Originally Posted by Timetospend

I have never particularly cared for the word, which is why I did not answer your question the first time that you posed it. However, I do accept the inerrancy of the Bible in its original autograph.

Originally Posted by Gundulf

OK, this is one of those classic examples to point out the difference between a "difference" and a "contradiction".

Two women go to the tomb. John mentions that Mary went to the tomb. Luke mentions two Maries, Joanna, and other women. Matthew for whatever reason only mentioned the two Maries.

These are differences, not contradictions. A contradiction would require that Matthew said two and only two women were there.

You have to be overzealous to call that a 'contradiction.' If I said "I went to church on Sunday" and my wife said, "My husband and I went to church on Sunday".... Would you find a contradiction there? If so, we need to work on your definition of 'contradiciton'.

Originally Posted by Timetospend

However, I do accept the inerrancy of the Bible in its original autograph.

Originally Posted by figuer

I have no interest in discussing the validity of this take per se, rather, I would point out that the presence of such confussing language in the Bible, that requires such convoluted analysis to make sense, argues against it being a message from a god that desired to communicate effectively his message.

Originally Posted by figuer

Translation: I want to be an inerrantist, but I know I can't since the Bible is self contradictory, thus I will invent an "inerrant original" which has been lost in transcription/translation.

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

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

I would agree with Miller's logic if he could prove three things: (1) an entity known as the Holy Spirit actually exists, (2) this entity known as the Holy Spirit is both omniscient and omnipotent, and (3) this Holy Spirit verbally inspired all of the writers of the Bible in everything that they wrote. Unfortunately for Miller's confidence in Bible inerrancy, these are all very big ifs, none of which he could actually prove if his life depended on it. This underscores the major problem in the Bible inerrancy doctrine: it is based on unprovable assumptions. Any belief founded on assumptions is worthless.

Even if we grant Mr. Miller the first two of his assumptions, he would still have a very high hurdle to clear in the third one. That hurdle, of course, would be to establish the truth of the biblical claim that its writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit. A claim is only a claim and must therefore be examined before its truth can be confirmed. Mr. Miller can never prove the truth of the biblical claim of divine inspiration. Claims of divinely inspired books are almost a dime a dozen. The Book of Mormon claims to be a "latter day" revelation from God; the Avesta claims that it was divinely inspired; the Koran claims that it was revealed to man by the angel Gabriel. So what evidence can Miller give us to prove that we should accept the biblical claim of inspiration over all the many others? Christian apologists have tried to give us such proof, but Miller made no attempt to do so in his article. Like so many Bible fundamentalists, he just made the claim and expected his readers to accept it. In the publication in which his article originally appeared, he could get away with this, because the paper is aimed at a predominantly fundamentalist audience. However, more rational readers, which we believe The Skeptical Review has, will insist on much more than what Mr. Miller gave them in the reprint of his article.

Miller listed three categories of "alleged"errors in the Bible and declared that the Bible has "weathered" all attempts by skeptics to prove that these are actual errors. "(T)he Bible has consistently been vindicated," he boldly asserted, "and demonstrated to possess the unequaled characteristic of internal harmony, accuracy, and consistency."

This is typical fundamentalist rhetoric. There are hundreds of Bible scholars who would instantly reject such a claim as this, because their biblical studies have made them aware of many inconsistencies and discordant themes in the Bible text. Dozens of these have been identified and discussed in The Skeptical Review, yet Mr. Miller, who is on our mailing list, has never taken pen in hand to explain to us how that these errors aren't really errors. I have challenged him to debate the inerrancy issue, but he has never responded to my letters. One has to wonder why he refuses the opportunity to discuss in public forum a doctrine that he claims is easily defendable and at the same time absolutely essential to Christianity. Could it be that his confidence in Bible inerrancy is not as resolute as he pretends when writing to a sympathetic audience?

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 obviously were intended to mean?

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Why is that? Is it your position that there are not any scribal or copyist errors in the Bible? If there were any errors in the Bible, how would you be able to make a comparison with your belief that the Bible in inerrant?

Originally Posted by Timetospend

I appreciated that you have been a gentlemen with your comments so far (although maybe a little frustrated with your last post). I have noticed that some others have started to making comments that stray somewhat from this manner. As such, perhaps another reason to stop commenting.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Please limit replies to three contradictions. One, two, or three will do.

Originally Posted by Asha'man

I think the clearest contradiction within the Bible is found in the 2 genealogies of Joseph, husband of Mary.
Hello,

However, I find that Christian theology often is contradicted by the Bible itself. The clearest example is the entire doctrine of free will, in the face of the following:

Clearly, if God is willing to directly manipulate your decision making, then the entire idea of free will is flatly disproven.