Zone1 Is the Bible infallable?

[ding]

Is the Bible perfect in every way? This is a question that plagues many. If it is not perfect in every way, then how can it be trusted for anything? But then, we put our trust in imperfect human beings every day, people we know who are fallible. In fact, the Bible was written by those imperfect people. So, it seems odd to me that man would be perfect ONLY when it comes to relaying the scriptures.

For example, the gospels have disparities between them.

Matthew 27:5 "Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself

Acts 1:18 "Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out"

Are the two reconcilable? What you have in the gospels are eyewitness accounts, like you would in a court of law that is used as evidence. You would never expect all the eyewitness accounts to match perfectly, unless they colluded with themselves before hand, which would then discredit their testimony. But their testimony collectively should have a common theme of truth, which would be used as evidence in a court of law. The entire reason they were written was to relay who Jesus of Nazareth was and his mission from God to mankind. That is the common truth they all agree with.

I think Christians fail to realize this when insisting that every word in the Bible is perfect. That is why you have multiple authors, not just one, who don't use the other to write their stories. That is why there is 4 gospels and not just one to tell the world about the man named Jesus. THey were not copying the other books to make them all line up perfectly. Instead, they are simply relaying their experiences. I view this a more powerful tool of evidence using this perspective than to convince people that broken sinful people, like Peter who denied Jesus 3 times himself, were perfect when they relayed the gospels to us.

No where does the Bible claim to be perfect; it only claims to be God inspired who is perfect. And there is no getting around it being God inspired from my view. There are simply too many truths that mankind should not know about when they were written to conclude anything other than the scriptures being God inspired truth.

If God wanted the Bible to be perfect, he would have had Jesus, who is the only person in the Bible that has claim to perfection, to have written it. Instead, God relied on fallible man to do it.

That is all.

Thoughts?

I'll start with Genesis because that seems to confuse a lot of people. The accounts in Genesis are allegorical accounts of historical events and important truths that were passed down orally for thousands of years before being recorded in writing. We are obliged to read the text as written, which includes literal and symbolic aspects that are properties belonging to the author’s descriptive portrayal of reality.

 

[dudmuck]

Please provide the scriptures

I will start with the first one. We are given the lineage of Christ in Matthew and Luke, but they seem to differ. This is because one is from his mother and the other from his father.

I assume that is what you are referring to. If so, there is no contradiction there.

are you on the topic of Jesus's birth?

Visitors to Jesus:
Luke mentions shepherds as the first to see Jesus, while Matthew describes the arrival of the Magi (wise men) guided by a star.
Herod's reaction:
Matthew details King Herod's attempt to kill the baby Jesus by ordering the massacre of infants in Bethlehem, which is not mentioned in Luke.
Flight to Egypt:
According to Matthew, Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt to escape Herod, but Luke does not include this detail.
Mary's role:
Luke emphasizes Mary's perspective and includes her song of praise, the Magnificat, while Matthew focuses more on Joseph's role.

 

[theHawk]

I concede that what appears to be conflicting may not be in reality.

But there are other questions, such as

Matthew 4:18-22


Mark 1:16-20

Again, no conflict:

Immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him.

Why does it separate “their father” from them in this statement? Because he didn’t immediately follow them. He followed them a time later.

Another fail attempt at discrediting the Bible…

 

[theHawk]

Only two of the gospels give an account of the happenings surrounding Jesus’ birth. Matthew 1–2 gives information about Joseph and includes the story of the magi from the East. Luke 1–2 does not mention the magi but focuses on Mary and various others (Elizabeth, Zacharias, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna) who praised God for the Incarnation.

Various people have claimed that the books of Matthew and Luke contradict each other and that the narratives of Jesus’ birth are in opposition. The claim is specious, and the details provided by Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled into a comprehensive whole.

First, here are the details that Matthew and Luke unquestionably agree on:

Jesus was born of a virgin (Matthew 1:18, 23, 25; Luke 1:27).
Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth, a town in Galilee (Matthew 2:23; Luke 1:26; 2:4).
Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4–7).
After Jesus’ birth, Mary and Joseph returned to Nazareth (Matthew 2:23; Luke 2:39).

Second, here are the details that are unique to each writer:

The magi visit Jesus (Matthew 2:1–12).
Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt to escape Herod’s cruelty (Matthew 2:13–18).
A group of shepherds visit Jesus in the manger (Luke 2:8–20).
Joseph and Mary make a trip to the temple in Jerusalem in fulfillment of the Law (Luke 2:22–39).

Those who claim to see a contradiction in the narratives of Christ’s birth usually point to Luke 2:39, which says, “When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth,” and Matthew 2:21–23, which says that Joseph and his family went to Nazareth on their return from Egypt. According to the critics, Luke, who says nothing about the flight to Egypt, indicates that Jesus was taken to Nazareth directly from the temple; and Matthew, who does not mention the temple observances, says that Jesus was taken to Nazareth directly from Egypt.

It’s important to acknowledge that silence does not equal denial. Luke’s omission in his narrative of the flight to Egypt cannot be construed as evidence that it never happened. Luke never says that Joseph and Mary did not go to Egypt; he simply doesn’t comment on the event. Matthew never mentions the shepherds of the nativity—are we to assume because of Matthew’s omission that no shepherds came? Also important is the fact that neither Matthew nor Luke claim that he is penning an exhaustive account of every detail surrounding the birth of Christ.

The question then is, does Luke’s narrative allow for enough time for a trip to Egypt? Between the circumcision of Jesus and the trip to the temple was 32 days—about a month. Trying to fit a trip to Egypt and back in that time frame is problematic. A better way to reconcile Matthew’s and Luke’s narratives is to place the flight to Egypt after Jesus’ appearance in the temple. This assumes that Joseph and Mary remained in Bethlehem after Jesus’ birth and that they had a place to stay—the “house” of Matthew 2:11.

Luke 2:39 says, “When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.” Note that Luke does not say that they immediately returned to Galilee, and there is no reason to insert that word into the verse. (One could just as easily insert the word eventually.) The fact is that Luke doesn’t specify how much time elapsed. He simply says that, after their visit to the temple, Joseph and Mary settled in Nazareth. It could have been days later. It could have been months. If we place the flight to Egypt in the middle of Luke 2:39, we have a workable chronology:

1) After visiting the temple, Joseph and Mary return to Bethlehem. (In the month since Jesus’ birth, Joseph had probably sought temporary work there, and that work had become more permanent, perhaps. It’s also quite possible that Joseph was planning to resettle his new family in Bethlehem, thinking it would be good for the Son of David to be reared in the City of David).

2) Simeon and Anna begin spreading the news that they have seen the Messiah in Jerusalem (Luke 2:25–38).

3) Sometime later, the magi arrive at Jerusalem and confirm the news on the street that the Messiah has been born (Matthew 2:1–2). Herod sends the magi on to Bethlehem, where they find young Jesus (Matthew 2:3–11).

4) The magi return home a different way, and Joseph is warned in a dream to flee to Egypt (Matthew 2:12–13).

5) After a while, Herod figures out that the magi have disregarded his wishes, and he orders the slaughter of all males two years old and younger near Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16). The “two-year” computation indicates that Jesus could have already been that old.

6) Herod dies in 4 BC.

7) Joseph brings his family back from Egypt (Matthew 2:19–21). Out of fear of Herod’s son, Joseph changes his plan to settle in Bethlehem and instead moves back to Galilee (Matthew 2:22–23).

There is nothing in the above chronology that contradicts either Matthew or Luke. The only way to find a contradiction between Matthew 2:21–23 and Luke 2:39 is to make assumptions based on a preconceived bias against the veracity of Scripture.

Some critics find another supposed contradiction in the genealogies associated with the narratives of Jesus’ birth. Matthew 1:16 says that Joseph’s father was Jacob; Luke 3:23 says that Joseph’s father was Heli. There are several theories, but the best answer to this seeming discrepancy is that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. There was no Koine Greek word with the exclusive meaning of “son-in-law,” and so Joseph is called the “son of Heli” due to his marriage to Heli’s daughter, Mary. Joseph was a “son” by marriage.

The gospels were written by four different men to four unique audiences, so it is natural that they would include different details concerning the life of Christ. But their writing was superintended by the Holy Spirit, who guaranteed that what each wrote was the absolute truth. There are differences, but they can all be harmonized. The narratives of Jesus’ birth found in Matthew and Luke are not contradictory but complementary.

Yup, it’s typical of the detractors to use that tactic.

Like the account of the women who discovered the tomb. One account just details more about the women, the other is more vague. They do not contradict.

But these types of people can’t help their demonic urges to attack Christ and his followers. They desire above all else to drag as many as possible down into the pit with them.

 

[Votto]

I'll start with Genesis because that seems to confuse a lot of people. The accounts in Genesis are allegorical accounts of historical events and important truths that were passed down orally for thousands of years before being recorded in writing. We are obliged to read the text as written, which includes literal and symbolic aspects that are properties belonging to the author’s descriptive portrayal of reality.

Just Genesis?

What part of the Bible do you then take literally and why?

 

[theHawk]

are you on the topic of Jesus's birth?

Visitors to Jesus:
Luke mentions shepherds as the first to see Jesus, while Matthew describes the arrival of the Magi (wise men) guided by a star.
Herod's reaction:
Matthew details King Herod's attempt to kill the baby Jesus by ordering the massacre of infants in Bethlehem, which is not mentioned in Luke.
Flight to Egypt:
According to Matthew, Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt to escape Herod, but Luke does not include this detail.
Mary's role:
Luke emphasizes Mary's perspective and includes her song of praise, the Magnificat, while Matthew focuses more on Joseph's role.

Feel free to show the actual verses that contradict each other, because you haven’t shown anything yet.

 

[Woodznutz]

its god's message delivered by men, otherwise why would there be such redundancy.

Contradictions about Jesus's birth: The stories of Jesus's birth in Matthew and Luke are different.
Contradictions about Jesus's death: The Gospels differ on the day Jesus died, who went to his tomb, and what the women saw there.
Contradictions about Jesus's teachings: The Gospels of Mark and John don't mention the trinity, Jesus being God, or the virgin birth.
Contradictions about Jesus's genealogy: The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke differ.
Contradictions about Judas's betrayal: The Gospels give different reasons why Judas betrayed Jesus.
Contradictions about the voice from heaven: The voice from heaven after Jesus's baptism says different things in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Maybe someone messed around with the texts. Shame on them.

 

[ding]

Just Genesis?

What part of the Bible do you then take literally and why?

It's more complicated than that but obviously the laws and history absent embellishments. Take Exodus for example. There is a historical element which is true but the details are embellished to make the account more memorable and easier to pass down.

 

[Frankenstein]

It's more complicated than that but obviously the laws and history absent embellishments. Take Exodus for example. There is a historical element which is true but the details are embellished to make the account more memorable and easier to pass down.

Which details?

 

[Ret Old Man]

Is man fallible? Yes, there is no one perfect. Did man write the Bible? Yes, prophets selected by God.
The Bible was God breathed, God inspired, written by prophets of old.
The Bible has the answer for every problem encountered in life.

 

[BreezeWood]

Is the Bible perfect in every way? This is a question that plagues many. If it is not perfect in every way, then how can it be trusted for anything? But then, we put our trust in imperfect human beings every day, people we know who are fallible. In fact, the Bible was written by those imperfect people. So, it seems odd to me that man would be perfect ONLY when it comes to relaying the scriptures.

For example, the gospels have disparities between them.

Matthew 27:5 "Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself

Acts 1:18 "Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out"

Are the two reconcilable? What you have in the gospels are eyewitness accounts, like you would in a court of law that is used as evidence. You would never expect all the eyewitness accounts to match perfectly, unless they colluded with themselves before hand, which would then discredit their testimony. But their testimony collectively should have a common theme of truth, which would be used as evidence in a court of law. The entire reason they were written was to relay who Jesus of Nazareth was and his mission from God to mankind. That is the common truth they all agree with.

I think Christians fail to realize this when insisting that every word in the Bible is perfect. That is why you have multiple authors, not just one, who don't use the other to write their stories. That is why there is 4 gospels and not just one to tell the world about the man named Jesus. THey were not copying the other books to make them all line up perfectly. Instead, they are simply relaying their experiences. I view this a more powerful tool of evidence using this perspective than to convince people that broken sinful people, like Peter who denied Jesus 3 times himself, were perfect when they relayed the gospels to us.

No where does the Bible claim to be perfect; it only claims to be God inspired who is perfect. And there is no getting around it being God inspired from my view. There are simply too many truths that mankind should not know about when they were written to conclude anything other than the scriptures being God inspired truth.

If God wanted the Bible to be perfect, he would have had Jesus, who is the only person in the Bible that has claim to perfection, to have written it. Instead, God relied on fallible man to do it.

That is all.

Thoughts?

the 1st century events and what jesus taught are not in the desert bibles - liberation theology, self determination the original heavenly goals given a&e to accomplish for admission to the everlasting.

and the refutation of judaism by jesus - the false commandments claimed heavenly by moses, hereditary idolatry, apartheid religion claimed by abraham et al. - as those claims are within all three desert bible preambles make all three corrupt from their very beginnings.

jesus also made certain monotheism is verification all in the heavens are equal - there is not a specific deity for anyone to worship - all that is came from all that has been.

 

[Votto]

It's more complicated than that but obviously the laws and history absent embellishments. Take Exodus for example. There is a historical element which is true but the details are embellished to make the account more memorable and easier to pass down.

You don't believe in the Great Flood?

 

[SweetSue92]

God is inerrant. We agree on that.

Man is not inerrant. We agree on that.

Man writing the Bible is inerrant.

Seems contradictory, so it could only be explained by it being a miracle after miracle to save it from fallibility.

Christians believe that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the writings are infallible. This pertains to the original manuscripts, not copying errors, etc.

 

[ding]

Which details?

He does a pretty good job discussing it and he's entertaining.

 

[ding]

You don't believe in the Great Flood?

No. I believe there was a great flood. Just not how they described it exactly.

And the Tower of Babel was about the migration from Mesopotamia.

Both historical events. Both embellished to make them more memorable and easier to pass down and both sprinkled with moral truths.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Is the Bible perfect in every way? This is a question that plagues many. If it is not perfect in every way, then how can it be trusted for anything? But then, we put our trust in imperfect human beings every day, people we know who are fallible. In fact, the Bible was written by those imperfect people. So, it seems odd to me that man would be perfect ONLY when it comes to relaying the scriptures.

For example, the gospels have disparities between them.

Matthew 27:5 "Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself

Acts 1:18 "Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out"

Are the two reconcilable? What you have in the gospels are eyewitness accounts, like you would in a court of law that is used as evidence. You would never expect all the eyewitness accounts to match perfectly, unless they colluded with themselves before hand, which would then discredit their testimony. But their testimony collectively should have a common theme of truth, which would be used as evidence in a court of law. The entire reason they were written was to relay who Jesus of Nazareth was and his mission from God to mankind. That is the common truth they all agree with.

I think Christians fail to realize this when insisting that every word in the Bible is perfect. That is why you have multiple authors, not just one, who don't use the other to write their stories. That is why there is 4 gospels and not just one to tell the world about the man named Jesus. THey were not copying the other books to make them all line up perfectly. Instead, they are simply relaying their experiences. I view this a more powerful tool of evidence using this perspective than to convince people that broken sinful people, like Peter who denied Jesus 3 times himself, were perfect when they relayed the gospels to us.

No where does the Bible claim to be perfect; it only claims to be God inspired who is perfect. And there is no getting around it being God inspired from my view. There are simply too many truths that mankind should not know about when they were written to conclude anything other than the scriptures being God inspired truth.

If God wanted the Bible to be perfect, he would have had Jesus, who is the only person in the Bible that has claim to perfection, to have written it. Instead, God relied on fallible man to do it.

That is all.

Thoughts?

Communism Has Been an Imitation of Christian History

The Evangelists thought they would soon be rulers if they presented false testimony that would awe and intimidate people.'

This is not contradicted by their actual fate, proves that they were babbling power-freaks is evidenced by those who followed them centuries later, when the time was ripe for escapism and absolute obedience.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You don't believe in the Great Flood?

These Myths Provide Rough Clues to Prehistory

The Deluge was the result of the melting that signified the end of an Ice Age. That created a lake that extended from Switzerland to Afghanistan. The evil people who were wiped out were the Neanderthals. Noah was just one of the many Cro-Magnon survivors who had boats. They wound up in the high and dry land of the Caucasus.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yup, it’s typical of the detractors to use that tactic.

Like the account of the women who discovered the tomb. One account just details more about the women, the other is more vague. They do not contradict.

But these types of people can’t help their demonic urges to attack Christ and his followers. They desire above all else to drag as many as possible down into the pit with them.

Desperately Suppressing Disbelief

It all contradicts what normal people can be expected to believe in, which can be proved by applying it to anyone else, such as Mohammed, Joseph Smith, or all the obvious fictions of mythology.

 

[ding]

Desperately Suppressing Disbelief

It all contradicts what normal people can be expected to believe in, which can be proved by applying it to anyone else, such as Mohammed, Joseph Smith, or all the obvious fictions of mythology.

No. It doesn't. You don't understand what it is or its context. The reader is obliged to read the text as written, which includes literal and symbolic aspects that are properties belonging to the author’s descriptive portrayal of reality. Since you don't place these texts in context and don't understand the point of the accounts you have no chance of reading these texts as the author intended. Your explanation for each account is skewed by your belief that these accounts are idiotic, so you provide an explanation that is idiotic. My explanation for each account is based on reading the text as written, which includes literal and symbolic aspects that are properties belonging to the author’s descriptive portrayal of reality. So my explanation won't sound idiotic. My explanation will make a lot of sense. Which you promptly dismiss because you are so certain you can't be wrong about anything. The problem is I'm going to ass fuck you with logic, common sense, facts and evidence until you run away.

 

[ding]

These Myths Provide Rough Clues to Prehistory

The Deluge was the result of the melting that signified the end of an Ice Age. That created a lake that extended from Switzerland to Afghanistan. The evil people who were wiped out were the Neanderthals. Noah was just one of the many Cro-Magnon survivors who had boats. They wound up in the high and dry land of the Caucasus.

The timing isn't right for the end of the last glacial PERIOD. We're still in an ice age. A more likely scenario is an asteroid strike in the ocean or the northern polar cap ~6,000 to 10,000 years ago.