JoeWallack

JW:
What a strange combination Toto. Complaining about a Thread that is properly criticizing the Bible in a detailed, objective and scholarly way and laying the groundwork for an inventory of the error and instead throwing out a general, subjective and amateurish idea because it involves "Sidon".

The detailed demonstrations of Biblical error are what we need more of here. Subjective arguments that who Jesus real father might have been are what we need less of.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Toto

But all you are doing here is showing that Jesus' route did not make sense. An inerrantist can always claim that Jesus had some reason in mind for the detour, and the route is not impossible. How is that not an impasse? How many times do you need to repeat this?

rhutchin

The inerrantist makes two points in this respect.

1. The Bible tells us that Jesus traveled from Tyre (region of) to (via) Sidon to Decapolis (region of).

2. The Bible says nothing about the reason Jesus went to Sidon.

The only complaint about the verse is that Sidon is not on the way from Tyre to Decapolis so Jesus had no business going to Sidon and because Jesus had no business going to Sidon, Mark has erred because he surely must have been ignorant and thought that Sidon was on the way between Tyre and Decapolis.

But, I agree with Joe Wallack that the diversion you proposed does not help anything. I though it was interesting.

Johnny Skeptic

I agree. In my opinion, there are many other issues that are much more difficult for inerrantists to debate. The global flood is one of them.

Although the Bible contains many errors and interpolations, it is not any more up to skeptics to disprove the Bible than it is up to Christians to disprove all other worldviews. Rather, it is always up to claimants to reasonably prove their cases, and inerrantists have not offered anything except opinion, guesswork, and speculation. If God is not obligated to save anyone, to give food to anyone, or to do anything else for anyone, he certainly is not obligated to provide inerrant texts to anyone. God is not obligated to act like inerrantists want him to act. Sure, it would be thoughtful and helpful if God inspired inerrant texts, but it would also be thoughtful and helpful if God stopped killing people and animals with hurricanes, and started giving food to hungry people. Regarding inerrancy, inerrantists want God to act like they would act if they were God, but they hypocritically accuse skeptics of doing the same thing. It all gets down to emotional needs and perceived self-interests. Inerrantists are willing to put up with hurricanes and many other problems because they believe that those things are only temporary, meaning limited to this life, but if they conceded that the Bible contains errors, they could not, in their opinion, be reasonably certain of, for instance, what Jesus said, which would include Jesus' claim that believers will go to heaven. Some inerrantists at these forums have stated that if the Bible contained any errors, they would not have any way of trusting any of it. That is a ridiculous notion, but that is an example of how silly inerrantists can be.

Aside from obvious errors in the Bible, there are other ways to disprove inerrancy. For instance, some skeptics could easily change parts of the Bible, go to some remote jungle areas, and deceive at least one person on at least one occasion by using the changes. After all, many people who live in remote jungle relgions have already been deceived by other false religions.

It has never been difficult to convince many humans of many false things, including the flat earth theory. The Bible definitely teaches that the earth is flat.

Inerrancy is of course a ridiculous notion right away since we do not have any of the originals to compare with the copies.

If a God exists, he obviously is not concerned with the issue of inerrant texts because millions of people have died without have access to any texts at all, let alone inerrant texts.

If naturalism or deism is true, all religions would be spread entirely by human effort, and they would by necessity have to start in only one place. A God could easily simultaneously start a religion all over the world at once, but false religions by necessity can only start in one place, and can only be spread by human effort. As far as we know, all religions have always been spread entirely by human effort.

If naturalism or deism is true, that easily explains why, no matter what the religion, women consistently and predictably accept theism more than men do, and why elderly people consistently and predictably give up theism less than younger people do. That also easily explains why geography and family have a lot to do with what people believe.

If rhutchin agrees, I propose that a moderator transfer this post to the Abrahamic Religions forum where people will have much more latitude to discuss the issue of inerrancy without limiting the issue to Mark 7. Perhaps the title of the possible new thread at the Abrahamic Religions forum could be Inerrancy split from "Mark 7, Geographical Error?"

jackal5096

Yes, I agree that Mark clearly states Jesus actually traveled through Sidon before continuing to the Sea of Galilee. And no, my argument was not to the contrary. My point was addressed to those who rely on the KJV and other older editions of the NT. In those editions, the KJV, for example, translates Mark 7:31 as: "And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis." In that translation, it is not apparent that Mark is saying Jesus went from Tyre, through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, only that he went from the area of the two cities. But, KJV and earlier bible versions rely on Byzantine text-type manuscripts, dating from the middle ages. Most all bible versions today rely on the Nestle Aland or Novum Testamentum Graece critical texts, which are based principally on Alexandrian text-type manuscripts, and which state in Mark that Jesus went from Tyre through Sidon to Sea of Galilee. So, your comment on describing a problem is moot. The problem is in those who dispute where in fact Mark says Jesus traveled, based on an obsolete greek new testament.

spin

You are still not dealing with the grammar. The verb ερχομαι requires a complement. When a destination is given, as in the case of εις την θαλασσαν γαλιλαιας, that requirement is fulfilled. The phrase δια σιδωνος is, then, additional information which supplies the trajectory. That's its obvious purpose in the sentence. You seem to be railing against this fact trying to concoct meaning that isn't there.

This is rubbish. Cite what you are trying to use from L&S.

Given that the destination is given you are simply mistaken.

There is no indication of an immediate stop. This is your eisegesis. There is only trajectory to the destination.


It's not a matter of "[u]ltimately" anything the text says that the destination was the Sea of Galilee.

It's a problem with you, who are attempting against reason to reinterpret the passage not from the passage itself, but your own desires.


spin

spin

You are perverting the text with this "to (via) Sidon". The text simply doesn't say anything like that.


spin

Walrus

I don't understand why this is titled Mark 7-Geographical Error. From the passage quoted, Mark doesn't incorrectly state the geographical position of anything, he merely states that Jesus went from point A to point C by way of point B. He doesn't make any claim about why that path would be taken, nor does he state that this is a direct path. I have been looking at airline flights recently, and you can find flights from point A to point B that go through points C through M, none of which are on a direct line between points A and B. Does this mean all these flight plans are geographically in error?

XKV8R

hey all. sorry to join the discussion late.

the trick is to avoid herod antipas. herod phillip was not as much of a problem, because he was so far removed from the center of the jewish world. antipas was a little more like dad. the best of all worlds would be to hang out in the decapolis, where neither son of herod could touch him.

likewise, one must submit to the geography. anyone who has traveled to the golan/banias (or dug there) knows the layout of the region. keep in mind the hula valley was still a malaria infested bog.

http://picasaweb.google.com/israelxk...44163226654722

http://picasaweb.google.com/israelxk...44162380400242

so, if one is in tyre and wished to travel to an area on the kinneret that is out of any herod's reach, one does not head southeast through antipas' territory. one would head up (or at least east) and around antipas' territory, towards and down the hermon range, through caesarea philippi/banias, avoiding the hulah, and down the eastern side of the jordan into a 'neutral' decapolis city like hippos.

granted, there are mistakes in the text, but i don't believe this is one of them.

(and mark was most likely written in the region of caesarea philippi, not rome.) ;-)

Toto

To post images, you need a .jpg

Try this: