What would an error in the bible even show?

[Jeffonthenet]

It seems to me that it wouldn't show that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead or that God did not work through miracles as it is written in the bible. It would show that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is false, but I don't think it would effect drastically the most important parts of Christianity. Certianly some people have claimed this doctrine is the most important part of Christianity, (fundamentalist Christians) but that doesn't mean that they are correct.

[Minimalist]

It seems to me that it wouldn't show that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead

You do understand that none of your silly gospels depict any such scene, right? The have various people/groups finding a so-called "empty tomb" and various and sundry persons or "angels" hanging around. The one "gospel" which did pretend to have jesus walking out of the tomb - the gospel of "Peter," features a giant, walking, talking cross and was apparently too fucking stupid even for the church fathers who voted it out of the canon in 397 at the Council of Carthage.

[Erinome]

You say that as if there are no errors in the bible.

[Jeffonthenet]

It seems to me that it wouldn't show that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead

You do understand that none of your silly gospels depict any such scene, right? The have various people/groups finding a so-called "empty tomb" and various and sundry persons or "angels" hanging around. The one "gospel" which did pretend to have jesus walking out of the tomb - the gospel of "Peter," features a giant, walking, talking cross and was apparently too fucking stupid even for the church fathers who voted it out of the canon in 397 at the Council of Carthage.

The gnostic gospels like the "gospel of Peter" are mostly dated by historians to the second and third centuries, while the Christian gospels (except maybe John) and many of the NT letters are dated by almost every historian from 100 AD and before. And differences in the gospels, though some have found logically possible ways of reconciling them, would not show that there is no historical core anymore than differences in any other historical documents would show that they had no historical core.

[Minimalist]

The gnostics WERE xtians. Who knows...they may well have been the originals.

[Welsh cake]

What would an error in the bible even show?

Well that depends on the nature of the error doesn't it?

If its a fatal error, a massive Bible blunder, then its irreconcilable and no apologist can hope to make excuses for it that will stand.

Take the story of Jonah for example. Its biologically impossible for the biggest whales to swallow people. Its biologically impossible for anyone to survive three days inside a cetacean or any other large life-form if it were possible for that matter. You'd die from asphyxiation long before crushing pressure or the gastric fluids would start to damage you.

If Jonah didn't submit to god in the belly of the whale, and didn't turn back to the city of Nineveh to prophesy against it, the entire story, as my old RE teacher surmised when I was still a Christian, is nothing but an allegory.

It seems to me that it wouldn't show that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead or that God did not work through miracles as it is written in the bible.

Why am I not surprised you think that?

You don't exercise any critical thinking or care about the truth. You just want to believe and take it all on faith, which is not a path to truth, just gullibility.

So why even beg the question Jeff if you're convinced Jesus Christ is real?

[Marnie]

You do understand that none of your silly gospels depict any such scene, right? The have various people/groups finding a so-called "empty tomb" and various and sundry persons or "angels" hanging around. The one "gospel" which did pretend to have jesus walking out of the tomb - the gospel of "Peter," features a giant, walking, talking cross and was apparently too fucking stupid even for the church fathers who voted it out of the canon in 397 at the Council of Carthage.

The gnostic gospels like the "gospel of Peter" are mostly dated by historians to the second and third centuries, while the Christian gospels (except maybe John) and many of the NT letters are dated by almost every historian from 100 AD and before. And differences in the gospels, though some have found logically possible ways of reconciling them, would not show that there is no historical core anymore than differences in any other historical documents would show that they had no historical core.

Bingo. The earliest gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, so the writers relied on the memorization of oral stories, each other's gospels, and their respective sects and their own beliefs. The earliest canonical gospel, the Gospel of Mark, is dated around 70 AD, forty years after the death of Christ. Forty years of oral stories is effectively playing a lifelong game of telephone.

If you accept the gospels account of oral stories as factual and all of them actually taking place, you need to accept the Greek myths recorded took place and have a factual basis, or Germanic legends are based on a real event.

[Minimalist]

Its biologically impossible for anyone to survive three days inside a cetacean or any other large life-form if it were possible for that matter.

I bet the answer is......




GODDIDIT


That seems to be their one-size fits all answer for everything.

[Marnie]

Its biologically impossible for anyone to survive three days inside a cetacean or any other large life-form if it were possible for that matter.

I bet the answer is......




GODDIDIT


That seems to be their one-size fits all answer for everything.

I struggle to see the logic in the people who try to convince you someone could survive in the belly of a large fish for three days, two people could populate the entire planet, a man could fit all the animals of the earth into an ark. The stupidest thing I have ever heard is that Jonah survived in the whale, but the Stomach acid's made him white like a ghost making his preaching more effective.

It makes more sense to just say an all-powerful being could make things that seem impossible to us possible.

Luke 1:37
For nothing is impossible with God.

[Tiberius]

What would it show? It would show that the claim made by Christians that "the Bible is true" is wrong. It would show that the Bible is either not the word of God, or the word of a lying or idiotic God. It would show that you cannot just assume the Bible is correct (though to be truthful, you shouldn't assume this about any book). It would demonstrate that "faith" in the Bible and Christianity is misplaced.