svensky

Expreacher i am unconvinced with your argument about situational ethics. At any rate, as for errors.

Could Mark have been in error ? Just as a first suggestion. I notice you say, mark has this error but luke and mathew catch it. So perhaps mark is wrong. Incidentally, there may be other explanations, i haven't had a chance to dig any deeper yet, what with having a life and all.

As for the other two, well i'll get back to you, i'm not sure yet. It will take some time to do furthur investigation.

Would you be interested in continuing this via email, so that it can proceed at a more lesuriely pace, and without the noise from the likes of grand nubian.

Jason

Echo

And what am I...chopped liver?

Eh, nevermind...I feel like I've been talking to myself on this thread anyhow.

svensky

Echo i would be happy to chat with you away from the forum as well. No worries.

Jason

Grand Nubian

This guy is a loser.

He suggests that mark may not have been in error but may have made a mistake.

Anyone that discusses this with him as if he's anything other than a monkey is a monkey as well.

"sorry prof. that mistake on my test wasn't really a mistake...it was an error."

Muad'Dib

Actually, it's not. Please see my comments below.

Well, the reason I ask is this. According to Matthew 26:69-75, Peter denies Jesus to:

1) a servant girl in the courtyard;
2) a different servant girl on the porch;
3) unnamed bystanders also on the porch.

According to Mark 14:66-72, Peter denies Jesus to:

1) a servant-girl in the courtyard;
2) the same servant girl, in the gateway;
3) unnamed bystanders in the gateway.

And according to Luke 22:54-62, Peter denies Jesus to:

1) a servant-girl in the courtyard;
2) an unnamed man in the courtyard;
3) another unnamed man, and still in the courtyard.

Further, John 18:15-18, 25-27 claims that Peter denies Jesus to:

1) a woman at the gate;
2) slaves and the local police in the courtyard;
3) a slave of the High Priest (whose ear Peter removed with his sword in the garden).

Now, all this wouldn't be interesting if not for the following quote from Jesus in Matthew 26:34:

"Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times." (emphasis mine)

And again in Mark 14:30:

"Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." (emphasis mine)

Yet again, in Luke 22:34:

"The cock will not crow this day, until you have denied three times that you know me." (emphasis mine)

John has it too, in 13:38:

"Before the cock crows, you will have denied me three times." (emphasis mine)

Who all did Peter deny Jesus to, and how on earth could it only have amounted to three times? The simplest, cleanest way out of this is to observe that in the details of this particular story, the gospels are internally consistent (because in each, three denials are recorded), but not consistent with the records of the other gospels. Do you concur, or do you have an alternate explanation?

Viti

The site you linked to cited more than a copy error, it took several twists to reach the conclusion that he hanged himself, the body swelled up then fell then burst, that somehow Judas bought the field even if he didn't (again by a twist of scemantics) since it was his money that purchased it and again...never even mentioned the inconsistency in the prophecy fulfillment (which you still have not refuted).

I suppose that somehow you will demonstrate that Jerehiah and David are actually the same person or referred to the same prophesy (which cannot be verified as the original is nowhere to be found!) and PRAISE BE another perfectly fulfilled prophecy of God!

Here's the big question. If God inspired the original writings, in the hopes that all would read and believe, why wouldn't he also guide the efforts of the copyists, translators and compilers? If items as simple as the words "fell headlong" were miscopied/mistranslated, and the word for "purchase" somehow misunderstood, how are we expected to believe that more complex ideas like "was raised from the dead" or "parted the sea" were not?

Your line of thinking (that translation and copyists errors are rampant) should cast serious doubt on the more fantastical aspects of any biblical story.

svensky

I didn't say copyist error where rampant. I said they occur sometimes, and this looks like one of these times. Go back to the page and follow the link to read up on copyist errors.

I dont think it is a strech, and i haven't had a chance to look up the prophecy, real life gets in the way. If you could provide a couple of verses to authenticate this, then it would speed things up a bit.

Jason

Jerry Smith

Sven, and Ex-Preacher,

I agree with ex-preacher about comparing the two Samuel's with the two Chronicles. Throw the two Kings into the mix, and it is impossible for an open-minded person to remain committed to the idea of a Bible free from error.

True, Sven, that many of the contradictions between these three books could be harmonized. However, some require the most horribly twisted explanations that even an apologist can muster. Taken as a group, they are powerful evidence toward falsifying the inerrancy hypothesis.

To my mind, one is best paid by starting with the census story, and its classic contradiction.. whether God inspired the census or Satan did.

You will find this contradiction between 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1. There exist various methods of harmonizing these two passages - from mangling of the ancient language so that Satan (the Hebrew name meaning literally 'The Adversary') is actually God, to explanations based on permissive will. All are very weak. Follow them up with the other contradictions between the two versions of the same story (the results of the census, the amount of money David paid for the 'threshing floor' at the end of the story) - when you finish them, then move on to the remainder of Samuel/Chronicles/Kings. If you do all this with an open mind, you will not remain convinced that the Bible is free from error.

Jerry