Disproving Biblical Infallibility 101

DisciplePAG · Jul 17, 2015

Ok, there is a distinct dividing line here.

There are those of us who can plainly see that there are, in fact, many instances of scripture contradicting itself, and envision the ramifications of it. All the while maintaining a kind aura.

Then there are those of you who will not admit to what so many others can see, and lash out in blind rage, upset by what you do not, and for some reason, cannot understand.

The best answers i have gotten up to this point, are, (paraphrasing) "yes, there are inconsistencies. They just do not adversely affect the truth of the story." I actually agree 100% there. However, my question is ONLY for those who agree with the truth, that these accounts do differ. If you do not share my belief, please refrain from posting here. I have no desire to hear your feelings or hate speech, not to mention my refusal to reply to blatant ignorance any longer is now a promise.

Question: If we cannot rely 100% on every word in scripture, does that not affect our ability to trust other small details such as Pauls teachings on the subjection of women, orderly use of tongues and other spiritual gifts, etc? Sure it does. We must factor this truth into reading any part of the record at this point, as it utterly proves itself contrary to itself at times. I think it proves we must be very careful when studying, and as pastors, forming docctrinal teaching points.

Here is what i think:
1. All scripture is not fallible, nor infallible. The truth is self evident that scripture, at times, contradicts itself, yet undoubtedly holds ETERNAL TRUTH.

2. Any doctrine, other than that of "bedrock faith" statements of Christ, born, died, and ressurected, must not be pursued, and foolish questions which do gender strife, avoided. We do know that doctrinal differences are 100% of the reason churches split. We know also that those doctrines are pulled from fallible records- AKA THE BIBLE.

3. At one point in history, we believe a set of perfect documents, when combined, form the bible, existed. There is a high likelihood of other true contents which were NOT included in initial canon, due to not fitting Rome's motivations.
We also know the people whom were first called Christians, HAD NO BIBLE AT ALL. It is possible for the modern church to operate fully WITHOUT a "bible" (formed by Rome/catholics for the attempted control of the masses.)
*This is not to say that the historical value is not high, but the entire situation in itself proves that the bible is mans attempt to control man. After all, God did say that the covenant was written on the hearts of men now....

4. It is possible for a man to fully come to know God, and his son Jesus Christ, and SALVATION- WITHOUT a bible.

5. The Bible is in fact a "mostly" accurate work. But it is not perfect. It has a place in Christianity, but is not the end all be all, as many would have it.

6. The Bible is NOT 100% trustworthy in all of its statements.

7. God did not write the bible- man compiled it. From copies. of copies. By man. And it shows in the errors contained within.

DisciplePAG · Jul 17, 2015

I am a CHRISTIAN.
I have FAITH IN JESUS.
I love. Without it i am nothing. I believe this even though it comes from a book proved imperfect.

purgedconscience · Jul 17, 2015

DisciplePAG said:

You haven't proved the Bible to be imperfect. Instead, the Bible has proved you to be imperfect. Now, would you kindly answer this post of mine?

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...lical-infallibility-101-a-11.html#post2184859

Thank you.

crossnote · Jul 17, 2015

Neither is this statement 100% trustworthy.

crossnote · Jul 17, 2015

DisciplePAG said:

Without 'it'? Your faith is no better than the book you attack.
When you face a true crisis outside your ivory tower, the doubts you have created today will doubleback to haunt you then.

Elin · Jul 17, 2015

DisciplePAG said:

Do you have faith in the blood of Jesus shed on the cross (Ro 3;25) to cleanse you from sin and save you from God's wrath (Ro 5:9) at the final judgment?

If you believe in any other religion, you are not a Christian.

Elin · Jul 17, 2015

DisciplePAG said:

Nope. . .immaterial discrepancies are not contradictions.

DisciplePAG · Jul 17, 2015

purgedconscience said:

i am working on an answer for you now purgedconscience. Please be patient, as this is no light matter. And in the interim, please give me your definition of an imperfect work.

Does contradiction equate imperfection?

Thank you.

DisciplePAG · Jul 17, 2015

Elin said:

*NOTE* Elin admits the bible contains "immaterial discrepancies".

Elin, you do know that ANY college professor would call your thesis "contradictory" if it gave "immaterial discrepancies" within ANY OF ITS PAGES??

con·tra·dic·tion
ˌkäntrəˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun

a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
-"the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"
- a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
  -the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction"
- the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
  -the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first"
  [TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
  [TR]
  [TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD]
  [TD]denial, refutation, rebuttal, countering"a contradiction of his statement"
  [/TD]
  [/TR]
  [/TABLE]

slave · Jul 17, 2015

DisciplePAG said:

You leaped a step there, however, the first line of questioning should be are misunderstandings always contradictions?

purgedconscience · Jul 17, 2015

DisciplePAG said:

I agree with you that this is no light matter, so please do take your time in responding and presenting your case.

If two authors who both claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, say contradictory or opposing things about the same matter, then, yes, I'd say that there is some imperfection there. However, you've yet to prove that such contradictions exist. This is what I am waiting to see and, quite frankly, having had this same conversation with others in the past, I don't believe that you'll be able to adequately defend your allegations from scripture. I will read and consider what you write, though, and respond accordingly.

DisciplePAG · Jul 17, 2015

PurgedConscience: This is the first contradiction; my hope is that we overview this one and allow it to set the tone for our continued constructive debate. Hopefully you can help me come to grips with a few of my theological questions.

John 20:1-3 KJV

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when, it was yet dark, unto, the sepulchre, and, seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre..(first time coming to the tomb)

Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have TAKEN away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have LAID him.
(Marys words indicate she believes his body has been stolen)
Peter THEREFORE went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre (he went because of what mary tells him)

Here we see Mary come to the tomb, and leave- approaching the disciples with the statement of "They have taken/stolen the body of Jesus and WE KNOW NOT WHERE THEY HAVE LAID HIM- this is the pretense for Peter and John (assumed) to come to the tomb, is to find the body of Christ. Let us now look at Matthew's account:

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. (first approach to the tomb)
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:

And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

He is not here: for he is RISEN, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

And go quickly, and tell his disciples that HE IS RISENfrom the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there SHALL YE SEE HIM, lo, I have told you.
(they have no feeling he has been taken/stolen)
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. (not like the other account)

Here we see Mary is INSTRUCTED BY THE ANGELS TO GO SPEAK TO THE DISCIPLES and to tell them the good news that Jesus was ressurected. They leave to go to tell them IN GREAT JOY, knowing full well Jesus had NOT BEEN stolen, but had been resurrected.

Let us reason together brothers and sisters: Mary only went to the tomb for the FIRST TIME, early in the morning....once. She only came upon an empty tomb one time. These events recorded in both gospels most certainly speak of her approaching and finding an empty tomb, there is no doubt about that. BUT, we do see a different account of what happened after finding an empty tomb. One of panic, thinking the Lords body had been stolen, and one of elation, having been counseled by angels that he was risen, instilling happiness, contradicting the worry in the other account.
In one account they have no idea where he is, in another, they know he has been ressurected to life.
^^^ THIS IS THE FIRST CONTRADICTION.

DisciplePAG · Jul 17, 2015

This is the second and third contradiction:

The first appearance of Jesus after his resurrection is accepted theologically wide as having been to Mary, FIRST. Both the gospel of John and of Matthew do record the initial appearance. Let us look closer at those accounts:

And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

^^^ this is Matthew 28:7-10, note this follows the angels instruction to "Go, tell the disciples he is risen".

*Note: Jesus allows them to touch and worship him in Matthews account.

Now lets look at Johns account:
Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself..

Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.

But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,

And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.

And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.

Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

This is the second and third contradiction.

Jesus appears to Mary AFTER the disciples have came to the tomb.
Jesus refuses them to touch Him, not having yet ascended.

So which way was it??? Did Jesus appear to mary BEFORE or AFTER the disciples came to the tomb? Were thy allowed to touch Him or not?

DisciplePAG · Jul 17, 2015

These are but the beginning to contradictions within the account....but this should plainly allow many to see my point of view and train of thought. Thank you ahead of time for constructive criticism as well as honest and unbiased replies.

*THESE ARE ONLY MATTHEW AND JOHN- INSERT MARK AND LUKE AND IT GETS EVEN MORE CONVOLUTED.

sparkman · Jul 17, 2015

The claim that there are errors in the original writings (autographs) is unprovable, since we don't have them.

Christians believe that the autographs are infallible, not the copies of the autographs that compose the manuscript evidence.

There are many factors other than this, including copying mistakes and translation mistakes. None of these things disprove the inerrancy of the autographs, though.

DisciplePAG · Jul 17, 2015

sparkman said:

I agree, sir. The inerrancy of the originals is a true belief, which brings me to your next question. Since these are just fallible copies, should we dare say anything other than bedrock doctrine should NOT be disseminated from its pages??? Is it thologically responsible to pull doctrines from a known flawed document?

purgedconscience · Jul 17, 2015

DisciplePAG said:

I'm sorry, but you're greatly mistaken and you would have recognized your error if you had simply kept on reading John's account. Here is a fuller version:

John chapter 20 verses 1 thru 18

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher.
Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.
So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.
For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.
But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,
And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.

Mary clearly appeared at the empty tomb TWICE.

At her first appearance, she thought that Jesus' body had been stolen and she ran and told Peter and John the same. When Peter and John came to the tomb, Mary came back with them. It was during her second appearance at the the empty tomb that the angel spoke unto her and therein lies your error. There is no discrepancy.

Elin · Jul 17, 2015

DisciplePAG said:

Another failed argument. . .

If the discrepancies within a thesis do not alter its premise or import, they are actually irrelevant to the thesis.

And God's divine truth in the Bible is not a human "thesis."

It can be a Biblical contradiction only if one text specifically disallows another text.

The discrepancies which concern you in the resurrection accounts do no such thing.

sparkman · Jul 17, 2015

DisciplePAG said:

The magnitude of the flaws is insignificant, and unlike your initial comments, I don't think the changes were due to the attempt of the church to control the understanding. Comma Johanneum was one exception and that only involves one verse. The long ending of Mark is another incident.

We know why Comma Johanneum happened and that is a discoverable and fixable issue. Who knows what other manuscript evidence we may find that resolves other seeming contradictions?

We can find those issues through examining manuscript evidence and the discovery of additional manuscripts has aided in doing that. That is why modern versions resolve many of those issues.

I think many of the contradictions you are claiming can be resolved by other means besides textual issues. The multiple eyewitness effect is one of those explanations.

Elin · Jul 17, 2015

DisciplePAG said:

Which is precisely what we have in its pages.

Another failed argument. . .

Until you become informed of the meaning of "immaterial,'" your questions are immaterial.

Disproving Biblical Infallibility 101

Banned

Banned

purgedconscience

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

purgedconscience

Guest

Banned

Banned

Banned

sparkman

Guest

Banned

purgedconscience

Guest

Banned

sparkman

Guest

Banned