Steven Carr

That isn't an error, but Noah is told to take clean animals, but only later does God say which animals are clean.

Norseman

Really? Where in the bible does it say that?

GakuseiDon

No, it isn't an error.

God tells Noah to take 2 of each kind on to the ark "to keep them alive with you" (Gen 6:19). He then tells him to take 7 each of every clean animal (Gen 7:2). The implication is that the extra clean animals are to be used for food and sacrifices.

Plognark

Which is still funny because, as far as I know, God hadn't even let anyone know what animals were clean or not yet.

Nevermind fitting the damn things on that stupid puny little boat

JoyJuice

Don't want to highjack the thread but one quick question and I'll go back to kicking rocks, but how did they seperate the clean from the unclean? Apperance? diet? care?

GakuseiDon

True enough.

gregor

Please, enough about the Noah's ark apologetics.

Anyone who cannot read the ark myth and recognize that it is the combination of at least two separate noah stories from the documentary hypothesis simply must do back-flips trying to explain the numerous duplications. Please re-read Friedman. [Ed. - removing his memorial Dr. X hat and sitting down].

Godless Wonder

Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Clearly Jesus meant fot the disciples to think the end of the world was near. But it wasn't. Jesus was wrong, or Jesus lied.

There are, of course apologetics for this verse, but they are weak, after-the-fact explanations. The disciples would not have been able to make any of the interpretations the apologetics make. which means even if the unlikely apologetics offered are true, Jesus still lied, in that he must have known, being God and all, that the only way the disciples could interpret those words at the time would be incorrect, and he failed to clarify it.

Vinnie

Many believe Mark uses the transfiguration which occurs just aftter to fulfill this. There are some difficulties with this view however.

Roland

The original poster states: "I AM NOT looking for superficial contradictions, problems with eyewitness accounts, things that could reasonably be misquotes or mistranslations, 'straining at gnats', etc., but solid 'god shoulda known better than this' stuff."

The problem with the premise of this thread is that it already eliminates much of what could be used to show "errancy." For instance, if one points out that, in Matthew, an angel tells Mary Magdalene that Jesus has risen and sends her on her way to tell the apostles, but that, in John, she reports back that Jesus' body has mysteriously disappeared and has probably been stolen, we aren't allowed to use that as an argument for errancy. My question is: why not? Why do you get to define the terms of errancy? As I see it, by your definition NOTHING can be used as evidence of errancy because you have robbed the word of any real meaning.