Solo

Are you one of them ? And if not, why would you not prefer to discuss the scripture with intelligent Christians ? Or do you just prefer ranting against the ranters, as Dawkins does ?



Jiri

Huon

Of course, yes, the Bible is inerrant. These stories do not concern the same daughter, and the same synagogue official.
Mark : little daughter, Jairus.
Matthew : daughter, Noname.

Iskander

Do Christians believe the Bible is inerrant? No.

The Bible has been translated into many different languages from extinct ancient languages and it has been copied time and time again for thousands of years. Can any reasonable Christian believe that the particular copy he/she owns in his particular language is what god said exactly? No.

Inerrancy is a myth invented by the chattering classes to feed their need for whatever.

Is this passage an example of contradiction? No.
Has this passage got anything to do with inerrancy? No

The man in the story leaves his daughter at the point of death and searches frantically for the healer of disease and of death. He asks people where to find the healer or try to push his way trough the crowd to reach the giver of heath and life and, while he is doing so he cries out in pain for the dying daughter who may already be dead. He cannot possibly know whether or not his daughter is dead .


One reporter of the story tells of his words of hope in the midst of his suffering and another reports his hope in the midst of despair.


The father of the story must have both believed his child to be not yet dead and already dead as alternating overwhelming truths.

The story expresses the pain and confusion of despair and is a masterpiece of laconic prose.

Zenaphobe

Nope.

If you were to come visit where I live, I could personally introduce you to countless people who do believe the Bible is inerrant. Usually the 1611 King James version to be precise.

Here's a web page with the an introduction that reads,

Here's a whole page of this persons articles defending this belief,

http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

That's all just from the first Google search results of "KJV 1611 God's Word".

The myth of inerrancy is no myth at all.

GakuseiDon

It is easy. Remember that inerrancy isn't invalidated if people are recording what they thought they heard. It might have been that Matthew was hard of hearing and heard it slightly different (same situation as Jesus' last words). So the events were:

(Matthew 9:18) While He was saying these things to them, behold, there came a synagogue official, and bowed down before Him, saying, "My daughter has just died; but come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live."

(Matthew 9:18b) Matthew: "Speak up!"

show_no_mercy

Matthew wasn't meant to be a compliment to Mark. Matthew was written to replace Mark. Just like Windows XP was meant to replace Windows 2000. When you realize this, then it seems kinda pointless to point out contradictions.

Doug Shaver

Yes, many of them do. Not all, of course, but many. I used to be one, and so was everyone else in the church I attended.

Iskander

Zenaphobe and Doug Shaver

Isaiah 7:14 in two catholic bibles

Douay Rheims Challoner Bible
Isaiah 7
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

.

New Jerusalem Bible
Isaiah - Chapter 7
14 The Lord will give you a sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel.

PhilosopherJay

Hi show_no_mercy,

I am reasonably certain too that one text was meant to replace another, but I am just not sure which way it goes. I would like to make a suggestion on how to find out.

I think that there is general agreement that most of the gospel passages are recycled from the Hebrew Scriptures. We should simply compare the original Hebrew scriptures with Mark and Matthew passages. The one that matches the Hebrew Scriptures more closely is the earlier and the one that changes more is the revision.

I have not done this, and I do not have time at the moment. I hope somebody else has or will. I would love to see the results.

Sincerely,

Philosopher Jay

show_no_mercy

I think that Matt was meant to replace Mark. Even Marcion realized this in the early/mid 2nd century.

So we have an original gospel text, and then one that was mutilated by the "protectors of Judaism" to be revered along with the Hebrew bible. This sounds like the Ebionites who used a form of Matthew alone along with the Hebrew bible. And according to the most mainstream version of the synoptic problem, Mark predated Matthew.

It's usually assumed that Marcion was talking about our current "Luke" here, but this assumption is based on the heresiologists thinking that a contemporary of Paul wrote Luke. Thus Marcion must have changed "Luke" since it was around before Marcion was born.