Is the Bible Literally True? No, of Course Not!

[ZenMode]

The Bible is so transparently the work of humanity bereft any any supernatural insight that it always fascinates me that anyone would attempt to portray it as inerrant. If anything it weakens the position of the believer in espousing its inerrancy. It highlights every "error" because skeptics will seek them out and then question how the inerrant book could contain an error which leads to the most bizarre exegeses known to humankind...beggaring the imagination how an adult could accept it.

There's a lot of good stuff in the Bible. It is silly to gild the lily and add in something that patently is not there. We CAN learn good stuff from the bible (especially the NT) so why act as if it can contain no errors?

As for the differentiations between the various gospels this is easy enough to understand since they were written decades after the events and probably from radically different "traditions". Imagine if you had to tell someone what a person you didn't know personally did on any given week back in the 1980's. Highly unlikely.

It would be more troubling if the disjunct in terms of genealogy of Jesus was undertaken by two people who knew him well and remembered perfectly.

There are some good insights in the New Testament. Jesus was undoubtedly a good person with good ideas on how to treat your fellow man, however, there are no supernatural insights in the Bible, which one would expect there to be given that it was supposedly inspired by God. It was written by men who would be flabbergasted by something like a wheelbarrow and were a few generations from killing and burying their children under their homes for good luck.

 

[Yakuda]

I said a leadership role, not the top leader.

Deacon is an official Church office subordinate to Bishop or priest, but above the laity. Phoebe is also called a patron of the church.

The fact that Paul trusted Phoebe to be his emissary to the Church of Rome clearly insinuates she had credibility and authority.

Again NOT a leader but a helper.

She must have been a very good helper but wasn't a leader.

 

[domer76]

I think the evangelical holy rollers are out on a limb claiming the bible is inerrant. I think they are also kidding themselves that the miracle stories don't push credulity to the breaking point. Walking on water has to be a later embellishment.

In my opinion the atheists are wrong that a bunch inconsistencies on dates and times amount to anything more than a molehill rather than a mountain. And they are probably wrong in complaining nobody wrote anything about Jesus for six decades after his death. Paul and Mark were writing when people who knew Jesus were still alive, 2 to 3 decades after the crucification. Luke makes absolutely crystal clear that in his day there were earlier writings about Jesus which no longer exist for us to read. Some scholars have hypothesized a Gospel of Q, and the 'L' and 'M' written sources predating the gospels, but now lost to history.

I’ve heard of Q, but not looked into it. I know nothing about the L and M. Kinda piqued my curiosity, though.

The thing on the divinity of Christ poses a real problem for the literalists. Bethlehem, of course, was tossed in to fulfill the prophecy of the OT. No reason for people from Nazereth to be there. Of course, the claim that it was for the census and that Joseph needed to be there because he had an ancestor from there 1000 years prior is laughable. The “out of Egypt” thing, as well.

The different versions of his deification are problematic. So which was it? 1) His resurrection 2) His baptism or 3) His birth.

The two gospels you referenced may well have been written a couple decades after his death, but those original manuscripts are missing. The first available ones are what, 100-200 years or so after that? So, who knows what changes were made in the stories during that time. The question is also WHERE were those gospels written? Most probably not in Galilee, so therefore not in any direct contact with those who knew Jesus.

Still, an interesting subject.

 

[gfm7175]

lol. You haven't mentally whipped anyone or anything.

You've been whipped. That's why you ran away from my post #133 with your tail tucked between your legs and suddenly attempted to change the subject.

There is enough gray area in the topic that it's very likely that there will be no agreement.

There is absolutely ZERO gray area re: what day Jesus was crucified (the 14th of Nisan). All the gospel accounts agree on that, as I have explained in post #133.

That's the beauty of the Bible - people can usually find most anything they want to believe in it because its written so poorly and inconsistently.

I knew someone who SWORE that you didn't have to believe in the Christian God to get into Heaven and he found plenty of verses to support his belief.

No he didn't. He denied The Bible and is a false prophet.

According to The Bible, Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life... NOBODY comes to The Father except through [him]".

So, I'm not going to spend any more of my time discussing that specific topic because, again, it's open to translation and claims of "understanding" things differently. My mind hasn't changed and neither has yours.

Nope. You don't get to slither away like that. You were VERY adamant that Mark and John contradict each other, and I've detailed out for you precisely how they DO NOT contradict each other. I've detailed out for you precisely how both Mark and John claim that the day of the crucifixion was on the 14th of Nisan. While they don't explicitly say "14th of Nisan", with a bit of study on Passover law (Exodus and other OT law books), the conclusion from the text is a very "black and white" one.

If that means you check out of other discussions, that's your choice. I couldn't care less.

It's not "another discussion". You're just trying to divert.

 

[ZenMode]

You've been whipped. That's why you ran away from my post #133 with your tail tucked between your legs and suddenly attempted to change the subject.

Oh, I have many more inconsistencies and errors to post... don't you worry.

There is absolutely ZERO gray area re: what day Jesus was crucified (the 14th of Nisan). All the gospel accounts agree on that, as I have explained in post #133.

Of course there isn't in your mind. There was an entire book written to explain all of the inconsistencies in the NT. The most evangelical-type Christians virtually never admit errors or inconsistencies in the Bible because they literally believe it's the perfect word of God. You seem to be one of those. Whenever you get around to responding to the different birth narratives, there is a 100% chance you'll have an explanation for the obvious differences there, also.

No he didn't. He denied The Bible and is a false prophet.

That's your interpretation. Again, racists can find what they want in the Bible. Antisemites can find what what they want in the Bible, etc.

According to The Bible, Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life... NOBODY comes to The Father except through [him]".

If I cared, I'd try to find the verses that he believed contradicted that. What does "through him" mean? To some people, and there are passages to support this, one need only be baptized and believe in God/Jesus to be saved. Others believe you have to "act" like a Christian to be saved. Nobody knows for sure, though everyone claims that their beliefs are right. Why do you think there are so many different variations of Christianity? Is it because Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists argree on everything? Nope! Yet, they all believe THEY have the "right" understanding of the Bible. Would have been nice if God had actually provided some specific, clear guidance. We don't even know if the books that were picked for the NT are all the right ones. Many were left out that were (allegedly) written by Peter, for example.

Nope. You don't get to slither away like that. You were VERY adamant that Mark and John contradict each other, and I've detailed out for you precisely how they DO NOT contradict each other. I've detailed out for you precisely how both Mark and John claim that the day of the crucifixion was on the 14th of Nisan. While they don't explicitly say "14th of Nisan", with a bit of study on Passover law (Exodus and other OT law books), the conclusion from the text is a very "black and white" one.


It's not "another discussion". You're just trying to divert.

And I detailed in post 61 how they do contradict each other. Why is your understanding right and mine wrong.

 

[Into the Night]

I know how days work for Jews and why they work that way and yes, if you ignore the details of what each account says, and just look at it very generally/broadly, you can make it seem like they agree.

Apparently you don't, since passover does not occur on a single day on the Jewish calendar, nor is that calendar related to the Roman or Gregorian calendar.

There is no conflict, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

One of Paul's letters acknowledges female leadership in the church, such as female deacons.
Another epistle says women should not be in church leadership positions.

No female deacons, Sock.

John says Jesus is coequal and coeternal with God. No such claim is made in Mark, where the insinuation is that Jesus is son of God, which in Jewish tradition just tended to mean a human who acted with agency of the divine.

Jesus Christ is BOTH.

Luke and Matthew are inconsistent on the birth narrative and how Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem.

No conflicts there either, Sock.

On the other hand, I think atheists are making a mountain out of a molehill in freaking out about the inconsistencies.

No, just you.

God did not write the gospels.

No one said He did, Sock.

God did not even sit down and dictate the gospels to their authors.

No one said He did, Sock.

If you read Luke at face value, he takes full ownership of writing his gospel.

Not Luke's gospel. It it the gospel of Jesus Christ. The book of Luke was written by Luke and describes some of the gospel of Jesus Christ as well as some events he observed.

Humans are obviously fallible, and I don't see any reason the 27 books and epistles of the gospels are supposed to match up cleanly in every detail.

There are no conflicts, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

Citations for your claims of women leadership.

Taken individually some passages could be thought of as discrepancies or contradictions but not as a whole. Yes atheists do make a.mountain out of a mole hill.

Don't know any that do. Note that Cypress is not an atheist. He seems instead to belong to the Church of No God.

 

[Into the Night]

Epistle to the Romans.

Paul refers to his companion Phoebe as a deacon of the church.

Never did, Sock.

 

[Cypress]

Again NOT a leader but a helper.

She must have been a very good helper but wasn't a leader.

You must not attend church or have any real knowledge of the Christian tradition.

A sargeant is in a leadership position even if they are subordinate to and have to take orders from lieutenants and captains.

I didn't say about women being THE leader, the top dog.

Deacons are frequently in charge of secular, logistical, administrative, and sometimes charitable functions of the church. They have authority and are holding an official ordained church office with real responsibility and authority.

 

[Into the Night]

Some atheists just don't find the religion of Christianity true or compelling.

By definition, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

They don't have to.

But an honest student of history recognizes the Bible is the most important piece of literature in the history of western civilization, and it's no joking matter to study how people, cultures, and ideologies have interpreted it and interacted with it.

Before you can do that, Sock, you should at least READ the Bible!

 

[ZenMode]

Apparently you don't, since passover does not occur on a single day on the Jewish calendar, nor is that calendar related to the Roman or Gregorian calendar.

There is no conflict, Sock.

There doesn't have to be a single day. If one writer says Jesus died before the Passover meal and the other says he died after eating the Passover meal, you have claims that can't both be true.

 

[Into the Night]

Moving on from the Bible not being consistent regarding what day Jesus died on..... let's talk about everything related to his birth.

Matthew and Luke are the only ones to talk about it in detail. Both are fairly lengthy, so I won't post the verses here. Matthew's version starts @ 1:18 and Luke's starts at 1:4.

Here's a summary of Matthew's version:

Joseph and Mary were planning to get married when she got pregnant...presumably not from Joseph because he plans to dump her (cheating slut that she is!) But, Joseph has a dream and the dream tells him that Mary got pregnant from God, so he doesn't leave her. They get married and go to Bethlehem where Jesus is born (another interesting story in itself). Wisemen hear about it and travel to Bethlehem by following a star (which is impossible if you've ever tried to figure out which house any given star is over....) On the way, they go through Jerusalem and ask where they can find the King of the Jews and then move on to Bethlehem. Herod finds out about this and isn't happy because HE'S the King. He asks the Wisemen to let him know where they find Jesus because he plans to kill him. A dream tells the wisemen to not tell him and go a different way home. Joseph, in yet another dream, is also warned about Herod's plans so they split, too. Herod has his guys kill everyone 2 and under (something there is no record of or evidence for), because apparently his troops can't tell the difference between a newborn and a toddler walking around.

Luke's version begin in 1:4.

His version includes a lady named Elizabeth who is the mother of John the Baptist even though she is barren. In Luke's version, Mary and Elizabeth are related, so Jesus and John the Baptist are apparently cousins of some sort. An angel visits Mary and tells her God is going to knock her up. Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem for a census that everyone in the empire is forced to participate in. The census something that there is also no historical record of and would be virtually impossible logistically. The shepherds are visited by an angel of some kind and are told go to Bethlehem, which they do. A few days later, Jesus is circumcised and two random people, Simeon and Anna, announce that Jesus is the Messiah.

Those are the two stories. Virtually nothing about them is similar and I see no way they can both be true.

Misquoting the Bible won't work, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

I will thank you in advance for admitting I was correct in stating Paul acknowledged women could have leadership positions in the Church-->


Phoebe was a first-century Christian woman mentioned by the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, verses 16:1–2. A notable woman in the church of Cenchreae, she was trusted by Paul to deliver his letter to the Romans. Paul refers to her both as a "servant" or "deacon" and as a helper or patron of many. This is the only place in the New Testament where a woman is specifically referred to with these two distinctions. Paul introduces Phoebe as his emissary to the church in Rome and, because they are not acquainted with her, Paul provides them with her credentials.

She was not a deacon, Sock. Paul never referred to her as a deacon.

 

[gfm7175]

Oh, I have many more inconsistencies and errors to post... don't you worry.

I'm fully aware that there is more material out there from Bart Ehrmann & Co. that you can copy/paste. By doing so, you will only ever continue to make the same errors that they make because you can't think for yourself.

Of course there isn't in your mind.

It's not from my mind. It's from the text within The Bible. Instead of learning, you wish to do this:



Only you can change that. Post #133 has all the details needed for you to learn about the subject matter whenever you wish to begin learning.

There was an entire book written to explain all of the inconsistencies in the NT.

Yes. Bart Ehrmann & Co. have written all sorts of books about that which they do not know. Meh.

The most evangelical-type Christians virtually never admit errors or inconsistencies in the Bible because they literally believe it's the perfect word of God. You seem to be one of those.

The Bible, as it was originally recorded (via the "God-breathed" penning of it by various men at the time) was inerrant. Nowadays, after numerous translations and copies, there are some minor errors that have popped up along the way (e.g., an event happening at 6am might've been translated into happening at noon because the translators mistakenly misunderstood it to be such). The main message of "Creation --> The Fall --> Redemption --> Restoration" has been preserved throughout the ages.

God's Word, in and of itself, is perfect. Man's translations and copies of it, while generally quite good for the most part, are not perfect and do have their minor issues here and there.

Whenever you get around to responding to the different birth narratives, there is a 100% chance you'll have an explanation for the obvious differences there, also.

Yes, I could just as easily correct THOSE errors from your thought masters as well, but why would I? You've already shown, via the exchanges re: Jesus' crucifixion day, that you are unwilling to learn anything about what The Bible actually says.

That's your interpretation. Again, racists can find what they want in the Bible. Antisemites can find what what they want in the Bible, etc.

Anybody can twist God's created order of things into anything that they wish to twist it into. Just take a look around you.

If I cared, I'd try to find the verses that he believed contradicted that. What does "through him" mean?

It means that you are destined to the Lake of Fire unless you truly believe with your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who paid your sin debt FOR you, that you willingly choose to devote your entire life and being to God's perfect will rather than your own flawed will.

IOW, you truly and fully accept Jesus as your LORD and Savior (rather than worshiping any other worldly idols).

To some people, and there are passages to support this, one need only be baptized and believe in God/Jesus to be saved. Others believe you have to "act" like a Christian to be saved. Nobody knows for sure, though everyone claims that their beliefs are right. Why do you think there are so many different variations of Christianity? Is it because Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists argree on everything? Nope! Yet, they all believe THEY have the "right" understanding of the Bible. Would have been nice if God had actually provided some specific, clear guidance. We don't even know if the books that were picked for the NT are all the right ones. Many were left out that were (allegedly) written by Peter, for example.

One's works cannot save anyone. It is faith ALONE that saves.

Works DO have their place though (and do make a difference regarding one's "heavenly rewards" that one receives); works just don't have any place regarding being saved. That's done through faith alone.

And I detailed in post 61 how they do contradict each other. Why is your understanding right and mine wrong.

Because mine is Biblical and your thought masters deny the Bible.

 

[Into the Night]

Luke and Matthew were two humans who didn't know each other,

They did, Sock. They were both apostles of Jesus Christ and traveled with Him.

and were relying to some extent on earlier written sources and oral traditions, although they both had access to Mark.

Mark was also an apostle and traveled with them.

I would not expect two humans using different source materials to have matching stories in every respect.

No conflict, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

Absolutely true that the Bible was written by men. In many cases, we don't know which men. The question was whether or not the Bible was literal and/or inerrant. For a variety of reasons, there's no reason to believe it is inerrant or should be taken literally.

Having trouble with multiple personalities again? Void argument fallacies.

 

[Into the Night]

Right a deaconess (helper) not a leader. The church currently has deacons they are men but they aren't leaders. The church also has brothers and nuns (sister) again helpers not leaders.

No deaconess. She was not a deacon.

 

[Cypress]

They did, Sock. They were both apostles of Jesus Christ and traveled with Him.

Mark was also an apostle and traveled with them.

No conflict, Sock.

No dummy. The Christian tradition tells us Luke was a companion of Paul and Mark was a companion of Peter. John was written around 90 to 95 AD and the author couldn't have possibly known Jesus, who died 60 years before.

Mark wrote his gospel 15 to 20 years before Luke.

If the authors of the gospels all knew each other, they would have been able to compare notes and get the stories straight. The fact there are discrepancies is proof the gospels were authored independently by four different men. They are four independent literary sources.