Errors in the Bible

[Grahame 10]

Perhaps you misunderstood my question, I'll re-phrase it a bit; in post 800 you expressed no objection to revisions of the Biblical text provided that scholars agreed that any newly discovered texts were authentic and worthy of inclusion in the Bible. Given that challenge, some authority, somewhere, would have to agree and approve the changes or updates to the existing text in, for example your own version of the Bible, and I was wondering which authority would be acceptable to you.

 

An exact translation will do for me, taking into account the subtleties of language, it does not have to be authorised by anyone other than the scholars who translated it.

.

[[Matt] 10]

Lets have the evidence. Everything I have seen proves the historicity of the Bible.

.

Despite us showing you many a piece of evidence against that and you simply ignoring our posts in an effort to keep your world view intact.

[shanes teeth 10]

Lets have the evidence. Everything I have seen proves the historicity of the Bible.

.

 

There's no need to go over them all again.They've been covered in hundreds of posts over dozens of threads over many months.What about the second part of my post if it fulfils your criteria about translation,subtleties of language and autherisation of the scholars translating ?

[Grahame 10]

There's no need to go over them all again.They've been covered in hundreds of posts over dozens of threads over many months.What about the second part of my post if it fulfils your criteria about translation,subtleties of language and autherisation of the scholars translating ?

 

I only want the truth Shane, this is why I have rejected everything except Christianity.

 

I think that after over fifty years of personal study you need to accept I am more than happy with the soundness of the Gospel.

.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Grahame

[shanes teeth 10]

I only want the truth Shane, this is why I have rejected everything except Christianity.

 

I think that after over fifty years of personal study you need to accept I am more than happy with the soundness of the Gospel.

.

 

It's a hypothetical situation I am exploring.What if new evidence came to light?

[Grahame 10]

It's a hypothetical situation I am exploring.What if new evidence came to light?

 

Of course I would accept it, but after scholars have minutely dissected the bible as each generation has, this generation included, it would have to be very strong and overwhelming evidence indeed, and as the Bible was written by forty different people over a period of hundreds of years in different places without them being in contact with each other I honestly cannot see any of them being involved in some sort of a plot.

 

As far as I can tell the Bible is sound and true, but I am always willing to listen to others and change accordingly.

 

Thanks.

.

[[Matt] 10]

As far as I can tell the Bible is sound and true, but I am always willing to listen to others and change accordingly.

 

Thanks.

.

So did you listen to me when i demonstrated the falseness of the genesis account of creation and how it cannot be in anyway true?

[Grahame 10]

;5727445']So did you listen to me when i demonstrated the falseness of the genesis account of creation and how it cannot be in anyway true?

 

From memory you were looking at the last few million years? instead of the whole spectrum of 4.5 billion years which includes all the geological periods.

 

.

[viney40 10]

Scientific blunders in the bible

 

(in response to the Errors in the Qur'an thread)

 

There are of course many errors and contradictions in the bible, but I don't have time to type them all up, and find huge lumps of copy and paste annoying in other posts, so won't inflict them on you.

 

Perhaps though we could all post our own favourite error, and see which of the two threads lasts the longest?

 

I'll go with Matthew 4:8, which suggests that the earth is flat, as this is one of the errors the OP of the Qur'an thread levels at that book.

 

Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them."

 

You won't see all the world from up a mountain unless it is flat, after all.

 

What's your favourite?

 

The devil must have had his laptop with him and sheweth him Google Earth.

[viney40 10]

Perhaps you misunderstood my question, I'll re-phrase it a bit; in post 800 you expressed no objection to revisions of the Biblical text provided that scholars agreed that any newly discovered texts were authentic and worthy of inclusion in the Bible. Given that challenge, some authority, somewhere, would have to agree and approve the changes or updates to the existing text in, for example your own version of the Bible, and I was wondering which authority would be acceptable to you.

 

Revisions? Are we talking about the Bible or Wicklelebibler?

[EbonyBranch 10]

Of course I would accept it, but after scholars have minutely dissected the bible as each generation has, this generation included, it would have to be very strong and overwhelming evidence indeed, and as the Bible was written by forty different people over a period of hundreds of years in different places without them being in contact with each other I honestly cannot see any of them being involved in some sort of a plot.

 

As far as I can tell the Bible is sound and true, but I am always willing to listen to others and change accordingly.

 

Thanks.

.

 

The bible was written by numerous different people over hundreds of years, then each book was copied, disseminated around congregations, copied again, disseminated again, copied again, disseminated...etc. In the early years of the faith, the copying was done by unskilled, practically illiterate amateur volunteer

scribes, many of whom could barely read what they copied. Errors crept in.

In later centuries, changes to the texts were more deliberate: passages were added to suit individuals' theological views (woman taken in adultery, jesus' anger with the leper, etc.), to reduce the importance of women, to exclude 'heretical' interpretations, and so on.

 

Grahame, 'Jesus Misquoted' is fascinating. Bart Ehrman is painstaking and precise and pedantic in his description of the early years of the church and forensic in his analysis and comparison of the various Greek and Latin texts. I don't think he's an atheist; he's just an honest, committed, professional biblical scholar. I'm happy to lend you the audiobook, I think you'd find it intriguing and enthralling. It takes a lot of concentration to absorb Ehrman's points; I've been listening to it on my daily walk to work and have been barely noticing the journey. No obligations; I just think you'd enjoy it. Let me know.

[HeadingNorth 11]

From memory you were looking at the last few million years? instead of the whole spectrum of 4.5 billion years which includes all the geological periods.

 

.

 

The Bible does not accept either; it specifies seven, literal, days. This is known to be wrong.