RUmike

It's contradictory with the image of John the Baptist as portrayed by the fourth gospel.

Steven Avery

"contradictory with the image" - ?
Thats pretty loosey-goosey for a "blatant error".

Chili

Because it is?

If we have eyes to look, ears to hear, and fingers to finger must we not have a mind to interpret what we see, hear and finger?

Sven

Hey, praxeus, are you planning to get back to your thread Plate tectonics and the Great Flood of the Bible anytime soon?

Steven Avery

Maybe soon. As I mentioned to some private PM, I really do creation/evolution posts on email forums, not on IIDB. Here I am interested in Bible debates, errancy/inerrancy and such, because they are handled often on a higher level than elsewhere, at least in more depth. The tone and quality on that other section is poor, and offers little compared to a dozen other forums. The mods switched the thread over. When I post, I post.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Johnny Skeptic

Well then, please post your rebuttal to my opening post. Have you gotten bashful?

Imnotspecial

The Catholic Church knows that the Bible is not inerrant. It is just too ridiculous to maintain such a notion. Now, they assert instaed that they are infallibly interpreting the Bible. That is just as ridiculous. But who is the average bloke to trust here? The fundies or the Pope? There seems to be no possibility for reconciliation of the two positions. This proves already that God has nothing to do with religions.

RUmike

I never claimed it is a "blatant error", but it is certainly contradictory in nature.

Chili

I don't think the Catholic church is interested in defending the OT but they sure will speak on behalf of the NT. It sems to me that they kind of wrote the thing and should know what it is all about. I do agree that God has nothing to do with religion and I actually think that the bible is front loaded with fundy bait in effort to get their dirty work done. This would be why Matthew was chosen as the first Gospel that replaces Judas-the-traitor in the life of a NT believer.

WILLOWTREE

Miller's definition of inerrancy is ambiguous and lame. There are errors in the original mss themselves. The three Great Uncials are riddled with copyist errors, like spelling. We know this because the Sinaiticus has been identified to have had 4 scribes. One of the four didn't even know Greek as is seen in his atrocious spelling - he wrote the word how it sounded to him. However, these errors became a chief source for scholars to discover how these words were pronounced !

Dr. Gene Scott (Ph.D. Stanford) has identified 11 grammatical errors in one chapter of Mark alone.

Inerrancy properly defined: the Bible contains no factual errors once it is determined what God said.

Ray