The Bible: What Was Placed In

[Gunny]

Nobody that believes in the infalibility of the Bible has to answer questions for you. Talk to God if you want all the answers. Of course, if you would actually read the Bible instead of trying to dissect it, you would find that it says we will not know all the answers. That particular "we" includes you, whether or not you like it.

Nobody that believes any particular social or political view "has" to answer any questions on this site. I'm merely making a general inquiry. I can assure you, I've read and studied the Bible extensively, and textual criticism is the chief basis behind my apostasy. The purpose of textual criticism as applied to the New Testament, and thus, modern Christianity functions well because I would expect that those who believed in the infallibility of the Bible would be eager to answer questions so as to "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks [them] a reason for the hope that is in [them]." (1 Peter 3:15) But if the infallibility of the Bible can be successfully challenged, so can many other aspects of fundamentalist Christianity.

Wrong. Nice long-winded speech, Harry, but the fact remains, it is not up to us to have all the answers. That's the problem with intellectual wannabe's like you. You think if an answer isn't provided for each and every thing, then it doesn't count or you can just make up your own.

You as a human being are inconsistent. Does that mean I should not believe in your existence?

If you don't want to believe in God, then don't. I would think with all the threads you God-haters post, you could disprove him/prove with evidence your belief that He does not exist, since you obviously believe he does NOT exist. What do you base that belief on? Faith?

Good luck with that. You're dismissed. Now go away.

 

[Agnapostate]

Wrong. Nice long-winded speech, Harry, but the fact remains, it is not up to us to have all the answers. That's the problem with intellectual wannabe's like you. You think if an answer isn't provided for each and every thing, then it doesn't count or you can just make up your own.

You as a human being are inconsistent. Does that mean I should not believe in your existence?

If you don't want to believe in God, then don't. I would think with all the threads you God-haters post, you could disprove him/prove with evidence your belief that He does not exist, since you obviously believe he does NOT exist. What do you base that belief on? Faith?

Good luck with that. You're dismissed. Now go away.

Please, you don't have any evidence or basis for claiming that I don't believe in God because I'm not in ideological lockstep with the Christian Right. Indeed, most of my cultural connections are with the liberation theology movement.

I said nothing as to the existence or nonexistence of God in this thread; I'm merely commenting on an integral component of the Christian fundamentalist belief system; the infallibility (or inerrancy in the specific case of hard-core fundamentalists) of the Bible, which is easily disprovable by the examples that I have posted.

 

[Avatar4321]

Please, you don't have any evidence or basis for claiming that I don't believe in God because I'm not in ideological lockstep with the Christian Right. Indeed, most of my cultural connections are with the liberation theology movement.

I said nothing as to the existence or nonexistence of God in this thread; I'm merely commenting on an integral component of the Christian fundamentalist belief system; the infallibility (or inerrancy in the specific case of hard-core fundamentalists) of the Bible, which is easily disprovable by the examples that I have posted.

I dont see why you have to believe the Bible is infalliable or inerrant to have faith in the living God or be a good Christian. The Bible doesnt claim to be eiher infalliable or inerrant.

But then im not a fundamentalist.

 

[Arthur]

For religious people who think seriously about these things, the Bible is a story book. It is not meant to be taken literally. I realize many would disagree but I know many religious who get tired of pointing out the contradictions and silliness. But here's a thought let's try to share the view that it is a storybook and so is the Koran and so are [any you can think of] with other fundamentalists so they can enter the modern age. And let's just live ethically and morally, and when you die if something comes next, you can say, 'see I told you so' ad infinitum. You'll have plenty of time then, now, just be nice.

We're close in thinking. I think the Bible is allegory and metaphor and not to be literally interpreted. I have a mystical feel for the bible--not a fundamentalist view.

If the Bible only contains an ethical blueprint--then it is lacking. More than ethics are required on a spiritual path.

 

[Arthur]

Nobody that believes in the infalibility of the Bible has to answer questions for you. Talk to God if you want all the answers. Of course, if you would actually read the Bible instead of trying to dissect it, you would find that it says we will not know all the answers. That particular "we" includes you, whether or not you like it.

Nobody that believes any particular social or political view "has" to answer any questions on this site. I'm merely making a general inquiry. I can assure you, I've read and studied the Bible extensively, and textual criticism is the chief basis behind my apostasy. The purpose of textual criticism as applied to the New Testament, and thus, modern Christianity functions well because I would expect that those who believed in the infallibility of the Bible would be eager to answer questions so as to "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks [them] a reason for the hope that is in [them]." (1 Peter 3:15) But if the infallibility of the Bible can be successfully challenged, so can many other aspects of fundamentalist Christianity.

Wrong. Nice long-winded speech, Harry, but the fact remains, it is not up to us to have all the answers. That's the problem with intellectual wannabe's like you. You think if an answer isn't provided for each and every thing, then it doesn't count or you can just make up your own.

You as a human being are inconsistent. Does that mean I should not believe in your existence?

If you don't want to believe in God, then don't. I would think with all the threads you God-haters post, you could disprove him/prove with evidence your belief that He does not exist, since you obviously believe he does NOT exist. What do you base that belief on? Faith?

Good luck with that. You're dismissed. Now go away.

You employ ad hominem in your post by calling a poster who questions God and the Bible a 'God-hater'. There are no God hating statements in the OP. The OP points out apparent contradictions in the Bible. The OP is full of Bible quotes. In my opinion, I agree that it is not up to Christians to explain anything about their faith or how they resolve those contradictions. That's between the believer and God or the believer and his/her Bible study group or congregation and minister/priest.

The OP challenges the view of the Bible as inerrant and infallible. Plenty of Christians believers in God challenge the Bible similarly.

Nobody has all the answers.

This is a discussion.

 

[Sunni Man]

For religious people who think seriously about these things, the Bible is a story book. It is not meant to be taken literally. I realize many would disagree but I know many religious who get tired of pointing out the contradictions and silliness. But here's a thought let's try to share the view that it is a storybook and so is the Koran and so are [any you can think of] with other fundamentalists so they can enter the modern age. And let's just live ethically and morally, and when you die if something comes next, you can say, 'see I told you so' ad infinitum. You'll have plenty of time then, now, just be nice.

We're close in thinking. I think the Bible is allegory and metaphor and not to be literally interpreted. I have a mystical feel for the bible--not a fundamentalist view.

If the Bible only contains an ethical blueprint--then it is lacking. More than ethics are required on a spiritual path.

Do you believe in God?

 

[Arthur]

Please, you don't have any evidence or basis for claiming that I don't believe in God because I'm not in ideological lockstep with the Christian Right. Indeed, most of my cultural connections are with the liberation theology movement.

I said nothing as to the existence or nonexistence of God in this thread; I'm merely commenting on an integral component of the Christian fundamentalist belief system; the infallibility (or inerrancy in the specific case of hard-core fundamentalists) of the Bible, which is easily disprovable by the examples that I have posted.

I dont see why you have to believe the Bible is infalliable or inerrant to have faith in the living God or be a good Christian. The Bible doesnt claim to be eiher infalliable or inerrant.

But then im not a fundamentalist.

It is part of some Christian faiths to consider the Bible as infallible or inerrant. Catholics think the Pope is infallible. I think infallible can mean the Bible, God or the Pope is the final authority.

The Bible is considered the Word of God.

 

[Sunni Man]

It is part of some Christian faiths to consider the Bible as infallible or inerrant. Catholics think the Pope is infallible. I think infallible can mean the Bible, God or the Pope is the final authority.

The Bible is considered the Word of God.[/QUOTE]

Again, do you believe in God?

 

[Arthur]

It's none of your business whether I believe in God or not. Some posters have jumped to a conclusion that the author of the OP does not believe in God because he questions inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible.

 

[Sunni Man]

It's none of your business whether I believe in God or not.

By your rude answer it is easy to deduct that you do Not believe in God

 

[Arthur]

No problem. If you want to make up your own answer when I refuse to answer your irrelevant personal question, so be it. For short cut sake, why not do this?

Do you believe in God? No you don't. Don't wait for an answer. Don't respect my privacy. Make up your own story and amuse yourself.

 

[Sunni Man]

No problem. If you want to make up your own answer when I refuse to answer your irrelevant personal question, so be it.

Sounds like a typical convoluted answer a Buddhist would give to a very easy question.

 

[KittenKoder]

It's none of your business whether I believe in God or not. Some posters have jumped to a conclusion that the author of the OP does not believe in God because he questions inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible.

By your rude answer it is easy to deduct that you do Not believe in God

Case in point, I'd say.

 

[AllieBaba]

Actually, no.

They just found evidence of Hebrew settlements in Egypt at the time of Moses. Also have found evidence of Hebrews living in the desert.

Imagine that!

The desert does not equal Cairo.

The bible doesn't say anything about Cairo.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The pope is not infallible. He's just a man.

The NT is not infallible, it was heavily edited by man.

The OT is not infallible, it was written by men.

The Torah is the only thing that is infallible, as it has stayed the same over 3,500 years.

And Islam is a fucked up demonic religion.

 

[Arthur]

The Pope is considered infallible by Catholics--which means he is the final say on matters of scriptural interpretation and Church doctrine.

Infallibility or inerrancy of the Bible is a fundamentalist POV. Fundamentalists consider the Bible literally the word of God as written down by man.

 

[Agnapostate]

Evangelicals consider the Bible to be infallible; fundamentalists consider it to be inerrant. They're actually somewhat different standards.

 

[Avatar4321]

Evangelicals consider the Bible to be infallible; fundamentalists consider it to be inerrant. They're actually somewhat different standards.

And neither of them are correct. But for some reason they conclude that unless these ideas are true, they cant have faith in God or that Christianity cant be real. Its never made sense to me.

 

[jeffrockit]

Those who believe in the infallibility of the Bible have questions to answer regarding numerous major textual errors and contradictions contained in this allegedly divinely inspired book, as well as several regarding a few books of the Bible that are evidently forgeries. Firstly, we shall look at a few examples of passages in the Bible that were not original portions of the text and were apparently added by later scribes. These passages are primarily not present in Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest and most reliable surviving manuscripts, as well as several other manuscripts and textual witnesses of great importance. Some may claim that these false passages are not of any particular importance. But in a book that claims to be divinely inspired and infallible, those claims obviously need to be verified, and it is difficult to claim that a book is infallible if it contains numerous errors. Moreover, even if the Bible was infallible at one point, we obviously no longer have access to the “infallible” version of the text.

1. Mark 16:9-20: This passage is not present in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts available to us. The early church fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that this passage was not present in almost all of the Greek manuscripts available to them. As John MacArthur notes, “The internal evidence from this passage…weighs heavily against Mark’s authorship. The transition between verses 8 and 9 is abrupt and awkward. The Greek particle translated ‘now’ that begins verse 9 implies continuity with the preceding narrative. What follows, however, does not continue the story of the women referred to in verse 8, but describes Christ’s appearance to Mary Magdalene. The masculine particle in verse 9 expects ‘he’ as its antecedent, yet the subject of verse 8 is the women. Although she had just been mentioned 3 times, verse 9 introduces Mary Magdalene as if for the first time. Further, if Mark wrote verse 9, it is strange that he would only now note that Jesus had cast 7 demons out of her. The angel spoke of Jesus’s appearing to his followers in Galilee, yet the appearances described in verses 9 through 20 are all in the Jerusalem area. Finally, the presence in these verses of a number of Greek words used nowhere else in Mark argues that Mark did not write them. Verses 9 through 20 represent an early (they were known to the second-century fathers Irenaeus, Tatian, and possibly Justin Martyr) attempt to complete Mark’s gospel.” Even MacArthur, himself a Christian apologist and minister who believes in the “divine inspiration” and “infallibility” of the text, acknowledges that Mark 16:9-20 is very obviously a later addition to the Gospel. It is difficult to claim that we currently possess divinely inspired Scripture, since it has been clearly altered since it was first written.

2. John 7:53-8 This passage is of greater importance than Mark 16:9-20, since the text therein relates the well known story of Jesus forgiving a woman caught in adultery, and telling her Pharisee captors that “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” Yet, this passage is also not present in the earliest and best manuscripts available to us. At times, it has been placed after verses 36, 44, 52, or chapter 21, verse 25. One manuscript even places it after Luke 21:38. Various manuscripts mark the passage so as to indicate skepticism toward its inclusion in the Gospel. In addition, Luke 7:52 flows well into Luke 8:12, and 7:53-8:11 are an awkward interruption. As MacArthur again notes, no Greek church father comments on the passage until the 12th century.

3. Acts 8:37: Though a relatively minor verse involving the evangelist Philip’s baptism of an Ethiopian, it is remarkable in that it is an extremely explicit statement of the salvation brought through belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior and acceptance of that salvation. Verse 36 notes that the Ethiopian saw some water, and asked Philip what prevented him from being baptized. Verse 37 follows thusly. “Then Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he answered and said, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’”

4. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: “For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?” This is an important doctrine regarding the practice of women speaking in church. Female ministers are still frowned upon or prohibited by various Christian sects because of this passage and similar passages in 1 Timothy, which I will address shortly. The problem with verses 34 and 35 are that several important textual witnesses place these verses after verse 40 rather than verse 33, which indicates that these verses may have originated as a scribal marginal note rather than an original part of the epistle. Moreover, verses 34 and 35 do not seem to be contextually related to the verses that surround them. If they were removed from the passage, verse 33 would flow well into verse 36, but verses 34 and 35 create an awkward interruption similar to that of Luke 7:53-8:11. Perhaps most importantly, verses 34 and 35 seem to conflict with statements made earlier in chapter 11.

5. 1 John 5:7-8: These verses contain a section that is the most explicit reference to the modern Christian doctrine of the trinity that exists, known as the Comma Johanneum. They read as follows. "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.” The bolded section of the text appears to be a later addition to the text, as again, they are not contained in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.

As Christian sects who disbelieve in the doctrine of the Trinity frequently note, the word “Trinity” is contained nowhere in the Bible, and this invalidity of the most explicit statement of it poses problems for modern Christians, essentially all of whom accept that doctrine. As MacArthur again notes, “These words are a direct reference to the Trinity, and what they say is accurate. External manuscript evidence, however, is against them being in the original epistle. They do not appear in any Greek mss. dated before circa tenth century A.D. Only 8 very late Greek mss. contain the reading, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Furthermore, 4 of these 8 mss. contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. No Greek or Latin father, even those involved in Trinitarian controversies, quotes them; no ancient version except the Latin records them (not the Old Latin in its early form or the Vulgate). Internal evidence also militates against their presence, since they disrupt the sense of the writer’s thoughts. Most likely, the words were added much later to the text. There is no verse in Scripture which so explicitly states the obvious reality of the Trinity…” Hence, this obviously poses problems, as I noted previously.

Having established at least five passages of dubious legitimacy, I would also note several major books of the New Testament which are not regarded as legitimate, and are thought to be forgeries. These would be the Pastoral Epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy, as well as Titus. The arguments against the authorship of these books by Paul are accepted by the majority of modern textual critics, and include the facts that the vocabulary of the epistles contain many words and phrases seen nowhere else in Paul’s writing, or indeed, anywhere else in the New Testament, that the false teachings described by the epistles are developed forms of second-century Gnosticism, or other schools of Christianity that competed with the school that we are familiar with today, that the church organizational structure described therein is far too developed for Paul’s era, and similarly seems to parallel the Gnosticism of the second century, and that the chronological framework of Paul’s life in the book of Acts does not match up with many of the historical references made by the author of the Pastoral Epistles.

A similar error (or deliberate omission) seems to have been made by Paul himself concerning his own activities after he was met by Jesus at Damascus. In Acts 9:26, he is recorded as attempting to meet the disciples at Jerusalem. (Saul and Paul are his respective Hebrew and Roman names.) “And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple.” Yet, in Galatians 1:17, he claims “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.” He then says in verses 18 through 20, “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.)” Now, Acts 9:23 reads, “Now after many days were past, the Jews plotted to kill him.” This is a reference to his expulsion from Damascus, which evidently took place after his conversion there.

Those who believe in the infallibility of the text have attempted to claim that “many days” refers to a period of three years in which Paul was ministering in Nabatean Arabia, which is an implausible explanation. Moreover, the passage in Acts continues to say this in verse 27. “But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. So he was with them at Jerusalem, coming in and going out.”

These two passages are obviously not a reference to the same visit, since in the Acts passage, Luke reports that Paul was brought to the apostles by Barnabas, whereas in the Galatians passage, Paul reports that he only visited Peter (though some texts read Cephas) and James, and did not visit the other apostles. He also apparently finds it necessary to claim that he is not lying about this report of his events. Moreover, it seems odd that he would only mention his conversion in Damascus to the apostles if he had been ministering for three years in Nabatean Arabia. Hence, there is a clear contradiction between Luke and Paul’s accounts, and Paul may even be being willfully deceptive in this matter, which does not reflect well on the character arguably the most important figure in the development of Christianity besides Christ.

There are also several major contradictions in the Gospels regarding Christ’s birth and death, and I’ll be back to present those tomorrow if this thread receives a satisfactory response from those who claim to believe in the infallibility of the Bible.

You wasted all that time to research something you don't believe in...that's intelligent!

I guess I will just have to throw out my bible because some non-believer on a message board states that the bible is inconsistent. I'm sure everyone will be waiting with breathless anticipation for you next post.

 

[Agnapostate]

You wasted all that time to research something you don't believe in...that's intelligent!

I guess I will just have to throw out my bible because some non-believer on a message board states that the bible is inconsistent. I'm sure everyone will be waiting with breathless anticipation for you next post.

You don't know what I do and don't believe in. Moreover, I made no claims as to "inconsistencies" in the Bible, as you would know if you applied more focus to your reading comprehension abilities. Rather, I noted several portions of the Bible which are not present in the oldest and best surviving manuscripts (most notably Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), and were therefore likely added by later scribes, either as marginal notes, or as deliberate alterations of the text.