What would an error in the bible even show?

[Undeceived]

Marnie,
I'm still waiting for proof. Does your opinion triumph history writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD?

Proof of what exactly? This is not merely my opinion. I am presenting the views of mainstream biblical scholarship. 2nd and third century authors are not authority sources on biblical authorship. Their claims of authorship are widely held to be false by modern scholars. They were writing many decades to even a century or more after the death of Christ and the disciples.

You can rely on men writing out of ignorance 2,000 years ago. I'll rely on modern scholarship.

"held to be false" on what grounds? Be careful not to fall into ad populum (appeal to the people) or ad verecundiam (authority). What are their grounds for rejecting authorship? Several early history writers claim authorship, and no history writer denies their claim.
Essentially, you are rejecting authorship not for lack of evidence but because "there is not enough evidence for me." Well, Marnie, that is a subjective argument. You are fine and dandy to reject the claims of 2nd century scholars in favor of 21st century scholars, but don't go stating your opinion as fact. "Mainstream biblical scholarship" timidly admits doubts about gospel authorship (mainly just Matthew), but they strongly agree to keep the status quo--that the name long affixed to the gospel should stay there. Their view is that 2nd century scholars were probably better informed, and that since they did not detach the author, we shouldn't either.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Well, laying aside how incredibly important it is that the events described in the bible be factually accurate for the integrity of the faith........it would only show that the authors were human beings capable of telling tall tales, which is precisely the situation re the biblical narrative, and not exactly surprising in the first place.

[Jeffonthenet]

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

If you define Christian very widely… and who knows, you might be Barack Obama in a dream.

---

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.

I think there is a good possibility it is not literally true also, though not so much for the same reasons. In any case, it wouldn't show that God doesn't exist or that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

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?

It seems sometimes that I do is question myself and my faith. I still believe it is true despite not having 100% certainty.

---

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.

Well, laying aside how incredibly important it is that the events described in the bible be factually accurate for the integrity of the faith........it would only show that the authors were human beings capable of telling tall tales, which is precisely the situation re the biblical narrative, and not exactly surprising in the first place.

I don't every story being literally true is essential, and I think God can use allegory to teach things even if every word was not directly His.

[Marnie]

Proof of what exactly? This is not merely my opinion. I am presenting the views of mainstream biblical scholarship. 2nd and third century authors are not authority sources on biblical authorship. Their claims of authorship are widely held to be false by modern scholars. They were writing many decades to even a century or more after the death of Christ and the disciples.

You can rely on men writing out of ignorance 2,000 years ago. I'll rely on modern scholarship.

"held to be false" on what grounds? Be careful not to fall into ad populum (appeal to the people) or ad verecundiam (authority). What are their grounds for rejecting authorship? Several early history writers claim authorship, and no history writer denies their claim.
Essentially, you are rejecting authorship not for lack of evidence but because "there is not enough evidence for me." Well, Marnie, that is a subjective argument. You are fine and dandy to reject the claims of 2nd century scholars in favor of 21st century scholars, but don't go stating your opinion as fact. "Mainstream biblical scholarship" timidly admits doubts about gospel authorship (mainly just Matthew), but they strongly agree to keep the status quo--that the name long affixed to the gospel should stay there. Their view is that 2nd century scholars were probably better informed, and that since they did not detach the author, we shouldn't either.

Timidly admits? There is signifigant doubt about the authors of all the gospels. Only the most fundementalist scholars hold to the traditional views of authorship. They keep the name of the gospels because it's far less confusing than renaming them or calling them canoncal gospels 1,2,3 and 4.

---

Proof of what exactly? This is not merely my opinion. I am presenting the views of mainstream biblical scholarship. 2nd and third century authors are not authority sources on biblical authorship. Their claims of authorship are widely held to be false by modern scholars. They were writing many decades to even a century or more after the death of Christ and the disciples.

You can rely on men writing out of ignorance 2,000 years ago. I'll rely on modern scholarship.

"held to be false" on what grounds? Be careful not to fall into ad populum (appeal to the people) or ad verecundiam (authority). What are their grounds for rejecting authorship? Several early history writers claim authorship, and no history writer denies their claim.
Essentially, you are rejecting authorship not for lack of evidence but because "there is not enough evidence for me." Well, Marnie, that is a subjective argument. You are fine and dandy to reject the claims of 2nd century scholars in favor of 21st century scholars, but don't go stating your opinion as fact. "Mainstream biblical scholarship" timidly admits doubts about gospel authorship (mainly just Matthew), but they strongly agree to keep the status quo--that the name long affixed to the gospel should stay there. Their view is that 2nd century scholars were probably better informed, and that since they did not detach the author, we shouldn't either.

Timidly admits? There is signifigant doubt about the authors of all the gospels. Only the most fundementalist scholars hold to the traditional views of authorship. They keep the name of the gospels because it's far less confusing than renaming them or calling them canoncal gospels 1,2,3 and 4.

[Minimalist]

"held to be false" on what grounds?

Read:

http://www.npr.org/books/titles/13809597...-why-we-do

[Jeffonthenet]

Hey everyone, I haven't been posting here recently because I am focusing on my formal debate in the philosophy section of this site. However, I think many of the things addressed here might be dealt with in a more in depth way there, so you are welcome to check it out.

[downbeatplumb]

I have just read about the gospel of Thomas, supposedly a gospel written by Jesus's twin brother. (I am reading "the lost christianities")

Seems to me that if anyone wanted to pull a "I came back from the dead" trick a twin brother would be handy.

Just putting that out there.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't every story being literally true is essential, and I think God can use allegory to teach things even if every word was not directly His.

I think people can use narrative devices like god to teach things as well, even though no single word was "His". Is every story being literally true essential, no, not to me, but this is more troubling for you than it is for me. "This narrative is literal, this one is not";


-Well, then I guess I get to rule out all the narratives of miracles and magic, it's not literal, it's allegory. You know, walking on water, crucifixions, resurrections, sons of god, sin and redemption. That sort of of shit.

Down this road lay only tears. You would like for the narratives that are important to you to be literal, and those that aren't you're willing to wash your hands of. It's a convenient but not altogether compelling situation.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

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.

According to Bart Ehrman, (I think) there are actually around 5000 errors in bible. Most are minor, some not. I am not counting inventions, omissions censorship or forgeries.

What do they show? That the Bible is not inerrant. How then do people know what to believe? Same as ever;whatever they are told to believe.


Plus ca change,plus c'est la meme chose.

[Minimalist]

Rednecks hate it when you speak French, Pad.