TollHouse

Some of us have been accused by Veritas of claiming the bible to contain errors without any proof in this thread. So I'm starting a new topic here in an attempt to prove that the Bible contains errors.

I'll start things off:
Christians, please explain to me which 3 people Peter denied Jesus to...

emotional

Why go so far? The Bible contains errors beginning from page 1, when it says God separated between the lower waters and the uppers waters by means of a solid covering (raqiya', Hebrew for "vault"), with holes that could be open in case God wanted to flood the world... (see more here).

See, even without trying to refute evolution the Bible inerrantists are fighting a losing battle.

SingleDad

Biblical inerrancy is best understood as a metaphysical principle, not as an epistemological principle.

It reveals a hidden assumption to declare, for instance, that the bible is "in error" because it disagrees with perceptual knowledge. The empiricist is unfairly privileging perceptual experience and improperly importing his metaphysical assumptions.

As a metaphysical principle, biblical inerrancy states the the text of the bible is true by definition. Thus any unresolvable discrepancy between biblical text and perceptual experience means that perceptual experience is in error.

Even internal contradiction is not really a particular difficulty, because an apparent contradiction can always be resolved by adding additional information. For instance, if person A says there were 10 men and person B says there were 8 men, the apparent contradiction can be resolved by postulating that person A's definition of "man" was different than person B's.

Keep in mind that biblical inerrancy is used to verify theological hypotheses. It does not say (at least in any of its reasonably sophisticated forms) that the text of the bible can even be understood literally. One must create theological interpretation and hypothesize logically consistent interpretations of god (as well as of historical events); however, to be considered "true", those hypotheses must account for the truth of bible verses.

The bigger issue with biblical inerrancy comes with how one knows the text of the bible itself. It seems abundantly clear, and admited by scientifically literate inerrantists such as Kurt Wise, that there are vast problems reconciling the bible with the vast body of science accumulated perceptually.

Clearly, if one believes in the inerrancy of the bible, one cannot believe even the most basic trustworthiness of perception. However, the text of the bible is known perceptually! One must read it with one's eyes (or hear it with one's ears). However, there is no way to ensure that one's perception of the text is accurate.

Photocrat

I went over there to offer support for a fellow Christian, wondering if I might help them out of some sort of straw-man position you made them out to hold.

I didn't read the thread for long--I read only until I got to this:

After that, I really started to wonder what on earth you're talking about?

Every time I hear an atheist go along this line of arguement (there are some errors in the Bible, therefore we must throw out the whole thing) I think of this scenario:

1) Photocopy a Rembrandt several times.
2) Look at photocopy & say "Man! It's so flat in black & white and there are crummy little spots all over it. This guy must've been a horrible artist."
You don't suppose there was a *reason* for teaching in parables, do you? I mean, the fact that the story can change wording a lot & still have the same meanings. Even when its used with varying literary intents, the totality of the original meaning isn't lost to anyone who understands the context of it...

We then cover the events themselves. It's a good thing you've never been a court witness. I *do* realize that I remembered things differently than other people, but the fact that I got contradicted on the most inconsequential details (quick! what model of phone to you have!) most certainly did *not* mean that I was "lying." Aside from the elements you undoubtably consider embellishments, I don't see enough variation in the core testamony to warrant throwing out the baby with the bath water as so many skeptics do. OTOH, if we go the borrowing route, I believe that to be consistant, we must believe in the continent of Atlantis, something I consider absurd in the extreme.

Finally, on the OT, without embracing Marcionism, I suggest you write your local synagoge. They, far better than I, can express what it has meant to them as a small, oppressed people over the millenia.

In short, I don't believe you have the case you think you do. On every count, I find you isolating every fragment of proof & squashing each piece as "insufficient" on it's own. What I mean by that is that you cannot see the forest (proof) for the trees (individual arguements which each provide only part of the proof).

Beelzebub

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I seem to be reading is that the Bible is inerrant if you want it to be. Isn't this redefining the word error? Is it unfair to use facts to detirmine what error is?

GunnerJ

This was my point:

He said that proving that the Bible is in error would not disprove his faith.

This suggests that his faith is not in the Bible.

If it were, then proving that the Bible is in error would in fact disprove his faith.

Yet, he claims that proving the fallibility of the Bible would not destroy his faith.

Therefore, we can assume:
1) His faith is not placed in the Bible
2) His attempts to defend the infallibility of the Bible are irrational.

Harry

I am in the process of doing research on the Bible's inerrancy and I was wondering if anyone would point me to resources that defeats this thesis. Any book or article whose thesis begins with "...the Bible is untrustworthy becase..." is what I'm looking for. I appreciate any help in this area.

[ October 13, 2001: Message edited by: Harry ]

Bill

Those people who hold that the Christian Bible is "inerrant" ought to work their way through my essay: Is God A Criminal? An "inerrant" and literally true Bible produces an inescapable judgment that, according to modern standards of law and morality, the God of the Old Testament is one of the greatest criminals to have ever operated on planet Earth!

== Bill

Bill

Please help yourself to the Biblical Errancy section of the Secular Web. You will note that a fair number of those articles are by our own Feedback Editor and Discussion Forum Administrator, Don Morgan.

== Bill

Quatermass

The way that inerrantists define an error has always been a problem for me. The notion of inerrancy is usually directed towards a lay audience, yet the technical definition of error is far from what the lay person would consider. Furthermore, when a Christian affirms that the Bible is inerrant, it is usually in the context that the plain meaning of the Bible is trustworthy (such as the literal interpretation of Creation and the flood). According to the inerrantist, an error is only an error if (compiled by Stephen Davis – The Debate About the Bible)

• The purported error concerns a biblical claim rather than Biblical grammar
• The purported error occurs in the autograph
• The purported error concerns the main point being made in the passage where it occurs

And either

• The purported error is an inconsistency that can be shown to be incapable of harmonization

Or

• The purported error is indisputably false and not just a resolvable difficulty

In short, any imaginable purported error can be dismissed on these grounds!