CX

That wasn't the impression I got. Unfortunately with the advent of the internet noone seems to do real research anymore and get everything from websites, usually of unknown providence. Further, although I admire their work greatly I would not consider Jeffrey Lowder or Richard Carrier bible scholars.

Evangelion

Geisler and Moreland; but I should qualify that by listing their respective strengths.

For theology, see Geisler; for ethics, science and philosphy, see Moreland.



__________________
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Søren Kierkegaard

Vorkosigan

If Crane is the best, skepticism is in good shape.

Vorkosigan

BTW, you are right, CX, and it was I who was wrong.

Vorkosigan

RED DAVE

Don't neglect Dennis McKinsey. His work is obsessional, encyclopedic and the best arsenal for dealing with fundies.

Bile Errancy

RED DAVE

Evangelion

Well then, the obvious thing for him to do is to get in touch with www.religioustolerance.org and assure them that he's solved the very problem with which they have grappled for so long.

Thus:

• Skeptics often point to internal conflicts within the Bible, or discrepancies between the Bible and the historical record. This never seems to be conclusive. A person who believes in inerrancy can:
  
• Sometimes come up with an innovative explanation that harmonizes the two items.
  
• Suggest that the disagreement is caused by an ancient copying error or forgery, and was not present in the original autograph copy.
  
• Claim that a logical explanation exists that will harmonize the apparent conflict, except that we have not discovered it yet.
  
  
  Some examples of internal conflicts:
  
• One of the favorite "errors" in the Bible relates to the death of Judas.
  Matthew 27:5 states that he committed suicide by hanging himself. Acts 1:18, written by the same author who wrote the Gospel of Luke, describes how he fell down so that his body broke open and intestines gushed out.
  
  At first glance, there appears to be a contradiction: death by strangulation is different than death by massive body trauma. If we heard on CNN that a person had committed suicide by hanging, and then heard on ABC news that the same person had died from a fall so violent that his body was split open, we would suspect that the reporters had garbled their stories.
  
  But it could be argued that Judas hanged himself from a tree that overhung a cliff. The rope may have broken, and Judas could have fallen onto sharp rocks below and burst his body open. However improbable that series of events might appear, they would allow the Bible to be internally consistent about Judas' death.
  
• Another common "proof" notes an apparent conflict in the identities and numbers of the visitors to Jesus' tomb on Easter Sunday morning:
  
  Matthew 28:1 - Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary."
  Mark 16:1 - Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome.
  Luke 24:10 - Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James.
  John 20:1 - Mary Magdalene alone.
  1 Corinthians 15:5 says that Jesus appeared first to Cephas, then to the twelve male apostles.
  
  Again, if a person heard these apparently conflicting stories from five different TV news anchors, they would assume that the information was poorly collected. But it could be argued that Jesus appeared first to Cephas. Then, later, Mary Magdalene could have made one trip to the tomb alone. She could have followed this up with repetitive trips with various combinations of other women. Again, an improbable story, but one that allows the Bible to be free of error.
  
• A third of hundreds of possible examples relates to Jesus' parable about the mustard seed.
  
  Matthew 13:31-32 quoted Jesus: "The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds..."
  
  Mark 4:31: "It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth."
  
  In fact, there are many plants that produce seeds which are much smaller than the mustard plant. So, some argue that these passages prove that the Bible is errant.
  
  But a believer in the inerrancy of the Bible would only have to point out that the mustard seed may have been the smallest seed that his audience would have been aware of . So, Jesus might have used the mustard seed as an example that was familiar to his audience. Thus, there is not necessarily any conflict between these verses and reality.
  
• Still another popular example involves the discrepancy among the Gospels of the sign that was posted on Jesus' cross.
  No two of the Gospels agree on the inscription: Mark 15:26: "The King of the Jews"
  
  Matthew 27:37: "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews"
  Luke 23:38: "This is the King of the Jews"
  John 19:19: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews"
  
  One explanation is that four signs may have been posted on the cross/stake: one in each of four languages, like Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. All four inscriptions could thus be slightly different, and yet the Gospels could still be accurate.
  
  
  It appears to be impossible to prove that specific passages from the Bible are in error. People have tried for centuries to find the "magic bullet" that will convince everyone that the Bible contains at least one error. In the author's opinion, none have succeeded.
  
  If any reader knows of a proof of errancy, please E-mail us.
  
  Source.

__________________
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Søren Kierkegaard

Vinnie

A proof of errancy? LOL

Since any book or collection of books would be inerrant if granted the same level of presumption this says next to nothing about the nature and identity of the Christian canon. The game is simply rigged.

I think that site knows this. I attempted to demonstrate an internal error between the Birth Narratives in my paper The Nazarene Christ from Bethlehem

I think I did and I sent that person an email.

Vinnie

Evangelion

I think you're missing the point. These people are not Christians. They are not attempting to prove the inerracy of the Bible. There is no "presumption" here at all.

Please read what they're actually saying.



__________________
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Søren Kierkegaard

Vinnie

You missed what I said. I am familiar with the site and what they say. If you were willing to stretch the imagination and harmonize the way Christian apologists do any text would come out squeaky clean.

If John said Jesus had a blue shirt on when crucified and Mark said Jesus had a red one on when he was crucified many apologists would say Jesus was probably wearing two shirts.

Another one:

John says Jesus had no underwear on when crucified.
Mark says Jesus had underwear on when crucified.

Naturally Jesus had on underwear but he was stripped naked at one point and Mark was stressing the former timeframe whereas John was pointing out the latter. There is no error, its just that neither is a "complete" or exhaustive description of what happened. But harmonizing them reveals the truth.

yeah, okay. This is pure absurdity. Grant a text presumption and you can harmonize anything. You just need to find people naive enough to believe in your "reconstructions".

But I demonstrated an error in the link above. Let the harmonization begin and may the force be with you

Vinnei

Evangelion

Well, I notice that part of your argument began with a presumption right away.

Funny how that happens, isn't it?



__________________
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Søren Kierkegaard