Sven

And how do you determine this for specific verses? Are large parts of Genesis, for example, perhaps "poetic or just made to drive a point home"?

mike T.W.

Well, Genesis could be poetic. Maybe the serpant was just a representation of satan on the ground. We simply don't know. All I know is (as we see from this topic) is that people jump to conclusions and automatically think the bible is riddled with errors.

Amaleq13

The snake is clearly and unambiguously described as an animal. There is no suggestion that it is "Satan" in another form.

You are confusing a much later Christian reinterpretation with what is actually present in the story.

Sven

[emphasis mine]
I ask again: And how do you determine this [if something is poetic or just made to drive a point home] for specific verses? You apparently can not. But although you can not determine if something is meant literally or not, you still claim that there are no errors?

So far, if anyone shows an error/a contradiction etc., you seem to have always the easy way out: Claim that the part in question is not meant literally. This way, an error could never be established - unless your opponents ask you to provide evidence for this assertion in a specific case.

So far, you have shown only wishful thinking, not any argument at all.

Clear errors are
(1) the genealogies of Jesus
(2) the resurrection stories compared among the gospels
(3) Judas death
etc. etc. etc.

As I wrote in another thread: Everyone reading the bible without bias can only conclude that it is not inerrant.

dado

i agree, it's not possible. and it gets worse with allegorical stories because allegories by their nature tend toward non-literal phraseology - and there will always be questions about whether an odd word/phrase is intentional or a scribal/translation error. i agree with the editorial preface to my daily bible:

this is shown very nicely in the KJV, where deliberate mistranslations were introduced and justified by saying "that's what it should say".