Disproving Biblical Infallibility 101

[crossnote]

I'm pretty disappointed in how people are responding in this thread. It's not really fresh news that accounts in the Bible contradict one-another. It's pretty clear that OP believes in the Bible AND Jesus' Resurrection. Hes simply wanting to know why accounts in the Bible contradict one-another if the Bible is supposed to be free of error. I always wondered about this too but in regards to the contradicting accounts of the exorcism in

Matthew 8
28: And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.

Mark 5
1: And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.
2: And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,

Luke 8
26: And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee.
27: And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.

So was it one possessed man or 2?


To OP's question, I have no answer at this time, and I'm ok with that. It doesn't shake my faith in any kind of way. We are talking about translated documents that trace back thousands of years.

I do believe that Christ was resurrected and I do believe that demons were driven into swine, I just don't know all of the details.

If the bible contradicts itself then either our God contradicts Himself or Scripture is untrustworthy. ..and if either of these two, then so is your faith. You can't have it both ways.

 

[DisciplePAG]

I don't think it really has any doctrinal implications. Even though you are dealing with a document where details get scrambled, the big pictures coincide with one-another. There are no huge teachings (from what I can tell) behind the details of the Resurrection story. Just the fact that Jesus was resurrected is the big deal (and the thing that coincides in all stories). Same thing with the man (or 2 men) who was/were demon possessed. Does it matter how many men were possessed? Nope. What matters is that it was witnessed that Jesus drove out demons. Most of the time, important parts of the Bible aren't just stated once. They are stated many times, in many different books. Look at the 10 commandments for example, they could have just been mentioned once, but instead, we see them being restated over and over and over again throughout the OT in many different forms/places.

Are there minor contradictions in the Bible concerning things that have no impact on its real teachings and messages? It appears so.

Are there ANY contradictions concerning important parts of the Bible such as real lessons and important beliefs found within the Bible? None that I can find.

I hope this answer helps man.

Peace

Im a really black an white kinda person. I think that the precedent set here, by the fallibility of scriptire, MUST be taken into account when saying with any certainty that and specific scripture is true? If there are parts that are not 100% accurate, then that concept must be applied across the board. What proof have we that the doctrinal teaching of Paul has not been watered down- dont get it twisted- i believe there WERE perfect documents, i just know the history and involvement of man has caused errors. I do not believe the originals had errors.

 

[valiant]

Im bringing the discussion to the table brother- nothing else is intended here. I want the whole truth- i want closure, but thats a deep rabbit hole, because when we open this box it opens another and another and another. Many of you just do not have the fortitudes to stomach such a quest...which is sad. I for one, WILL stomach it. I WILL find the black and white in a VERY gray discussion. If your not going to add to this discussion by getting with the program and being honest about the situation, the please, do NOT eat up valuable time and space with your spatter. Relieve yourself from this post please. We ARE to debate scripture, and this NEEDS to be debated because i have a valid discussion point founded in truth. Address my OP please.

There is no contradiction between the resurrection narratives merely information presented looking at things from different points of view.

 

[crossnote]

Im a really black an white kinda person. I think that the precedent set here, by the fallibility of scriptire, MUST be taken into account when saying with any certainty that and specific scripture is true? If there are parts that are not 100% accurate, then that concept must be applied across the board. What proof have we that the doctrinal teaching of Paul has not been watered down- dont get it twisted- i believe there WERE perfect documents, i just know the history and involvement of man has caused errors. I do not believe the originals had errors.

Not only the originals but even if the autographs had no errors our interpretation of them would see to it that error was introduced.

 

[Bushido8000]

If the bible contradicts itself then either our God contradicts Himself or Scripture is untrustworthy. ..and if either of these two, then so is your faith. You can't have it both ways.

That, sir, is a straw man argument. That's like saying people can breath underwater because elephants are bigger than lions.

Im a really black an white kinda person. I think that the precedent set here, by the fallibility of scriptire, MUST be taken into account when saying with any certainty that and specific scripture is true? If there are parts that are not 100% accurate, then that concept must be applied across the board. What proof have we that the doctrinal teaching of Paul has not been watered down- dont get it twisted- i believe there WERE perfect documents, i just know the history and involvement of man has caused errors. I do not believe the originals had errors.

Why must it be applied across the board? Especially since I already stated that most of the things you REALLY need to know are mentioned more than once?

Not only that, but what about the teachings that ring true for your life when you apply them?

Exactly what parts about the Bible would you say you're having a hard time believing because of this new idea that you have? (don't worry, I'm not roping you into a trap to make you look foolish, I'm really wanting to know.)

 

[crossnote]

That, sir, is a straw man argument. That's like saying people can breath underwater because elephants are bigger than lions.



Why must it be applied across the board? Especially since I already stated that most of the things you REALLY need to know are mentioned more than once?

Not only that, but what about the teachings that ring true for your life when you apply them?

Exactly what parts about the Bible would you say you're having a hard time believing because of this new idea that you have? (don't worry, I'm not roping you into a trap to make you look foolish, I'm really wanting to know.)

It's not straw. Our faith is only as strong as God's Word is sure, as faith comes from hearing and hearing the Word of God. But have it your way and join the "Hath God said?" crowd.

 

[valiant]

There is no contradiction between the resurrection narratives merely information presented looking at things from different points of view.

It would, however, take a book to show how the narratives fit together. That is why we refer you to people who have taken the trouble to write such books. If you are honest you will read them. THEN come back with your criticisms.

For example the movements of the women were very complicated in fact. The older women sent the two Marys to examine the resurrection scene and report back. They had for example to check out the guards. They also had to look into whether it would be possible to roll the stone away from the tomb entrance. Once the two found the tomb open Mary Magdalene raced off to tell Peter and John. The other Mary raced back to tell the women. At some point Mary Magdalene ran back to the tomb. At some point also she would rejoin the women. Meanwhile the women would be moving slowly towards the tomb. Some were old and they were not in the best condition healthwise . They had been through a gruelling time. Some would arrive before others. But the narrators were not trying to tell the detailed story. They would not have seen the movements of the women as very important. Thus they abbreviated what happened to make the account as succinct as possible. That is not contradiction. It is author's choice..

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

My experience with the Holy Spirit, my joy, my heart. I have faith. I do not need a book to have faith. Paul had it without the New Testament, so did Peter and John, so did many many others!

Let's be fair: Their tangible was Jesus. Our tangible is their written accounts.

I half like your answer, and am half dubious of it. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume you came to faith in Jesus per the Gospel - written or spoken - which would invalidate "not needing a book to have faith." Maybe you woke up one day and shouted "Hallelujah!" without any exposure to the Bible or an inkling of knowledge of Scripture, but probably not.

That's not to say I think your opinion of Scripture having discrepancies is invalid. This is still a good discussion and I don't mean to derail the thread.

 

[Elin]

Reading the OP was the first time I have come across this theory so I am still working my way through the ramifications of it.

In the past, I accepted the party line, that is, that we have four witnesses of the same event which will result in various observations depending on the person as in for example the witnesses of a road accident.

I don't accept that explanation now. We are not talking about uninvolved witnesses of an incident who have not colluded. These man were very emotionally involved in the events which had taken place over the previous days. They would be in hightened state of arousal and noticing details and looking for meaning regarding what had happened to their Master.

After the resurrection event they would have gone over every detail minutely together as things had to be passed on orally generally and I am sure that Jews were meticulous over details.
So they gathered and would have asked each other what they noticed and would, I believe have worked out a full narrative as they looked for meanings and fulfillment of prophecies.

Pure speculation. . .with no Biblical basis.

So there was a worked over narrative as exact as possible which would have been agreed over and passed on. But when it came to putting it into writing years later, the stories vary
There are two men/angels in the tomb; there was just one:

Did Matthew say there was only one, or did he report only the conversation had with one of them.

It happened in the dark; it was dawn:

That's not what John says. She left home in the dark.
She arrived at the tomb at dawn.

Only two women came to the tomb; one woman came and so on

Mary Magdalene came twice. It appears the women came in groups, and apostles also came.
There were some back and forth to the tomb that morning.

Nothing in the four accounts is contradictory, and
you have no right to expect a forensic accounting of the event.
Witnesses do not give forensic accountings.
That's the job of investigators.
And investigation of these accounts show no contradictions.

[quoteI think that it is possible that the texts may have been corrupted. [/quote ]
Pure speculations. . .based in poor invsetigation.

Any doubts over the sequence of events would, I think, shed doubts over the testimony as the
details would have been so important to the people of that time period.

Pure speculation. . .

Actually what was important was the the resurrection and Jesus' appearance to Mary. . .for belief of his claims.
The comings and goings have no bearing on faith.

These men were supposedly reporting on something very very important and
God would not be allowing them to depend on their human memory or observation skills.

From God's mouth to your ear. . .

And he didn't. Jesus promised they would recall and understand all things correctly (Jn 14:26, 16:13-15; Lk 24:48-49).

He has communicated to men very minute details about the temple construction for example.
There is more to this than is supposed and
it really shows the integrity of those who not just reject it out of hand but attack the OP.

Anything which contradicts the word of God is to be rejected out of hand, which this nonsense most certainly does.

Aren't we truth seekers?

Biblical truth is not based on human reasoning and reckoning.

The first principle of Biblical truth is that Scripture does not contradict itself.
If you think it does, it is because you do not understand it correctly.

 

[Hepzibah]

I said that I think the text may be corrupted not contradictory. And do we leave logic behind when we read scripture?

 

[Elin]

I agree wholly sir, yet it bolsters my question: if this is true, and it appears so, then how can we be sure this is not the pervasive process in which the whole was constructed? If there are some mistakes within the RESSURECTION account, how can we say there are none elsewhere??

It is not true.

There are no mistakes in he resurrection account.

The mistakes are based in poor hermeneutics.

Which also bolster my position that we have a doctrinal issue at hand! Whom can say with any certainty that any scripture is 100% accurate? And what doctrine can be stood on as 100% pure?? Notably because we have not the ORIGINAL scriptures written, only 3rd hand copies, Amen?

So?

 

[Elin]

Everone here can see the holes in your argumental position- however, it does not change the truth- these two accounts do not agree. At all.

The issue is do they disagree?

They do not.

Therefore, they agree if understood correctly.

Lets narrow it down a little and maybe help you grasp it....
in one account they grab Jesus by the feet, in the other they are not allowed to touch Him- this is a direct contradiction. Please explain.

Please give the Scriptures to which you are referring that I may examine them.

 

[Elin]

Im just seeking the truth about the bible and hoping someone can explain away the differences so i can view the Word as infallible. Im happier with an infallible bible, trust me.

That will be true when you stop rejecting the explanations.

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

I said that I think the text may be corrupted not contradictory.

Oh, is that all?

 

[Elin]

I have surrendered my life to God for HIS glory.
Not to mention im anti-athiest. Jesus is King. I have an amazing relationship with ELOHIM and his son YASHUA. Im strong enough to tackle the toughest of questions and STILL survive with growing faith....

That's a lot of hubris. . .

 

[DisciplePAG]

There is no contradiction between the resurrection narratives merely information presented looking at things from different points of view.

You need to get a pencil and your bible out, and do yourself a HUGE favor. Draw out what is depicted in the accounts, one for each Gospel. Then you will plainly see what all the rest of us are seeing. You state there are differences in the accounts, yet you REFUSE to admit that constitutes a contradiction because this will force you to admit something is not right with your beliefs. THERE ARE CONTRADICTIONS, because contradictions are, by definition- opposing statements. There are opposing statements within the accounts, you admit this. therefore there are contradictions. What does this mean for us? It is best to move on to the solution rather than denying the problem brother. Please help me find a solution to our problem.

 

[DisciplePAG]

The issue is do they disagree?

They do not.

Therefore, they agree if understood correctly.


Please give the Scriptures to which you are referring that I may examine them.

I POSTED THE ENTIRE SECTIONS FROM MATTHEW AND JOHN EARLIER. Please refer back to my post, or be accomodating and actually open your bible ??????.

 

[DisciplePAG]

That will be true when you stop rejecting the explanations.

There is no replacement for truth. Accepting a blinder is NOT acceptable in this situation.

 

[Elin]

Your hell bent on proving me an athiest- when ive notably stated many times that i am a devout believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? Your just mad because you cannot answer my doctrinal question without having to rethink your "bible infallible" doctrinal position- which is WRONG.

So you've reached a conclusion on the matter, and the Bible is not infallible.

Now you want someone to unseat your conclusion.

Wrong attitude. . .

What part of learning is done by NOT ASKING QUESTIONS? Uhh- NONE.

AND- just because you cant teach the willing doesn't mean that some are not here to learn-

The "willing here to learn" don't hold on to their conclusions.

it means YOU are unable to teach on the subject due to lack if ability or vision.

Baloney. . .

It's about faith given by the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures as God's unerring word,
and his truth providentially uncorrupted therein over time so that his people might have his truth.

 

[DisciplePAG]

That's a lot of hubris. . .

So you call me athiest and i reply, defending my God and my faith, and you call me prideful and arrogant? lol- you, my NOT friend, have a crappy way about your discussion manner, or lack thereof. Plainly spoken- YOU SUCK AT DISCUSSING AN OPPOSING BELIEF. Your hatred pours through you! You cannot even debate a subject without namecalling lol