Doug Shaver

What do you think verification consists of, and how does faith accomplish it?

Joan of Bark

The ironic thing is, not a single example of a contradiction needs to be cited to show that there are many contradictions in the NT. All we have to do is point out that there are over 1000 Christian denominations in the world, almost all of whom claim to be following the Bible, yet no two of them can agree on everything it says.

Johnny Skeptic

Billions of non-Christian theists, deists, and agnostics do not have any problem with that.

Do you believe that a global flood occured?

JoeWallack

JW:
Oh, of course it does. What a silly question. Ever since Martin Luthifer's pope permitted discussion as to why Catholic dogma was correct, apparently not receiving the memeo from (the) holy spirit that once you allowed why, if would inevitably follow, Christianity has been on a downward encyclical. Demonstrating errors in anything will reduce the authority of that thing. This is the point of Ehrman's latest, publicly demonstrating error in the Bible. Apologists like RH's lips say the effect of demonstrating errors is no, no, no. But their leyes say yes, yes, yes.

Personally, as a brave and truthful counter-missionary, my prized possession is a former Baptist minister. In the debriefing he explained that what convinced him of the error of the Christian Bible was that when he researched in the original languages he realized that Paul dishonestly used the Jewish Bible and therefore Paul's theology was largely opposite of what the Jewish Bible taught. Similarly, most converts to Judaism I have deBariefed confess that what convinced them were the significant contradictions between basic teachings in the Jewish Bible verses the Christian Bible.

Some snobbish skeptics scoff at lists of Biblical errors. I remember early on here even the legendary Vorkosigan asking me what benefit there was to determining errors. Again, authority of anything is inversely related to demonstration of error. This is science. Skeptics trying to move away from Errancy discussion are moving away from science.

The advantage that a demonstration of error has by itself, without supplemental broader explanations such as significance, is clarity. This is the purpose of ErrancyWiki, to clearly:

1) Present evidence for error

2) Present defense against error

3) Present conclusion for error.

This is intended as a resource and reference guide for larger issues such as the significance of related groups of errors. When Skeptics try to combine demonstration of error with explanation of the significance of the error within the same article it often reduces the clarity of the error. For example, look at Brett Palmer's article here:

http://www.thebibleskeptic.com/greatest.html

Can you even tell exactly what the claimed error is? Can you picture a believer making the effort to determine what the claimed error is here? This is why errors should be demonstrated by themselves so they are clearly, efficiently and effectively communicated. Than use the demonstrated error as evidence for a broader article.



Joseph

"I thought I made an error once but it turned out I was wrong." - JW

ErrancyWiki

John Kesler

Ehrman and Evans "debated" the evening before in Overland Park, KS at First Family Church. I put "debated" in quotation marks because the format was that each participant gave answers to seven questions, given in advance, and never engaged the other "debater" directly. Ehrman attempted to rebut some of Evans' arguments, but Evans stuck to the script as if he were giving a lecture and an opponent weren't even in the room.

A few days later, Evans appeared at the same church along with fellow apologist Dr. Paul Foster and wanna-be apologist "Pastor Jeremy" Johnston, son of the church's pastor, Dr. Jerry Johnston. Was Ehrman invited back to answer questions directly and rebut criticism? I seriously doubt it, and no mention is made that he was. At any rate, the participants are most definitely concerned about allegations of errors in the text and resort to the usual "explanations."

andrewcriddle

Is this multiply attested ?

You seem to be (over)-concentrating on passages like Matthew 4:24

Andrew Criddle

kennyc

Evolution is true. And natural.

kennyc

Here's you problem.

"Verification" is a well defined and scientific term

"Faith" is belief without verification.

:huh:

Sheshbazzar

'Passages like Matthew 4:24' ? one may wonder just how many the NT's passages there are that are 'like' 'Matthew 4:24'?

How many, and just which of the NT's 'passages' is it that are we supposed to not be '(over) concentrating on'?

The reducto of the objection is that certain 'passages' of The NT are untrustworthy and therefore should not be 'concentrated on'.
These passages are not identified by any markers within the text saying 'Disregard, do not concentrate upon, or do not rely upon the content of this passage'.

Does the church teach people to not believe or rely upon the contents of those 'passages' that are contained within the books of the NT?

The objection raised, itself implies that there are 'passages' found within The NT are unreliable, misleading, or false.

In a certain place, it is written;
But the objection raised disqualifies the very validity of what it was that was written
If one cannot reasonably concentrate upon the actual contents and implications of Matthew 4:24 and like passages, there remains no valid reason to believe.
Or are we not right then to conclude that all these things were written that ye might NOT believe... ?
It is upon the contents of that testimony that one is to either accept and believe, or reject and disbelieve.

andrewcriddle

I was suggesting that the claim in Matthew 4:23-25 that Jesus' fame spread throughout all Syria may be unreliable as evidence for the Historical Jesus.

Unless one is an inerrantist I don't see this suggestion as particularly theologically significant.

Andrew Criddle