Athrond

Easily testable bibleclaims:

from: http://bible.cc/matthew/9-17.htm

This is for all those litteralists out there. What happens if you put wine in an old wineskin and it DOESN'T break?

Inerrancy debunked

Mods: unsure where this thread fitts best, feel free to move.

Athrond

DFrechetteNH

As with everything in the bible it depends on how you look at it. Since you went with a literal meaning, wineskins of the day would harden after pouring new wine in them during the fermenting process. Using the same wineskin to ferment another batch of wine could cause it to tear.

I am sure that once a new method of making better wineskins was invented the literal meaning went away and it just became a metaphor for Jesus' teachings not fitting in with the old Jewish teachings. The passage likely refers to a paradigm shift from old Jewish teachings to Jesus' new teachings.

To me, the saying is a reminder that the option of trying to make a better wineskin is never pondered. Typical close minded religious thinking. Old wineskins break and there is nothing we can do it about it. No, let's not try and make a new kind or anything. lol

reniaa

the logic of above poster on wineskins is fine, you really have to know what your talking about when trying to debunk scriptures which clearly the Op doesn't! having not done his research on the wineskins used at the time....

but as for the rest not sure i agree with that, the logic of keeping something new with something new works literatually, but if jesus was using this as a methephor for the bringing the message to the jews and them rejecting him aka wineskin breaking, it makes sense for him to take what followers will believe in him and start anew, the jews did quite thoroughly reject jesus upto killing him.

Athrond

OK, but it is you who didn't read my post properly.

What happens if you put new wine in an old wineskin and it doesn't break?
i didn't say i had tested it. I said you could easily test it.

And even one measly nonbreaking wineskin will debunk inerrancy. And note that the bible doesn't say "In a wineskin of our age". The "infallible" bible must allways be valid, no?

Athrond

chrisengland

People have been trying to find a golden contridiction in the Bible for ages that no one can get around and no one has succeded. It's really not that simple!!
General religious discussions or Bible critism and history would be a good place to put it.
Chris

Harry Bosch

Bah. There is zero evidence for one of the biggest events in the bible: Noah's flood. That alone completely contdicts the bible.

DFrechetteNH

Well, of course not. Take any event in history and then decide to write about decades after it has happened and only from memory and handed down verbal accounts.

When it comes to bible contradicting, why bother? When Mark was finally written down, it was 30-40 years after Jesus' supposed death.

Take something like the Kennedy assasination and you will see the problem. We got that on video (from multiple angles), tons of witnesses, a whole comission of literate people looking into it and we still can't agree what happened. Trying to find some never before thought of loophole to disprove the bible is pointless.

What amazes me is that any educated person only needs to ask a few simple questions about the bible to see that it does not hold up to textual criticism. That alone should make anyone with any intelligence at all not trust it as a good source of historical events.

People ask more questions about the car they are going to buy then the validity of the book they worship. Sad, really.

reniaa

hmmm i'm not sure, a wineskin not breaking is not a valid arguement to try and debunk inerrancy because the wording isn't saying old wineskins always break it's saying why do people doing "such and such an action" just stating a normal practise of time that people did to avoid breakages, thus making it understandable.

Acetylhexene

O RLY?

Contradictions in the Bible

Science and History in the Bible

GolfVixen

From E/C to BCH, with love.

Vixy