simon kole

If I understand you correctly, it proves there is no internal textual inconsistency between them, which is my purview.

simon kole

How many times are you going around this bush?

My purview is limited to internal inconsistencies between the texts of the Bible.
My arguments in that regard are the only ones I will defend.

You are asking why there is no external corroboration of what the Bible reports.
That is not my purview, which is limited to internal inconsistencies between the texts only.

I don't think I will be visiting this issue with you again.

simon kole

Nor have you have inescapably conclusively disproven miracles, and therefore disproven its truth on that basis.

schriverja

A bit of a reboot. Let's actually discuss the topic at hand, namely, whether or not there are doctrinal or logical inconsistencies regarding specific topics in the Bible.

Here's a couple of topics and my takes.
Is the Jewish Law to be followed by Christians?
1. Apparently, Galatians is a polemic work by Paul to oppose the teaching of Peter. Assuming that the actual followers of Jesus still believed that the Jewish customs should be followed (Matthew 5:17-20, 19 indicates this as well as Luke 16:17), Paul is apparently seeking to overthrow this Jewish interpretation throughout his letter to the Galatians, and he is directly confronting teachings by Peter (Galatians 1:6-9, verse 8 is apparently referring to Peter), Galatians 1:16-19 is Paul distancing himself from the 'Twelve', Galatians 2:11-13 confirms that Peter and James had been teaching that the Jewish customs are still to be followed, and 2:15-16 makes Paul's views clear. Paul, however contradicts himself (in my view) by invoking Deut 27:26 in Galatians 3:10).
2. Interestingly enough, the author of Acts seeks to minimize the tension between Paul and Peter. Acts 10:9-48 shows that Peter was given the vision to preach even to the Gentiles, which seems to conflict with the fact that Paul claims that the Gentile ministry was only accepted after Paul's success (Galatians 2:7-9). Acts shows that there was tension among the early Jewish followers in accepting the Gentiles into the church (Acts 11:1-18), which is difficult to explain if Peter, who was likely the first Pope-type figure, instigated this policy. Acts further tries to imply that Peter wasn't preaching that the Jewish customs should be followed, in the account of the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-21) and that Peter would preach to the Gentiles as well as Jews. If there was no tension between Paul and Peter on this point, why was Paul so venomous in Galatians (2:9, Paul slaps at Peter, James, and John, sarcastically saying 'those reputed to be pillars'). Again Paul says that Peter, James and John would preach to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:9)). Paul again says that believers are no longer subject to the law at all, but to faith alone (Gal. 3:25). Interestingly enough, according to Acts 21:21-26 Paul apparently acknowledges in deed that he needs to be ritually pure (according to the Jewish customs). Acts 21:24 specifically states the reason for Paul undergoing the ritual is to reject the 'reports' that he is rejecting the law, even though he clearly is according to his own letter to Galatians. Ironically, this purification ritual at the temple is where Paul gets arrested (Acts 21:27-36).
3. NT Passages that support an abolishment of the Old Covenant (Hebrews 10:15-18; Gal 3:23-25; 2 Cor 3:7-17; Eph 2:15; Heb 8:13, Rom 7:6 etc). Interesting to note that all of these passages are Paul's, with the likely exception of Hebrews (which has an unknown author). No other author in the NT apparently holds this view.
4. OT Passages that support that the Old Covenant was permanent ( Exo 31:16-17, Exo 12:14-17, Mal 3:6-7) and will never be replaced or added to (for example Deut 4:2, 13:1).

Biblical explanations for suffering*
1. Job apparently suffers so God can win a bet...
2. Moses apparently thinks suffering is a generational karma thing
3. Apparently Jewish thought, at least in the first century, was that a person's (or parent's) sin brought upon suffering (John 9)
4. Jesus apparently thinks that suffering is present so that work of God can be done in people's lives (John 9), at least in this one instance.
5. Genesis 3 apparently says that suffering and hardship were a result of disobedience.
6. Proverbs seems to imply that suffering comes from a lack of wisdom (9:12, 22:3 and 27:12)

*simplified and paraphrased from Bart Ehrman's God's Problem book...

edit: either of these topics probably could do to have a thread of their own to unpack them...

Jaybees

No astronomers at that time noticed this:

"Joshua 10:14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel."

It's safe to say it never happened. I'm not arguing about miracles, I'm just wondering why no one outside these few acres of land even noticed it.

Don't you agree that someone, someplace, somehow would have realiazed that the sun stood still that day?

If not, please explain.

simon kole

Biblical contradictions are the OP for a thread on this forum, where my purview in this forum is limited to internal inconsistencies within the texts, including the internal basic doctrinal and basic logical contradictions I address on this thread.
Correct. Just as you cannot inescapably conclusively prove its untruth.
You base its untruth on assumptions you cannot inescapably conclusively prove to be true.
You have inconclusive evidence for your assumptions, but they do not constitute inescapably conclusive proof.

That the Bible is true or untrue are both a matter of belief.

Jaybees

For good reason.

Jarhyn

I've proven that the bible contains logical contradictions given the differences between apparent universal history and biblical "history". You choose to ignore that and make believe in your posts as if I have not.

Jaybees

Even though you said that you "know" the bible is true?

simon kole

That's a good question. But just because a specific statement is not included in the account, does not mean it is not inferred by it.

To say that Judas bought a field with his money is not entirely inappropriate, since those to whom he gave the money bought a field with it. I do not see this difference as a material contradiction, because I use a more practical dynamic understanding of the texts, as opposed to a theoretical static understanding of them.

In one account he "hanged" himself, in the other account he "fell headlong."

In a more practical understanding of what occurred, could it not be that he hanged himself, and when the body finally fell, either because someone took it down or because of decay, it was in a decomposed condition and so broke open in the middle?

The texts do give two different reasons for calling it the Field of Blood. One says it was because it was blood money to betray Jesus. The other says it was because his body broke open.

Could it be the chief priests called it the Field of Blood for the first reason, and "everybody in Jerusalem who heard about his body breaking open" called it that for the second reason?

I agree, the accounts are not forensically identical. But I don't require that kind of identity between accounts to arrive at a satisfactory understanding of them, particularly when the differences are not material to the rest of the Bible.

But when the differences are material to the rest of the Bible, I go over them with a fine-toothed comb, as I did the basic doctrinal inconsistency of the Bible, in post #35 on this thread.