Johnny Skeptic

But Jeremiah implies that some of what Christians claim is Scripture is not Scripture. If he was right, Christians have added to the originals. Regarding ".......has been fairly well retained through the centuries," that is not nearly good enough to verify inerrancy.

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../4evide92.html

Farrell Till

Miller asserts that the Bible possesses an "unequaled characteristic of internal harmony" (p. 3). This is a familiar claim that makes good sermon fodder for gullible pulpit audiences, but it simply isn't true. Admittedly, there is considerable harmony in the Bible, but there is no reason to see divine intervention in this. The so-called canonical books were selected by committees and councils of rabbis, clerics, and "church fathers," who discussed and debated various books and finally selected the ones that were to be considered "inspired" or canonical. Quite naturally, the theological themes and doctrines of these books were considered before they were selected, so a high degree of harmony and consistency of themes would be expected in a compilation that had gone through such a rigid editing process. Anyone who doubts that the books of the Bible were selected in just a manner as this should read volume one of The Cambridge History of the Bible. If he should bother to read it, Mr. Miller would find historical facts about the evolution of the biblical canon that would reduce his miracle of internal harmony to nothing but sheer ordinariness.

Despite the editing process by which the canonical books were selected, the biblical text is still fraught with inconsistencies that make Mr. Miller's claim of "unequaled internal harmony" a myth that is believed only by gullible bibliolaters who haven't bothered to investigate the claim. As noted in an earlier article ("A Perfect Work of Harmony?" TSR, Spring 1990, p. 12), whoever wrote 2 Kings 10:30 obviously believed that Jehu's massacre of the Israelite royal family was the will of Yahweh, but the prophet Hosea just as obviously disagreed and pronounced a curse upon the house of Jehu to avenge the "blood of Jezreel" that Jehu shed in the massacre (Hosea 1:4). Apparently, the "inspired" prophets and biblical writers had their theological and political differences as much as modern-day religious leaders.

Any present day inerrantist would affirm with his dying breath that the book of Ezekiel was unquestionably inspired of God, yet the rabbis who made the canonical selection were of a different mind. A bitter controversy surrounded this book before it was finally selected for inclusion in the Hebrew canon. The rabbis were bothered by chapters 40-48, which contained information that was difficult to reconcile with the Torah. Ezekiel 46:6 is just one example of the problems the rabbis had to deal with in these chapters. Here Ezekiel said that the sacrifice for the new moon should consist of "a [one] young bullock without blemish, six lambs, and a ram," but the instructions for this same sacrificial ceremony in Numbers 28:11 stipulated two young bullocks, seven lambs, and a ram." The discrepancy or, if you please, lack of "internal harmony" is readily apparent to anyone who wants to see it.

At least it was apparent to the rabbis who had to decide whether the book should be considered canonical. According to Hebrew tradition, Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah retired to a room with 300 "measures of oil" and worked day and night until he arrived at explanations that would "dispose of the discrepancies" (The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, Cambridge University press, 1970, p. 134). One wonders why such an undertaking as this was necessary to decide the canonicity of a book that exhibits "unequaled internal harmony." Could it be that Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah was merely the Bible inerrantist of his day, who rather than accepting the face value of what was written spent several days searching for innovative interpretations that would make doctrinally embarrassing passages not mean what they obvi- ously were intended to mean?

skepticalbip

Nope... only that someone wrote something then later someone else didn't like it and figured that their concept of god could not have possibly said that. The only way they could rationalize it to themselves was to blame the writing on some bloody fool with evil intent that must have changed it. You will notice, however, that both have been retained fairly faithfully.

Johnny Skeptic

You are wrong. Farrell Till reasonably proved that the Bible is not inerrant. You must not have read what I posted, or if you did, you did not understand it. For instance, Till said:

".......whoever wrote 2 Kings 10:30 obviously believed that Jehu's massacre of the Israelite royal family was the will of Yahweh, but the prophet Hosea just as obviously disagreed and pronounced a curse upon the house of Jehu to avenge the blood
of Jezreel' that Jehu shed in the massacre (Hosea 1:4). Apparently, the 'inspired' prophets and biblical writers had their theological and political differences as much as modern-day religious leaders."

At any rate, "retained fairly faithfully" does not mean inerrant. If Jeremiah is right, all of the Bible cannot possibly be inerrant. Jeremiah says that God "did not speak to your ancestors or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices," and yet the Torah says that God did speak to the ancestors concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.

skepticalbip

Who the f*** said the Bible is inerrant? I think it is full of error. This string of errors has been faithfully retained and passed down almost verbatim for centuries. I think you are confusing inerrant (meaning absolutely true) and faithfully retained (meaning that the writing, as flawed as it is, has been kept as it was written).

Johnny Skeptic

You did, and so did I, and so did Farrell Till. The issue is that inerrantists claim that is Bible is inerrant, not that errors have been preserved. Inerrantists are wrong. The Bible provably contains errors.

skepticalbip

Sorry... I now have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Johnny Skeptic

Well, this all started when Merlin said "There is no problem with assuming an inerrant Bible. The problem comes when people make assumptions based on what they think the Bible says." I proved that there is a problem with assuming that the Bible is inerrant. If Merlin wishes to explain the inconsistences that I mentioned, I would be interested in what his explanations are.

Merlin is obviously not aware that what he said applies to him as well. Who appointed him as the final arbiter of what the Bible says?

Merlin

Um...
Merlin (Myhrrhleine) is a she.

Merlin

I said "There is no problem with assuming an inerrant Bible.
The problem comes when people make assumptions based on what they think the Bible says."
Now, I didn't say anything about whether there are passages which seem to conflict, I said There is no problem with assuming an inerrant Bible.
The problem comes when people make assumptions based on what they think the Bible says.

Are there places where there seems to be contradictions? yes.
Is there a problem with assuming those conflicts are our own errors? I don't think so.
So far, when I've found a seeming contradiction, I have found that taking more time to understand what was actually written resolves the conflict. No, I am not offering to resolve each conflict for you. Many authors have already done so. So far, things have been resolved to my satisfaction. I have no problem with the inerrantcy concept.

Straight Hate

That was your first error.

You got that right, at least, but fail to comprehend the irony. Assuming an inerrant Bible is an assumption you've made based on what you think it says, because the only justification for the Bible comes from itself.

(See why this kind of semantic wordplay sucks? It doesn't mean anything, and you can twist it to say whatever the hell you please. Either a) don't use it, or b) be more clever.)

Anyway, it's pretty irrelevent whether or not the Bible contradicts itself because it conflicts with reality, something far more useful to the discussion.