JoeWallack

JW:
First let me say that by imposing conditions on what would qualify as a meaningful error (no "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.) you've already adopted the Apologist technique of only applying doubt to possible errors. With a literary work which already seems unable to give any clear explanation of what salvation is, how it's achieved, where it is and when it will happen, accepting that there is doubt unless you have a clear explanation coming straight from God makes it impossible to construct a persuasive argument on these salvation questions. One is reminded of the classic Adam Family episode where they give Cousin It a haircut and when they finish there's nothing left. As you accept doubt as to what the Bible means it becomes increasingly diffiCult to make any convincing doctrine out of it.

You're also ignoring the issue of the supernatural claims of the Bible. Even if you accept the possibility of the Impossible there would still be significantly more doubt as to the possibility of a Biblical claim that an Impossible event occurred than there would be that any opposing Natural claims are a contradiction.

That being said, God apparently was largely denied a direct speaking part in the Christian Bible which instead has mainly a related ventriloquism Act (Skeptics make your own joke here). So it's tough to meet your requirement of showing God made a verbal error in the Christian Bible. In the big picture you have a Jewish Bible based on following an eternal detailed Law as opposed to a Christian Bible which is based on not following a detailed Law which was not eternal. But, to try to give you a problem illustrated by supposed direct quotes from God:

Jeremiah 32:35 (KJV)

35 "And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin."

Micah 6 (KJV)

7 "Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

Doesn't sound like a God whose ultimate plan of salvation was to offer his son as atonement for all sin, does it?


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/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abdulreis/myhomepage/

Gooch's dad

Genesis 30:37
Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white stripes in them, exposing the white which was in the rods.

Genesis 30:38
He set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the gutters, even in the watering troughs, where the flocks came to drink; and they mated when they came to drink.

Genesis 30:39
So the flocks mated by the rods, and the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

-----------

This is obviously a tale of Lamarckian genetics, and plain wrong. OK, it isn't a case of the Hebrew God saying "breed your flock in front of striped sticks, and you'll get striped and spotted sheep". But it's still a case of crashingly wrong science being presented as "God's Word".

The usual fundy apologetic for this, in my experience, has been "oh, the flock ended up spotted cuz Gawd did a miracle and made them that way". :banghead:

Kelly

Madkins007

Yeah, but is this God's error, a measuring error, an inside vs. outside error, or what? For all we know it was supposed to be a circle but got made as an oval.

It IS an error, but not the sort that I am looking for- thanks!

Madkins007

I am not a theologian, nor familiar with the various models of inerrancy. I am just thinking that we KNOW that there are translation errors in the Bible, and there seem to be errors involved with various witness accounts, and there is plenty of evidence that parts of the Bible were 'borrowed' in some way from other cultures or oral traditions, etc. Thus, the Bible is not 'inerrant' in many ways that people like me would use the term.

ALL I am trying to do is to try to determine if there is an example of a time God mis-spoke in a way that would really be considered a blunder that a god should not make. Not something a scribe wrote trying to record history, or the validity of tall tales or hyperbole- just a simple (in my mind) question of can we trust ANY part of the Bible to be 'God's word' in some way.

Madkins007

Again, I am trying to keep Jesus's comments out of this as I am not really sure of the validity of Jesus as God at this point either.

I was not trying to claim I accepted the explanation for John 7:38, just that it is not the sort of thing I am looking for.

As for the preterist ideas that at least some of the end-time prophecies already happened- the more I read this, the more sense it makes (although it is certainly not without its own problems). For example- the phrase 'all nations' in the Bible is often used, but rarely means 'every nation on Earth'. Romans 16:26 says that the teachings of the Scriptures have been made known to 'all nations'- obviously not literally true but consistant with other useages in both testaments.

Madkins007

Well...

Mt 26:34 - Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

Mt 26:74,75 - Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

.....

Mr 14:30 - And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.

Mr 14:68 - But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.

......

Lu 22:34 - And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

Lu 22:60,61 - And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

.....

Joh 13:38 - Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.

Joh 18:27 - Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

...........


Matthew, Luke and John just say that Peter will deny Jesus before the cock crows.

Mark says Peter will deny him before the cock crows twice without saying how many times the cock actually crew (crowed?)

As a prophecy, it really works either way, BUT as an error, it is more of a question of who more accurately recorded the real words rather than an example of Gd saying something untrue or erroneous.

Madkins007

I grew up with little if any religious instruction in my family, and became a Christian in my teens. for the next several years I was rather 'indoctrinated' into it and am having a hard time shaking that indoctrination now that I am in my 40s and trying to get past the layers of crud that seem to have built-up on Christianity in the last 2000 years.

It is NOT my intention to automatically toss out whatever is posted although old habits die hard and even you would have to admit that a lot of the stuff that traditionally shows up in these discussions is pretty low-level stuff.

I am also not trained in the discipline of logic, so if I am mis-stating my goals, criteria, etc., please forgive me- and possibly help me craft a better mission statement for the search?

Madkins007

Thank you. For the purposes of my search, I am quite willing to accept that the flood is an imported myth, a localized phenomena, a combination of the two, or pretty much anything else. By the same token, I am not willing to fight too hard about much of Genesis!

Madkins007

[QUOTE=Roland]So help me craft a better definition or term for the purposes of my quest!

In the example of the events of the resurrection, if the author made an accurate report of what he remembered, saw, heard, and/or was told, but that is indeed not what happened- is it a violation of inerrancy? Jacob claimed to wrestle God and his claim was subsequently recorded, yet we are also told no one can see God- so, if Jacob actually wrestled something or someone else but THOUGHT he wrestled God- is the author's record erroneous?

Heck if I know! It just seems to me that there HAS to be some way to 'prioritize' or categorize the errors, and then remove the categories that do not affect my quest. I don't care if witnesses disagree, or if some scribe screwed up a geneology. (Maybe I SHOULD, but I don't).

Maybe there IS no 'big error' left after centuries of tinkering and this search is fruitless. If that is the case, I'll just move on to the next question on my list!

Madkins007

OK, so how do I do it so I can wade through It's hair and see whether or not there IS anything under there? (LOVE the analogy, by the way!)

Thank you also for the quotes. I have not yet read them in context or thought about them much but it sounds more like what I am looking for!