Quote: Any so-called "discrepancy" you find has a Bible scholar's explanation why it is not a discrepancy, but merely a misunderstanding of culture/literature/person ect.
No. That is wrong but it does serve as the basis of apologetics, though. We see the same thing with oil companies pretending that global warming isn't happening. It's an excuse to cover their asses and divert attention from what they are doing.
In the case of bible apologetics you are guilty of falling into the trap outlined here.
Quote:Bible-believers are full of clever (and some not so clever) rationalizations. The crucial question, however, is not whether "answers" can be generated in response to Bible difficulties but whether credible answers can be produced. What is the best explanation? Bible-believers seem to think that any loophole, however improbable, that gets the Bible off the hook has solved the problem. Thus, it is not surprising that different, conflicting answers are often presented side by side. It never seems to occur to these people that such logic will also support the story of Goldilocks and the three bears! Or the Koran. Or, anything else. Once we abandon the probable in favor of the improbable--or even the less probable--we have abandoned objectivity. Without objectivity, there is not much hope of finding the truth; we only succeed in confirming our own prejudiced views--even as a group of flat-Earth folks in California did for years in their newsletters.
http://etb-biblical-errancy.blogspot.com...ailed.html
Pretending that you have come up with some clever rationalization doubtlessly makes the believer feel better ( as in, Whew...dodged that bullet) but when you invent asinine rationalizations to save your precious bible from the fate it so richly deserves you can't convince anyone else.
