online
Theudas
A Messianic pretender who promised to lead his followers in revolt against Rome; he was killed according to Josephus in 44 CE. In Acts 5: 36–7 Theudas is regarded as preceding another revolutionary, Judas, who died in 6 CE, so it would seem that either Josephus or the Acts has made a mistake. The time when Gamaliel was speaking (Acts 5: 34) was about 30 CE, so that Theudas' rebellion had not then taken place.
However, since there were numerous other disorders, it is just possible that there was another leader called Theudas who lived at an earlier date.

Did Luke make a mistake involving Theudas and Judas the Galilean?
Question: A reader sent the following question via email: "Acts 5:33-39 gives an account of speech by the first century Pharisee Gamaliel, in which he refers to two movements other than the Way. One lead by Theudas (v 36) and after him led by Judas the Galilean. Josephus placed Judas about 6 AD. He places Theudas under the procurator Fadus 44-46 AD. Two problems emerge. First, the order of Judas and Theudas is reversed in Acts 5. Second, Theudas's movement comes after the time when Gamaliel is speaking."

Response: This claim has been circulated on several Web sites. The people who make this claim, whether they realize it or not, are assuming that there can only be one person named Theudas, when in fact there might have been more than one person with that name. In other words, Luke, the author of the book of Acts, and Josephus, a first century historian, could simply be talking about two different people named Theudas.

Luke's Theudas sounds like a religious leader who had a following of about 400 people. Josephus' Theudas sounds like a different person, a magician who claimed to be a prophet and who had a large following, one that was large enough to provoke a deadly confrontation from the government. For these and other reasons, many scholars and writers believe that Luke and Josephus are talking about two different people with the same name.

Try this.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...tiquities_20&usg=AOvVaw0VOn9vvp6O03Fp71OCXNq5

Don't forget. Feel free to isolate any you want to discuss specifically.

 

[nPeace]

Clement of Alexandria making that statement is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Its a belief statement, not evidence.

Pardon me.

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon
How we know John is the writer
John 21:24 This disciple - "the one Jesus loved" - is the one who testifies to these events and has recorded them here. And we know that his account of these things is accurate.

Early writers such as Irenaeus (140-203), Clement of Alexandria (150-215), Tertullian (155-222) and Origen (185-253) all designated the writer as the apostle John. No one else was suggested by the early church. All say that John wrote this Gospel, and all other evidence agrees.
The style of the Gospel of John, and the letters of John, are similar. The writer confirms that he is an early follower of Christ and eyewitness - 1 John 1:1-4

1. You are saying that "The one Jesus loved". Did he claim to write this book? No. Someone else who is writing this book is telling us that this disciple loved by Jesus has written these accounts down which means the writer has inherited these accounts from him. Unless you believe that this disciple wrote the other parts and someone else added the last part. But you see you have said that johannine literature has one writer.

"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true."

2. You said that all the Johannine literature has one author. Can you quote me what kind of criticism you have used to come to that conclusion?

3. You said that disciple beloved of Jesus is the writer of John, which you have also concluded is the same literary style as all johannine literature. In that case how come the 2nd epistle of John claims to have been authored by the elder? Is that the same person?

4. You claim that Disciple of Jesus who he loved is the author of John. So this disciple who was a fisherman, what age was he? How old was he then when the Gospel of John was written? 90 or 100? What age?

5. Do you think a fisherman had learned that type of high koine Greek?

6. In John, this so called disciple is so important, always there. How come he is not in other Gospels? How come John has this beloved disciple at the tomb before peter and other gospels do not?

I will hope you can respond to each point respectively with objectivity.

Peace.

 

[Nimos]

Please let me know if you can view the image, or not.

I can't see any image

Unless Adam and Eve, who chose to decide for themselves what is good and bad... In other words, become their own god... I am not my own god.

Did Adam and Eve really choose anything, if we are to believe that they learned about good and evil the way it is described? According to the story they didn't know the difference between good and evil, before after eating from the tree. So Eve had no reason to assume that the snake was lying. Obviously this is only if one take the story literally.

But I do think that there are evidence for the Jews believing the story to be true.

To many people whom have experienced firsthand the benefits that come from loving their enemies. They see how it is not only logical to do so, but sensible, reasonable, and right.

You will always be able to find examples of people choosing to do differently, that is basically the whole point. We as humans have different ways of reacting to the world around us, depending on how we experience it.

But I would be interested in seeing some of these examples.

@Nimos, the reason why we don't see love of one enemy demonstrated, is not because it is right, but because the world is ungodly, and immoral, according to the Bible.
However, among godly people, it is a constant feature.

Might be, or it could be because we as humans see the world differently and with different interests. Our society and world is designed to cause suffering, which can leads to desperation by those who does, which can then result in harm to others. Religious beliefs simply adds another layer on top of all this, giving us another excuse to hate one another.

Remember that throughout time there have been lots of conflicts, even between nations sharing the same faith, whether they are Christians or Muslims. So even people of same faith can't seem to live in peace and harmony even when believing in the same God. So is that because of them having a false religion or what?

Did you just quote Leviticus?
Sorry, that's not taken from the Gospels. God does not require that. Remember?

It is to show what is meant with adultery and how God think it ought to be punished. Even if you remove the quote from Leviticus, the mere fact that people should not remarried if they are not happy in their current relationship is non sense. Why spend a whole lifetime in a relationship if people don't get along or love each other?

This was part of the Mosaic Law. Read the following verses.

So? It is still an expression of what God and Jesus believe to be right. Again John is the only gospel where you have this very vague and weird verse that people cling to as meaning that Jesus "fulfill" the law and therefore it is no longer in effect. It is not in any of the other gospels as far as I know.

I have always found it strange how people that believe can ignore parts of where God is clearly a monster in OT, and still claim that everything is fine and good, because later on Jesus say something that they like. Its a very strange logic to me. Its like Hitler killing all the Jews he did and then later on talks about love and harmony among all people and suddenly he is the good guy. Very strange to me.

What have archaeologist found in Egypt, related to magic, and god? Anything? How do they deal with these?

I have no clue, as I don't know what you mean with magic.

Please explain some more. I am not sure I understand.

Its about multiple explanations for a cause.

Lets imagine we are at crime scene and on the floor lay a person who have been stabbed to death. Next to him stands his wife with a knife, clearly she is guilty of murdering him. Why else would she be holding the knife? (This is basically the argument that you made).

My point was that if one does not look for alternatives explanations for why she might be holding the knife, then you might reach the wrong conclusion. So its basically not a lot different, than someone putting forward a scientific theory and stating how this theory could also be proven wrong, how others can test it, to see if this person made mistakes or whether there are other explanations that could cause the theory to fail.

I don't know if that explains it better, but it is basically just to test a theory/argument from as many angles as possible to see if there could be other and better explanations.

Why assume, when you know assumptions are often wrong. You are wrong.

So who are they according to you then?

Can you show me where I said that? I don't recall saying that.

So any good Biblical scholar, would know that when this ruler left his daughter, she was alive, but he knew she was dying, and had little time left. So he obviously believe that by the time he found Jesus, his daughter would be dead.

Does the person who sets out to kill Jesus exercise free will?
Does his failing to kill Jesus disqualify that free will?
Use what you said above,
In your example, the only free will that this person does, is to decide to rob a bank, so he does. That others interfere with it, is not violating his free will. As the free will was to rob the bank, not to also get away with it.
....and with one correction (free will was not to rob the bank, but to go to the bank with the intention to commit robbery) apply it this way... The free will was to set out to kill Jesus, not anything else.
Free will is not dependent on failure or success.

I agree that free will doesn't depend on what others might do, as long as we are not talking about prophecy, we agree on that. But when that comes into the picture, not only will this person not be able to kill Jesus, even though there would be no one around to stop him. It would require God to intervene. But further more no one would be able to kill Mary or her parents or theirs etc. Because if any of them dies, Jesus would not have been born. That is why I asked, if God would just have chosen another Jesus. If any human is prevented from killing these people in whatever way they see fit, which could easily be done, were we talking about any other group of people that had nothing to do with a prophecy, then that is interfering with free will or makes the idea of free will pointless, if the result of using ones free will for certain things is doomed to fail, because God intervene.

I think you are just making up all kinds and any kind of excuse and objections you can find. So why should I take them seriously.
For you to dismiss primary and secondary sources of historical accounts, on the basis of speculation, due to an absence of details we don't have, seems to me, quite unreasonable.

I don't think that is a fair statement. First of all you make a claim that John is an eyewitness and quote the bible. I strongly disagree and quote the bible as well of passages where it is impossible for him to have been one. Secondly it is far from accepted by scholars that John were an eyewitness.

I will quote my best friend Bart the man on this, who is asked about eyewitnesses and the Gospel:
It’s a very good question, and one that I get asked, in a variety of ways, a lot. My view is this: when Mark was writing his Gospel (the first to be written) in say 65 or 70 CE, there probably were indeed people still living who were familiar with Jesus. At least I would assume that Mark himself thought so. Otherwise it is hard to explain why he included what is now Mark 9:1, where Jesus tells his disciples “Truly I tell you, some of you standing here will not taste death before they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power.” If everyone from the first generation had already died, then it seems implausible that Mark would leave a saying of Jesus indicating that the End would come before they all died. (I do not, by the way, think that Mark’s Jesus was referring to the day of Pentecost, to the coming of the church, or even to his own Transfiguration, as some interpreters claim, in order to get around the fact that Jesus declared that the end would come before all the disciples died when, in fact, it did not).

But onto my point. Even though there may well have been eyewitnesses alive some 35-40 years after Jesus’ death, there is no guarantee – or, I would argue, no reason to think – that any of them were consulted by the authors of the Gospels when writing their accounts. The eyewitnesses would have been Aramaic speaking peasants almost entirely from rural Galilee. Mark was a highly educated, Greek speaking Christian living in an urban area outside of Palestine (Rome?), who never traveled, probably, to Galilee. So the existence of eyewitnesses would not have much if any effect on his Gospel.

The same is true, even more so, with the later Gospels. Luke begins his Gospel by saying that eyewitnesses started passing along the oral traditions he had heard (Luke 1:1-4), but he never indicates that he had ever talked to one. He has simply heard stories that had been around from the days of the eyewitnesses. And if the standard dating of his Gospel – and Matthew’s – is correct, they were writing about 50 years or more after Jesus’ death. John’s Gospel was even later.

My sense is that most of the eyewitnesses (and who knows how many there were?! Hundreds? Probably not. Dozens?) had died before the Gospels were written; those that survived were carrying on their lives in rural Galilee or Jerusalem. And the Gospel writers, who never say they consulted any of them, probably never did consult with any of them. The Gospels are based on oral traditions that had been in circulation – and changed as a result – for decades before the Gospel writers had even heard them.

And as anyone knows who has been subject to oral traditions – this would include all of us – the stories told about a person can change absolutely overnight! It happens all the time. What happens, then, to stories in circulation for 40 or 50 years, in different countries, told in different languages, among people who never laid an eye on an eyewitness or on anyone else who had? My sense is that the stories get changed, often a lot; and many of the stories simply get made up. It’s just the way it happens And it can be shown to have happened with the Gospels, since the same story is often told in very different ways. Every historian will tell you: evidence matters!

 

[randix]

@nPeace--
I think that for as many reasons you try to bolster your faith in the Bible or defend it, and attempt to enourage others to do so, there are reasons people find to doubt or criticize the Christian scriptures. Islamic scholars are particularly good at picking apart the Bible, sometimes in excruciating detail, for example, while praising the "scientific accuracy" and other "virtues" of their own "holy books," while atheists of course often criticize both religions and their texts.

I think that your debate and efforts might be rather futile, or at best, simply "preaching to the choir" rather than being persuasive to nonbelievers. I think there's a growing body of people who once trusted the Bible (myself included, as a missionary kid), who now have serious doubts and questions about it, and about a lot of the Christian or Catholic dogma based upon it. One telling fact is the sheer number of different types of Bible-believers who disagree with each other, often bitterly so, and the many schisms, both historical and current, that have occurred and continue to occur among individual or groups of members of "the body of Christ."

 

[Audie]

I think you are just making up all kinds and any kind of excuse and objections you can find. So why should I take them seriously.
For you to dismiss primary and secondary sources of historical accounts, on the basis of speculation, due to an absence of details we don't have, seems to me, quite unreasonable.
Primary and secondary sources. Primary sources provide a first-hand account of an event or time period and are considered to be authoritative...
I think it's appropriate to repeat this post for you also.

We simply do not have enough information to explain with any certainty how John got he information, he personally did not witness. However, to dismiss all the other information, of an eyewitness, on that basis, suggests to me, that you have already made up your mind to ignore anything that can reasonably be considered reliable.
So, no explanation would be enough to remove that skepticism.
Recall what the detective said... He had to let go of his closed-mindedness - his volition.

John could have gotten his information, a number of ways.
The scriptures show that Romans did convert to Christianity.
Today, we see this. When someone converts, they share information we wouldn't have obtained otherwise.
You would observe this, when you watch documentaries.
So one way, could have been through a soldier.... but why speculate on information we don't have? It proves neither side.

You are accusing the writers of lying, when you have no basis for doing so, other than your feelings.
The proper way to go about this, is not using opinion, based on emotions, but rather we should look at the facts, and using the different criterion in the historical methodology, we see they had no reason to lie. Their candor is evident throughout the texts.

That's my final word on these speculations.
If you have objections about the historical method, I don't mind discussing those. You can let me know.

There are always obscure things in the bible that can hide
in a fogbank of mis and dis information, and of course, no
information.

If you have objections to the scientific methods that gained
the knowledge that when applied to the 'flood" question
prove that there was no flood... then please say why none
of the scientific method is valid if it happens to mess with your
fairy tale.

Once the bible is proven to be a lie here, or there, then
it kind of dries up its credibility elsewhere.

No need to get all tangled up in what "John" did or did
not see, as if there was any possibility of knowing.

 

[randix]

I think that those so adamant that the Bible is inerrant truth are merely trying to defend the fortress of their faith (the walls of which might not be as strong as they hope), because even one error found in a text causes one to wonder or suspect others may exist.

An entire worldview or set of religious beliefs can begin to crumble with just one or a few doubts or questions or a little critical examination.

In my youth, as a maturing and curious child with questions living within a Christian missionary community, I was counseled to, "don't doubt your faith, doubt your doubts." Those insular walls of Christian belief have, since many years now, crumbled to dust and I have a much better view of the outside world.

 

[Wandering Monk]

@nPeace--
I think that for as many reasons you try to bolster your faith in the Bible or defend it, and attempt to enourage others to do so, there are reasons people find to doubt or criticize the Christian scriptures. Islamic scholars are particularly good at picking apart the Bible, sometimes in excruciating detail, for example, while praising the "scientific accuracy" and other "virtues" of their own "holy books," while atheists of course often criticize both religions and their texts.

I think that your debate and efforts might be rather futile, or at best, simply "preaching to the choir" rather than being persuasive to nonbelievers. I think there's a growing body of people who once trusted the Bible (myself included, as a missionary kid), who now have serious doubts and questions about it, and about a lot of the Christian or Catholic dogma based upon it. One telling fact is the sheer number of different types of Bible-believers who disagree with each other, often bitterly so, and the many schisms, both historical and current, that have occurred and continue to occur among individual or groups of members of "the body of Christ."

Well said.

 

[firedragon]

@nPeace--
I think that for as many reasons you try to bolster your faith in the Bible or defend it, and attempt to enourage others to do so, there are reasons people find to doubt or criticize the Christian scriptures. Islamic scholars are particularly good at picking apart the Bible, sometimes in excruciating detail, for example, while praising the "scientific accuracy" and other "virtues" of their own "holy books," while atheists of course often criticize both religions and their texts.

I think that your debate and efforts might be rather futile, or at best, simply "preaching to the choir" rather than being persuasive to nonbelievers. I think there's a growing body of people who once trusted the Bible (myself included, as a missionary kid), who now have serious doubts and questions about it, and about a lot of the Christian or Catholic dogma based upon it. One telling fact is the sheer number of different types of Bible-believers who disagree with each other, often bitterly so, and the many schisms, both historical and current, that have occurred and continue to occur among individual or groups of members of "the body of Christ."

I kind of disagree with you.

1. You have made a general, apologetic response that suits all. Everyone does try to defend their position and i do agree most of it is apologetics, not scholarship. Its like a seminary divinity course in propagation. But you could try to be specific and respond with any kind of analysis.

2. Most of these so called "Islamic Scholars" are not really scholars of the Bible. They are doing apologetics the same way Christian evangelists and pastors are. There are a few Muslim apologists who are actual scholars of the Bible or at least take a scholarly approach. Scholars don't really debate very well. Apologetics inspire and turn up people better. Scholars tend to get drowned in scholarship noise and forget to perform to the gallery.

3. Scholars in general have been trying their best to be scholarly but when we say "scholars" most of us refer to people who sound good to us and most of them are not scholars. But one must give accolades to Christian scholars to have picked on the Bible much more than any other atheistic or Muslim scholar. I understand that Atheists should become scholars of religion for the religious people to open their eyes because their approach to the Bible or the Quran will be excellent as a foundation, IF THEY TAKE A SCHOLARLY APPROACH. Most don't. Most take an apologetic approach.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I think that those so adamant that the Bible is inerrant truth are merely trying to defend the fortress of their faith (the walls of which might not be as strong as they hope), because even one error found in a text causes one to wonder or suspect others may exist.

An entire worldview or set of religious beliefs can begin to crumble with just one or a few doubts or questions or a little critical examination.

In my youth, as a maturing and curious child with questions living within a Christian missionary community, I was counseled to, "don't doubt your faith, doubt your doubts." Those insular walls of Christian belief have, since many years now, crumbled to dust and I have a much better view of the outside world.

People who ask you not to think are not your friends.

 

[Audie]

Thank you for this contribution.
I can't consider every point, as it is long, and some of them have already been dealt with, or are petty, imo, but feel free to isolate any you feel are too important to leave out.
My comments will follow each claim.

From What Are the Bible's Biggest Scientific and Historical Errors?
Claim :
#1 - Many base their entire religious ideology around the presumption that the Bible is free from errors or mistakes

It's not a presumption, but a careful examination of the facts, give evidence that the Bible is reliable and authentic, despite minor errors, and alleged contradictions.

#2 - We can find errors and mistakes everywhere we look in the Bible because it's a collection of texts written centuries and millennia ago. Not all of the writers agreed and they were all ignorant of things humans have learned since then.

Circular reasoning - We can find errors and mistakes everywhere we look in the Bible because it's a collection of texts written centuries and millennia ago. The Bible is a collection of texts written centuries and millennia ago. Therefore we can find errors and mistakes everywhere we look in the Bible.
Unreasonable.

#3 - tatements that conflict with facts about reality we have learned through scientific investigation — can be found throughout the Bible because the biblical texts were written at times when human knowledge about our world was quite limited.

I don't find any conflicts with true scientific discovery. Can you name one, and explain how it conflicts?

#4 - One might expect an ancient text to have an accurate record of ancient events, but historians, as we know, have not always been completely honest with their representation of events.
In the past, records were written with an ideological agenda behind them, not for the sake of pure actual accuracy. Historical mistakes and errors are only to be expected.

It is true that some historians are not honest, but that's no reason to brand all historians as dishonest. People today are dishonest.
Should we label all scientists dishonest, because of the ones who were dishonest?
Not reasonable.

From Historical Errors in the Gospels.
#5 - New Testament is filled with events that never actually happened, they are episodes of mythology that get played over and over in the lives of sun-gods like Mithras, Horus, and Bacchus, etc.

I suppose the one making that bold claim, intends to back it up.

#6 - The darkness at the crucifixion, the rising saints of Matthew, the earthquake, resurrection, and the “crucifixion” itself are mythological events, they were NOT recorded by historians who lived during that period of time. Philo Judaes lived around 50 CE and never mentions the Gospel events; the Roman records of Pilate DO NOT mention Jesus. Thousands of criminals were crucified by the Romans, but no record exists of Jesus, simply because the Pilate did not crucify him. He was saved by God according to Psalms 20:6, Hebrews 5:7, and Al-Quran 4:157. Regarding the alleged “darkness and earthquake in Matthew”, there is not a shred of evidence to support the Gospel story.

Did Philo mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE? Therefore it never happened, otherwise he would have mentioned it.
What an unreasonable argument!

There were Jaws living from before 30 BCE to beyond 70 CE, and none have been known to mention the destruction of the city. That does not mean it never happened.
Historians don't mention everything.

The darkness, and earthquake were recorded.
This darkness was a miraculous event, caused by God. It could not have been caused by a solar eclipse, which occurs at the time of the new moon. This was Passover season, so the moon was full. And the darkness lasted for three hours, far longer than the longest possible total eclipse, which lasts less than eight minutes.
In Luke’s account, the observation that “the sunlight failed” is included. Luke 23:45

#7 - We have explicit quotations from scholars to substantiate that “Herod’s slaughter of the innocents” is just another recapture of pagan mythology. The sun-gods of ancient Greece, Rome, and Egypt were threatened at birth, and the order was made to kill all the “new-born infants”. The same episode was replayed in the life of Jesus, who is considered a ‘sun-god’ by modern Secular scholars.

These are claims, based on opinions, I'm sure.
Details could change that though. Do you have any?

#8 - Jesus was not the Son of God but the ‘Sun of God’. Amazing isn’t it? God would never defy His own creatures, even to the slightest extant. Hence, the titles of “Lamb of God” and “God the Son” are reversions to paganism. The “God the Son” implies the pagan trinity. The title “Lamb of God” is also not unique; it was applied to Krishna as well, the Hindu savior who lived hundreds of years before Christ was born.

More claims. No supporting facts.

written at times when human knowledge about our world was quite limited.

I don't find any conflicts with true scientific discovery. Can you name one, and explain how it conflicts?

We note your qualifiers, what you "find", and, your notion
of what "true" science is.
Is it only true if it matches what you think the bible says?

With your eyes shut and with t he presupposition that only
what you think the bible says can be true, you definitely
will not find any conflict.

Are you aware of even one thing in science that disproves
the story of noahs ark? Why did you never find it?

There are so many different ways that can be disproved
by science it is tiresome to relate, but of course,
we dont doubt your ability to hand wave all such aside.

 

[nPeace]

1. You are saying that "The one Jesus loved". Did he claim to write this book? No. Someone else who is writing this book is telling us that this disciple loved by Jesus has written these accounts down which means the writer has inherited these accounts from him. Unless you believe that this disciple wrote the other parts and someone else added the last part. But you see you have said that johannine literature has one writer.

"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true."

I suppose you concluded that someone else who is writing this book is telling us that this disciple loved by Jesus has written, based on scriptures, such as...(John 13:23-25) 23 One of the disciples, the one whom Jesus loved, was reclining close to Jesus. 24 Therefore, Simon Peter nodded to this one and said to him: “Tell us whom he is talking about.” 25 So the latter leaned back on the chest of Jesus and said to him: “Lord, who is it?”
This text would appear as though it is being recounted from a third party. (Also, compare John 19:26 ; John 20:2 ; John 21:7, 20)
If that is how you are seeing it, who would this third party be? Would that person not be speaking from an eyewitness perspective?
In any case, the writer of the Gospel was an eyewitness.

It is true the disciple did not identify himself as John, but there is no reason to think it is not, just because the writer uses a creative style of narrating.
I can see myself writing like that, because it's creative, and unique, and I am always looking to to include both, when I write.
Also, it shows modesty, which John would obviously have at this time.

Additionally, when the writer speaks of John the Baptizer, unlike the other Gospel writers he calls the Baptizer only “John”. This would be more natural for one of the same name to do, since no one would misunderstand about whom he was speaking. Others would have to use a surname or title or other descriptive terms to distinguish whom they meant.
If the writer was not John, he would need to differentiate between John, the disciple, and John the baptizer, and would also have identified the disciple Jesus loved.
I think that's reasonable.

Spoiler: More Evidence

Biblical literature - Minuscules
The earliest New Testament manuscript witnesses (2nd–8th centuries) are papyri mainly found preserved in fragments in the dry sands of Egypt. Only in the latter decades of the 20th century have the relatively recently discovered New Testament papyri been published. Of those cataloged to date, there are about 76 New Testament manuscripts with fragments of various parts of the New Testament, more than half of them being from the 2nd to 4th centuries. All the witnesses prior to 400 are of Egyptian provenance, and their primitive text types, though mainly Alexandrian, establish that many text types existed and developed side by side. One of the most significant papyrus finds is p52, from c. 130 to 140, the earliest extant manuscript of any part of the New Testament. P52 consists of a fragment having on one side John 18:31–33 and on the other John 18:37–38, indicating that it was a codex, of which the text type may be Alexandrian. It is now in the John Rylands Library at Manchester.

Other early significant papyri are p66, p48, p72, p75, and p74. P66, also known as Papyrus Bodmer II, contains in 146 leaves (some having lacunae) almost all of the Gospel According to John, including chapter 21. This codex, written before 200, is thus merely one century removed from the time of the autograph, the original text. Its text, like that of p45, is mixed, but it has elements of an early Alexandrian text. P66 and the other Bodmer papyri, which Martin Bodmer, a Swiss private collector, acquired from Egypt, were published 1956–61.

Bodmer Papyri
Books V and VI of Homer's Iliad (P1), and three comedies of Menander (Dyskolos (P4), Samia and Aspis) appear among the Bodmer Papyri, as well as gospel texts: Papyrus 66 (P66), is a text of the Gospel of John, dating around 200 AD, in the manuscript tradition called the Alexandrian text-type. Aside from the papyrus fragment in the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, it is the oldest testimony for John; it omits the passage concerning the moving of the waters (John 5:3b-4) and the pericope of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11).

Papyrus 66 (also referred to as {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}{\mathfrak {P}}66) is a near complete codex of the Gospel of John, and part of the collection known as the Bodmer Papyri.

It just came to my mind though... Are you contesting the writer of the Gospel of John, or are you just of the opinion that there must have been different writers? If so, what are your reasons?

2. You said that all the Johannine literature has one author. Can you quote me what kind of criticism you have used to come to that conclusion?

The information you responded to did that...or perhaps I don't understand your question.

3. You said that disciple beloved of Jesus is the writer of John, which you have also concluded is the same literary style as all johannine literature. In that case how come the 2nd epistle of John claims to have been authored by the elder? Is that the same person?

John the elder, not in age, but office.
Strong's Concordance
presbuteros: elder
Original Word: πρεσβύτερος, α, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: presbuteros
Phonetic Spelling: (pres-boo'-ter-os)
Definition: elder
Usage: elder, usually used as subst.; an elder, a member of the Sanhedrin, an elder of a Christian assembly.

The word is not being used here to compare two persons, so it doesn't refer to aged.

4. You claim that Disciple of Jesus who he loved is the author of John. So this disciple who was a fisherman, what age was he? How old was he then when the Gospel of John was written? 90 or 100? What age?

That would depend on the scholars.
For those who believe the Gospel of John was written no later than 70 CE, John was likely in his late 60s, or 70. Later, probably 90 and up.

5. Do you think a fisherman had learned that type of high koine Greek?

Was John a fisherman all his life? Not that I know of.
I'm sure he learned to fish, just as we learn anything we put our mind to learning.
There is no evidence of anyone else, being the writer of the Gospel of John, so any other suggestion must be based on some evidence, at least.

6. In John, this so called disciple is so important, always there. How come he is not in other Gospels? How come John has this beloved disciple at the tomb before peter and other gospels do not?

Isn't John mentioned in other Gospels?
(Matthew 4:21 ; 10:2 ; 17:1)
(Mark 1:19, 29 ; 3:16, 17 ; 5:37 ; 9:2 ; 10:35, 41 ; 13:3 ; 14:33)
(Luke 5:10 ; 6:14 ; 8:51 ; 9:28, 49-54 ; 22:8)

I don't understand the other question.

I will hope you can respond to each point respectively with objectivity.

Peace.

I tried.

 

[Wandering Monk]

It is interesting that in trying to harmonize the gospels, Christian, in essence, write their own gospel, filled in with massive speculation.

 

[nPeace]

I can't see any image

Oh dear. Thanks.

Did Adam and Eve really choose anything, if we are to believe that they learned about good and evil the way it is described? According to the story they didn't know the difference between good and evil, before after eating from the tree. So Eve had no reason to assume that the snake was lying. Obviously this is only if one take the story literally.

That's not according to the account, but according to people's viewpoint.
The account can be read literally, and still not be understood in that way.

But I do think that there are evidence for the Jews believing the story to be true.

Yes. Strong evidence. One just has to read the "Guide to Jewish texts".

You will always be able to find examples of people choosing to do differently, that is basically the whole point. We as humans have different ways of reacting to the world around us, depending on how we experience it.

...on how we are taught, who we associate with and are influenced by, our own desires, or will - our mindset.

But I would be interested in seeing some of these examples.

Here you go...

Being Gentle Toward All Brings Good Results
Taming the Personality
‘I Learned to Mistrust Religion’

Spoiler: Alvin's Experience

Alvin recalls an experience he had while preaching from house to house: “I called at the house of two gang leaders who were former enemies of mine. Before learning the truth, I had fought with them. Our gang had returned to their neighborhood and had shot out the windows of their house with guns. Later they had retaliated by shooting two of my partners as we were coming out of a store. Now here I was standing at their door with the Kingdom message. On seeing me, they began laughing in disbelief. I was relieved that they no longer viewed me as a threat.

“I’m thankful that Jehovah has a teaching program that reached even into my neighborhood and into my heart. Now, my wife Betty and I can devote our lives to Jehovah’s service and use that teaching program in the missionary field to help others.”

Contrasts
Provoking Death
A Footnote to World War II

The Christian, by contrast, is under obligation to love his enemies, that is, those who make themselves personal enemies. Such love (Gr., agape) is not sentimentality, based on mere personal attachment, as is usually thought of, but is a moral or social love based on deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty, and propriety, sincerely seeking the other’s good according to what is right. Agape (love) transcends personal enmities, never allowing these to cause one to abandon right principles and to retaliate in kind. As to those who oppose his Christian course and persecute him, doing so in ignorance, the servant of God will even pray for such that their eyes might be opened to see the truth concerning God and His purposes.- Matthew 5:44.

As was said in one of the articles, the above experiences can be multiplied over and over again in the 45,000 congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide. However, it not easy finding them among millions of articles.

Might be, or it could be because we as humans see the world differently and with different interests. Our society and world is designed to cause suffering, which can leads to desperation by those who does, which can then result in harm to others. Religious beliefs simply adds another layer on top of all this, giving us another excuse to hate one another.

Beliefs in general - not religious beliefs. Prejudice, and hatred is not a religious thing. Unless people are willing to consider relying on one's own inner being, as a form of worship of self. Hence a religion.

Remember that throughout time there have been lots of conflicts, even between nations sharing the same faith, whether they are Christians or Muslims. So even people of same faith can't seem to live in peace and harmony even when believing in the same God. So is that because of them having a false religion or what?

People raised in the same household are at war with each other. That's where it starts, isn't it? Why is that?

It is to show what is meant with adultery and how God think it ought to be punished. Even if you remove the quote from Leviticus, the mere fact that people should not remarried if they are not happy in their current relationship is non sense. Why spend a whole lifetime in a relationship if people don't get along or love each other?

Have you ever heard the term "make up with", or "reconcile differences", or "learn to get along" etc.? Have you ever seen it happen? I have seen it many times.
The question is, why not learn what love is, and how to show it, instead of thinking one knows everything one needs to know, from within?

So? It is still an expression of what God and Jesus believe to be right. Again John is the only gospel where you have this very vague and weird verse that people cling to as meaning that Jesus "fulfill" the law and therefore it is no longer in effect. It is not in any of the other gospels as far as I know.

It's in all of Paul's writings, and that's because only accidents happen suddenly - BRAM!.
Hence you see a shadow moving with the sunlight's direction, there is always a gradual moving, or fading away. It never is sudden. That's how it was with the law. (Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 10:1)

I have always found it strange how people that believe can ignore parts of where God is clearly a monster in OT, and still claim that everything is fine and good, because later on Jesus say something that they like. Its a very strange logic to me. Its like Hitler killing all the Jews he did and then later on talks about love and harmony among all people and suddenly he is the good guy. Very strange to me.

I really feel for Atheists... honestly. It's sad.
First of all, you are the person who sees a monster. I don't know what VR glasses you are wearing, but that's your choice. We don't wear your glasses, so to insist that we see what you see, seems kind of selfish to me.
One can only ignore what they see, or are aware of.

Secondly, for one who understands the Bible, and do not read it.... I don't know... How do you read it? Upside down? Then how is it not obvious to you.
I'll explain.
Can you go to Syria, and tell Assad that you have a system of laws that he must accept, and he must remove his laws, and replace them with the ones you offer? I think not.

Spoiler

According to scripture...
When Jehovah chose the nation of Israel as his people, he was their king, and ruler, having authority to set laws, and enforce them, and punish wrongdoers.
Unlike human rulers that are unable to make up their mind whether to execute murderers, or not, Jehovah is not undecided about who deserves death. Nor does Jehovah have a failed justice system.

When Jehovah stopped dealing with the nation of Israel, that ruler-ship no longer is exercised, based on it's laws.
The rule that is to be exercised is the one, Jesus - the appointed ruler - spoke about, while on earth... the kingdom of God.
Currently the kingdom has not begun ruling the whole earth.
When that happens, all who think Jesus is a lamb to the slaughter all over again, will be in for a surprise, because he plays two roles - one is described at Revelation 2:16, and the other at Revelation 7:17.

I don't see a difference between the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the lamb of God.
Jesus is the exact representation of his father (Hebrews 1:3). He loves righteousness and hates lawlessness (Hebrews 1:9) - like his father.
The willing sacrifice of Jesus, is what allows for mercy - allowing us to live... according to the Bible.

So, I don't see things the way you imagine it is.

I have no clue, as I don't know what you mean with magic.

Please read the article.
Historically, magic has been perceived as either dichotomously opposed to religion or as part of an evolutionary continuum of supernatural beliefs.
or and... The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic - Wikipedia
or and...
Supernatural: Anthropology of Ritual, Magic and the Occult | Akkadium College

Its about multiple explanations for a cause.

Lets imagine we are at crime scene and on the floor lay a person who have been stabbed to death. Next to him stands his wife with a knife, clearly she is guilty of murdering him. Why else would she be holding the knife? (This is basically the argument that you made).

My point was that if one does not look for alternatives explanations for why she might be holding the knife, then you might reach the wrong conclusion. So its basically not a lot different, than someone putting forward a scientific theory and stating how this theory could also be proven wrong, how others can test it, to see if this person made mistakes or whether there are other explanations that could cause the theory to fail.

I don't know if that explains it better, but it is basically just to test a theory/argument from as many angles as possible to see if there could be other and better explanations.

Okay, so besides the historical method, what else do you suggest?

 

[nPeace]

So who are they according to you then?

According to me? It's not according to me Nimos. They are scholars, that I referred to.

So any good Biblical scholar, would know that when this ruler left his daughter, she was alive, but he knew she was dying, and had little time left. So he obviously believe that by the time he found Jesus, his daughter would be dead.

Thanks.
Key - believe. A person may believe something, but that doesn't mean they treat it as a foregone conclusion... a done deal, as though they know it, and therefore nothing can change that.
When the man left home, death seemed imminent.
However death had not occurred, so as far as he knew, his daughter was ill. The longer the delay, his belief seemed more conclusive - the girl must be dead by now.

I agree that free will doesn't depend on what others might do, as long as we are not talking about prophecy, we agree on that. But when that comes into the picture, not only will this person not be able to kill Jesus, even though there would be no one around to stop him. It would require God to intervene. But further more no one would be able to kill Mary or her parents or theirs etc. Because if any of them dies, Jesus would not have been born. That is why I asked, if God would just have chosen another Jesus. If any human is prevented from killing these people in whatever way they see fit, which could easily be done, were we talking about any other group of people that had nothing to do with a prophecy, then that is interfering with free will or makes the idea of free will pointless, if the result of using ones free will for certain things is doomed to fail, because God intervene.

Questions -
Is free will an action, or a desire - a choice one exercises?
If it is not an action, how does anything interfere with it?

For example... I have free will to jump off a cliff, does that mean I can fly? For a few seconds, I might fly, but I will soon hit THUD.

Questions -
Is prophecy altering the future, or seeing and foretelling the future?
If free will is the latter, how does it affect an individual's free will?

So, If someone has the ability to look ahead, and see events taking place, before they actually occur, how does that in any way change what someone does? It doesn't.
The person's decisions are not written, like in a script. They are simply living their life by their own choices.

I don't think that is a fair statement. First of all you make a claim that John is an eyewitness and quote the bible. I strongly disagree and quote the bible as well of passages where it is impossible for him to have been one. Secondly it is far from accepted by scholars that John were an eyewitness.

I will quote my best friend Bart the man on this, who is asked about eyewitnesses and the Gospel:
It’s a very good question, and one that I get asked, in a variety of ways, a lot. My view is this: when Mark was writing his Gospel (the first to be written) in say 65 or 70 CE, there probably were indeed people still living who were familiar with Jesus. At least I would assume that Mark himself thought so. Otherwise it is hard to explain why he included what is now Mark 9:1, where Jesus tells his disciples “Truly I tell you, some of you standing here will not taste death before they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power.” If everyone from the first generation had already died, then it seems implausible that Mark would leave a saying of Jesus indicating that the End would come before they all died. (I do not, by the way, think that Mark’s Jesus was referring to the day of Pentecost, to the coming of the church, or even to his own Transfiguration, as some interpreters claim, in order to get around the fact that Jesus declared that the end would come before all the disciples died when, in fact, it did not).

But onto my point. Even though there may well have been eyewitnesses alive some 35-40 years after Jesus’ death, there is no guarantee – or, I would argue, no reason to think – that any of them were consulted by the authors of the Gospels when writing their accounts. The eyewitnesses would have been Aramaic speaking peasants almost entirely from rural Galilee. Mark was a highly educated, Greek speaking Christian living in an urban area outside of Palestine (Rome?), who never traveled, probably, to Galilee. So the existence of eyewitnesses would not have much if any effect on his Gospel.

The same is true, even more so, with the later Gospels. Luke begins his Gospel by saying that eyewitnesses started passing along the oral traditions he had heard (Luke 1:1-4), but he never indicates that he had ever talked to one. He has simply heard stories that had been around from the days of the eyewitnesses. And if the standard dating of his Gospel – and Matthew’s – is correct, they were writing about 50 years or more after Jesus’ death. John’s Gospel was even later.

My sense is that most of the eyewitnesses (and who knows how many there were?! Hundreds? Probably not. Dozens?) had died before the Gospels were written; those that survived were carrying on their lives in rural Galilee or Jerusalem. And the Gospel writers, who never say they consulted any of them, probably never did consult with any of them. The Gospels are based on oral traditions that had been in circulation – and changed as a result – for decades before the Gospel writers had even heard them.

And as anyone knows who has been subject to oral traditions – this would include all of us – the stories told about a person can change absolutely overnight! It happens all the time. What happens, then, to stories in circulation for 40 or 50 years, in different countries, told in different languages, among people who never laid an eye on an eyewitness or on anyone else who had? My sense is that the stories get changed, often a lot; and many of the stories simply get made up. It’s just the way it happens And it can be shown to have happened with the Gospels, since the same story is often told in very different ways. Every historian will tell you: evidence matters!

No.
First, you decide by your own standards... again, that it is impossible. It is not, and it is unreasonable to ignore the fact that it isn't... especially after being shown the most basic explanation as to why, and how it is possible.

Second, scholars disagree with your friend, and not only scholars, but all the evidence as well.
This is where bias gets in the way of going by the evidence.
It's sadly very prevalent, when one want to ignore truth.

 

[nPeace]

@nPeace--
I think that for as many reasons you try to bolster your faith in the Bible or defend it, and attempt to enourage others to do so, there are reasons people find to doubt or criticize the Christian scriptures. Islamic scholars are particularly good at picking apart the Bible, sometimes in excruciating detail, for example, while praising the "scientific accuracy" and other "virtues" of their own "holy books," while atheists of course often criticize both religions and their texts.

I think that your debate and efforts might be rather futile, or at best, simply "preaching to the choir" rather than being persuasive to nonbelievers. I think there's a growing body of people who once trusted the Bible (myself included, as a missionary kid), who now have serious doubts and questions about it, and about a lot of the Christian or Catholic dogma based upon it. One telling fact is the sheer number of different types of Bible-believers who disagree with each other, often bitterly so, and the many schisms, both historical and current, that have occurred and continue to occur among individual or groups of members of "the body of Christ."

People often make two mistakes.
1. They mistakenly think that followers of Christ need to try to bolster their faith.
2. They mistakenly think that followers of Christ are defending the Bible.

The truth is, faith is based on the already existing evidence. So we don't need to try to support it.
The Bible does not need defending. We stand on the side of truth, and advocate it. Why? Because the Bible is powerful, and changes people's lives... for the better.
People need defending. That's why sharing the truth is important to us Christians.

True, many people are losing faith in God, and turning away from the truth, but we do not expect anything different.
On the other hand, truth seekers are leaving Atheism, skepticism, and disbelief, and turning to God, and the Bible.

 

[nPeace]

I think that those so adamant that the Bible is inerrant truth are merely trying to defend the fortress of their faith (the walls of which might not be as strong as they hope), because even one error found in a text causes one to wonder or suspect others may exist.

An entire worldview or set of religious beliefs can begin to crumble with just one or a few doubts or questions or a little critical examination.

I think this does happen to people, but not because of what you think.
You know, sometimes a girl may say they love a guy, or vice versa, but little faults reveals what's really there.
It's the same with this situation. The little doubts that turn into bigger doubts occur because the individual is being exposed, as to what's really there - what's truly in the heart.

In my youth, as a maturing and curious child with questions living within a Christian missionary community, I was counseled to, "don't doubt your faith, doubt your doubts." Those insular walls of Christian belief have, since many years now, crumbled to dust and I have a much better view of the outside world.

Prophecy fulfilling.

 

[nPeace]

People who ask you not to think are not your friends.

Nor speaking Biblical truth.