JoeWallack

JW:
As that great 20th century philosopher, Montgomery Burns, said, "Exxxcellent" question. In order to determine what is an error, "error" must first be defined. I've suggested the dictionary definition for a starting point:

"Etymology: Middle English errour, from Middle French, from Latin error, from errare
1 a : an act or condition of ignorant or imprudent deviation from a code of behavior b : an act involving an unintentional deviation from truth or accuracy c : an act that through ignorance, deficiency, or accident departs from or fails to achieve what should be done:"

I see two main components in the definition"

1) Deviation from accuracy.

2) Unintentional deviation.

Warning: For Chili only - The English, Latin, French connection gives a meaning of missing the Mark. Interestingly, this is also what the Hebrew word for "sin" means. Is the Secret meaning of the title of the Gospel of "Mark" that "Mark" stands for Jesus' behavior which was right on the Mark and a Standard for correct behavior and not for the name of some person? And, am I the first person to discover this because in order to properly understand what something means you have to not believe it's true?

Now, the question at hand is what about statements in the Bible that deviate from literal accuracy,(exaggeration), but were intended to deviate from literal accuracy?

The Christian Bible is dominated by claims of the Impossible. Let's look at the supposed Resurrection as an example and again, I never believed in any type of Resurrection until I saw John Travolta in Pulp Fiction. As far as the original Gospel, my guess is that the author did not intend a literal Resurrection. The "Resurrection" had a Natural explanation that after Jesus died his teachings and story were Resurrected by his followers and lived on. Therefore, since I think this does not contain both elements of error, unintentional (intentional figurative to communicate) and deviation, I would not call it an error in the original.

However, just as my definition of "Christian Bible" is the theoretical Bible used by current Christianity, my definition of the intent of the meaning of verses of the Christian Bible is the theoretical understanding by current Christianity. This understanding is that the resurrection is literal and therefore contains both elements of error as Impossible claims are inaccurate and there is no defense of a figurative meaning to explain the literal inaccuracy.

The issue of the Impossible may be my only Peter Peeve in Polemics. Observation and Experience as well as the Dictionary tell us that the Impossible is Impossible. There is no better evidence than Observation and Experience. Therefore, there are no clearer errors in the Christian Bible than the claims of the Impossible. Ironically, Christians take the Impossible claims of the Christian Bible as evidence that the Possible claims are also true while Skeptics conversely doubt the Possible claims because of the Impossible claims. Skeptics should always identify the Impossible as an issue in Polemics and not just silently accept the Christian assumption that the Impossible is Possible as well as point out to Christians that as long as there is a Possible explanation for the "resurrection" such as unknown people at unknown times and places and for unknown reasons wrote about a "resurrection" which was copied and edited by unknown people for two thousand years who had motive and opportunity to not properly research and change whatever was originally written and intended, there is No Impossible explanation for the "resurrection".



Joseph

WARNING - The Skeptical General has determined that the 1001 Errors In The Christian Bible list contains dangerous amounts of Tarivial and Nitpicotine which could be harmful to your credibility when trying to convince a Fundamentalist to count to ten commandments before killing an abortion Doctor because according to the Christian Bible killing is always a sin.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

JoeWallack

Dispatcher: 1 Adam-12, 1 Adam-12, we have a 3 in 1 in progress. A Father is reporting a missing son. Son's name is Jesus, alias "New Adam". No description of the son is available. No one has seen the son in two thousand years. No description of the Father is available as no one has ever seen the Father except the Son. Only witness is (the) Holy Spirit which can not be seen or heard. Please proceed immediately to the intersection of anywhere and nowhere.



JW:
I think you are hip Wardy to the need for Standards Determining Error In The Christian Bible. You and others here raise good issues as to why the development of Standards is Hard Work that will need to be done by Good People who meet Every Day. Just because this is Hard Work though is not a reason to avoid developing Standards. Not having a list of "official" errors is helping Christianity avoid the issue of errors and I exist to make the issue of errors in the Christian Bible an unavoidable issue for my Jewish-Christian brothers.

Let me try to clarify what I define as "The Christian Bible" and what I define as "The Theoretical Original Christian Bible" since I see these as separate items:

1) The Christian Bible - The theoretical current Christian Bible based on the majority of current English translations.

2) The Theoretical Original Christian Bible - The theoretical original Christian Bible based on the majority of available evidence which would be close to the NA.

Regarding the issues of Text and Translation then, Significant differences between 1) and 2) would be Errors In The Christian Bible.

Regarding the issues that you raised above Wardy:

"1.find the who wrote it, when, why, where, audience"

These are good questions but there is significant uncertainty as to the answers for the Christian Bible. I think this is the main point of some of the other posters here, the amount of uncertainty regarding the Christian Bible in general makes it diffiCult to identify certain errors. But my main point again, is that just because it's diffiCult doesn't mean it's Impossible.

"2. find repeated themes
3. find main ideas
4. examine the flow of thought, how does one chapter or paragraph relate to the other.
there may be a few more"

More good questions and easier to try and answer than 1. This involves the Redactor issue that Spin, a very brave and influential Poster, brought up. Here I recommend a Practical concession. No matter how likely I think a Redaction is, I won't correct it in determining 2) The Theoretical Original Christian Bible, if there is no direct evidence such as manuscript or Church Father. For instance, I'm pretty sure that the original "Matthew" didn't have the Virgin Birth as this would not have been acceptable to 1st century Jews. This is why the authentic Letters of Paul don't mention it. However, since there is apparently no current manuscript evidence for a non Virgin Birth "Matthew" (I also think it likely that this is a reason why we have no "Matthew" in the early centuries - they were evidence of no Virgin Birth) and there is no direct Church Father evidence that there was (you get close though with Church Fathers claiming the Ebionites used an edited version with no virgin birth) I make a Practical concession to ignore a Redaction I think happened because of the lack of good evidence.



Joseph

SCRIPTURES, n.
The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Chili

Hi Joseph.

Maybe you should claim that one as your own discovery because I am an inerrantist and believe that the bible is true and without error except for some translations with a mandate to serve their purpose.

JoeWallack

JW:
Peter, again, thanks for your great website. It's a godsend. There are certainly many complications facing my attempt to come up with some type of "official" list of Errors In The Christian Bible. One is that I have to define:

The Christian Bible

As I've stated my definition is:

The Theoretical Bible That Modern Christianity Uses

I need to make a practical concession here and qualify to:

The Theoretical Bible That Modern English Speaking Christianity Uses

Another practical concession I probably need to make is to put a limit on the number of most popular Bibles to consider in determining what translation is used by modern Christianity.

"Uses" is a complicated issue by itself as the Bible a denomination uses is not necessarily what an official translation by designated Bible Scholars of that denomination would have created. For instance, the official translators of the NAB decided on "young woman" for 7:14 but the American Bishops voted to override them and the NAB still has "virgin" for this merry spectaculary controversial passage of womanhoods.

Another complication is variation within the same Bible translation. Take my KJV for instance (please, take it!). Not many people know that the original KJV is lost (It's dead James!) or that the original two copies were different! Or, that the original English needed to be translated into English.

So many "virgin" translations, so little time (before Jesus SOON returns).



Joseph

VOTE, n.
The instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

pierneef

Depending on what you finally decide to include in the scope of "error", the Jesus Seminar guys have been doing this for years with the sayings of Jesus. I am personally impressed by their work, but it is a great target for those who like to build up a reputation through sniping, which includes at least one poster on this Forum. It is highly unlikely that you will ever achieve a set of definitions, standards, indicators, and a methodology for their application, which is not vulnerable to sniping; so I imagine that whatever you create is unlikely to be much of an improvement over the rigorous textual analyses that are being used by the foremost scholars today.

http://religion.rutgers.edu/jseminar/

JoeWallack

The Vorkster:
"I think we should start with the concept of "error." What do you mean by "error?" Give some examples."


JW:
Here's where all the hard work pays off. First, definition of "error" for purposes of determining Errors In The Christian Bible:

Unintentional deviation from accuracy that is not close to accurate

or

Non-figurative intentional deviation from accuracy.

Next, definition of "The Christian Bible":

The Theoretical Bible That Modern English Speaking Christianity Uses

Now for an example of an Error in The Christian Bible. The individual components of the Christian Bible can be compared to Nicotine growing wild outside. By itself and unpackaged it's harmless. However, when someone cultivates it, puts it in an attractive package, advertises it and asks for a contribution when it's received so they can spend even more money marketing it, look out! So too with the components of the Christian Bible which if left by themselves in the wild would also be harmless. But someone has gone to a lot of trouble cultivating them, putting it in an attractive package stamped "Holy Bible" along with accompanying commentary that it's all true, advertising it as truth and asking for a contribution when it's received so they can spend even more money marketing it. And at least cigarettes don't contain any Artificial substances like the Christian Bible does. This Artificial Christian Bible has an implication that the components were all intended to be part of an internally accurate whole and therefore, should not have contradictions. While Impossible claims will always be the clearest Errors in The Christian Bible the next clearest errors will be contradictions as there is no need to choose between the Christian Bible and a non-Christian Bible source as to credibility.

One of my favorite contradictions in the Christian Bible is the following:

#183
Mark 8: (KJV)
12 “And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.�

Compare to:

Matthew 16: (KJV)
4 “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.�

According to “Mark� no sign will be given which is consistent with the author’s theme that Jesus’ Messiahship was a secret to Jesus' generation. The author of “Matthew� changed the Messianic secret theme of Mark to a theme that a contemporary observer could figure out through clues that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah but it took effort on the part of the observer, Jesus wouldn't do it for you. So Matthew says there would be a sign given.

The No Sign/Yes Sign contradiction between "Mark" and "Matthew" may be the most important illustration of the different theologies of the two. To "Mark" the Christian witness was the reader of his Gospel ("Let the Reader understand"). "Matthew" correctly saw this as seriously undermining the Christian assertion of a reliable chain of witnesses from Jesus to the subsequent Church as it bypassed the supposed disciples. That's why Mark's Jesus says there will be no sign for his generation and his disciples never know that he was resurrected. All consistent with "Mark's" theology that it's the Readers and not the Disciples who are the witnesses to a resurrected Jesus. Since "Matthew" changes Mark's theology to having the disciples as the witnesses "Matthew's" Jesus changes the no sign story to a yes sign story in order to predict that the disciples would be witnesses to a resurrected Jesus and then changes "Mark's" resurrection story to show the disciples as witnesses to a resurrected Jesus.

This contradiction also highlights the three (evidence of the trinity?) categories of supposed evidence used by Christianity to persuade and the relative importance to each Evangelist:

1) Prophecy Fulfillment.

2) Miracles.

3) Resurrection.

Each category has its advantages and disadvantages as a marketing tool. "Mark's" emphasis was 1) Prophecy Fullfilment, which is still the favored category today and is based on Reading. This is why "Mark" has no sign of a resurrection or witnesses, it's not what he's emphasizing. "Matthew" wanted to move emphasis to 3) Resurrection, so he changes "Mark's" story to resurrection being THE sign and witnessed.

I debated this Error with Lord Moldy Butt (Hume's Treatise of Human Understanding ripping in two) at Tweeb:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...&threadid=7725

and while he added little to the defense of this error, in the words of the Vampire in the classic "Fright Night" to Roddy McDowell regarding his related show, " I find it very amusing."


Joseph

WARNING - The Skeptical General has determined that the 1001 Errors In The Christian Bible list contains dangerous amounts of Tarivial and Nitpicotine which could be harmful to your credibility when trying to convince a Fundamentalist to count to ten commandments before killing an abortion Doctor because according to the Christian Bible killing is always a sin.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

JoeWallack

JW:
As near as I can tell The Jesus Seminar is not making any attempt to develop an official list of Errors In The Christian Bible. Their focus is on trying to determine what the authentic sayings of Jesus were/are/willbe. No, I think my Movement towards developing a formal list of official errors is circumcision edge and as far as I know I Am currently the foremost authority on developing an official list of Errors In The Christian Bible that the World has ever known.

Of course Apologists will try to create DOUBT regarding an official list of errors by raising the same issues that have been raised here such as:

1) What is an "Error"?

2) What is "The Christian Bible"?

3) What is the air speed velocity of a Eurasian swallow?

Ironic of course that Faith is put into a position of creating Doubt. The whole point of my Development Of Standards For Determination Of Error In The Bible is:

It will reduce the amount of Doubt regarding Errors In The Christian Bible.

For those who need points sharply explained:

1) Doubt regarding errors will be reduced due to stated answers to basic questions such as Who (says its Error), What (is an Error), Where (is the Error), When (was the Error) and How (it's an Error). Ironically, these are all unanswered questions regarding the Christian Bible in the first place which is possibly the best evidence that Jesus was/is/willbe not God because whoever/whatever is behind all this appears to have a Helluva sense of humor unlike the CB Jesus.

Additionally, when Apologists try to create doubt regarding the above they will be reducing Doubt regarding their own hypocrisy/bias since they make little or no effort to make the same type investigation into Standards used regarding Truth In The Christian Bible.



Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IntBan...yguid=68161660

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

JoeWallack

Vorky:
"I don't think you quite got the gist of spin's post, Joe. Take the Acts of the Apostles. There are two versions, one slightly different and about 8% longer than the other. Are the differences "error?" What if Luke created both versions, as a number of exegetes have argued? When the scribes altered John 1:34 to say "Chosen one of God/Son of God" did they make an "error" if it was done deliberately and piously? What about deliberately and maliciously? If a document veers from the original, is it in error? If so, what if later scribes correct an error in an earlier document, for example, in 1 Cor 15 where they change "Twelve" to "Eleven" to make up for Paul's perceived error? Is that an "error?" Or is Paul's original statement the "error?" Both? Neither? If Mark deliberately but erroneously cites the Old Testament, did he really make an "error?"


JW:
Riiight. And why should Bible scholars even try to recreate the original as best they can such as the NA. Just give us all the manuscript variation instead because it's too diificult to try and determine the likely original and there would be too much uncertainty regarding the result.

And was "Mark" a charter member of Liars For Jesus or just using accepted literary convention to promote his hero? This is such a good question that no attempt should be made to answer it.

Vorky:
"Also, without an outside vector, how can you tell where the "error" is? Maybe Stephen's death was exactly as reported in Acts. Maybe Pilate really did release Bar-abbas to the crowd. After all, absence of evidence of this custom is not evidence of absence. Can we say an "error" was made? Or what?"


JW:
Again, you make a great point. Perhaps we need to revise our entire legal system to eliminate arguments from silence which are used all the time in the Real World.

Vorky:
"How does this construction of "error" help us understand the documents? In Mark the Book of Esther is used to construct the tale of John the Baptist's death. Did Mark commit an "error" when he did that, or if he had a theological motive and did it on purpose, is that "error?" I don't think a focus on "error" is really instructive or constructive."


JW:
You seem to have a problem with me discussing "error" in a Forum entitled "Biblical Criticism & History". I can only assume from this that you are also the type of person who doesn't like eating during meals or grinding out ernies in the WC.


Vorky:
"Beware the dichotomous category, my son,
the scylla that bites and the charbydis that catches,
beware the job-job burr of easy sorting,
and the luminous that comes in snatches."


JW:
This is good advice and the best part of your post and I wish more people wrote like this here. Yes, Uncertainty all by itself can prevent me from claiming an error and quantifying the level of Uncertainty is Subjective. However, that thought by itself should not prevent me from trying to determine if there is error in the area of Religion just as it would not prevent me from trying to determine error in the area of Not Religion.


Joseph

SENATE, n.
A body of elderly gentlemen charged with high duties and misdemeanors.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html