Biblical Inerrancy

by Francois 55 Replies latest jw friends

JanH

I think the PI argument is not the strongest argument against Bible inerrancy. Surely, it is not what you'd expect to find in a divine document, but as examples of Bible errors, it is a not the best one.
Indeed, even the Alt.Atheism FAQ, that cannot be considered the most bible-friendly document in the world, dismisses this argument. See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#pi
Here's a small list of Bible errors that are much more serious:
Numerical problems
There are countless (no pun intended) examples showing that Bible authors could not count, and they could certainly not calculate. Check Numbers 3:33-39, Ezra 1:9-11, Joshua 15:21-32 or Joshua 15:33-36 if you don't believe me. Considering the number system and educational level, that should not surprise us. But I guess God can count.
Example:
II Samuel 23:8 These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.
vs
I Chronicles 11:11 And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.
Errors of Science
Insects have four feet (uh?):
Leviticus 11:20-23 "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you...Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."
Contradictions
The two most obvious are the birth accounts we find in Luke and Matthew, and the trial, death and resurrection accounts we find in all the gospels.
The birth accounts are so fantastically contradictory they agree on only a single basic fact: He was born in Bethlehem (he had to be, right?). Problem is, nothing else connects, and it's clearly impossible to harmonize the stories. If you don't believe me, try. One simple example:
Luk 2:22, 39 "And when the time came for their
purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord . . . And when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth."
vs
Matt 2:14, 15, 22, 23 "And he rose and took the child and his mother by night, and departed to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. . . . But when he heard that Archelaus reigned over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the district of Galilee. And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."" (which of course no recorded prophet ever said!)
The death accounts contain somewhat more common details, but also differ in many respects. Nobody can make any harmonization of all the claims made in all four gospels. One minor example:
Mark 16:7,8 "But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you." And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid."
vs
Luk 24:9 "and returning from the tomb they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest." (also Matt 28:10, 16)
It's a logical impossibility that these women both "told nothing to no one" and "told all this to the eleven and to all the rest."
So much for inerrancy.
- Jan
--
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"
-- Albert Einstein
dreamer

arniem,
As the thought seems to worry you so much (and I don't really know why!), I thought I would put your mind at rest...
According to evolutionary theory, humans evolved, not from monkeys, but a common ancestor of both: It is known as a 'protohomonid'.
I suppose we got the better cut of the deal!
battman

I feel there is a need to get the "facts" correct.
Check out the link http://www.cs.ruu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/skeptic-faq.html
which is the skeptics science site. It will explain what a "theory" is, what
a "fact" is and about a "hypothesis". I incorrectly used to state that the
evolution idea was ONLY a "Theory" as if that meant it was only some
educated guess. I was wrong. I hear and read so much incorrect (BS)
information that people use to defend/attack various positions I started
to research almost anything I hear/read, except for the fabulous humor
on various threads.
This was my problem when I was part of the "organ", too lazy to check
it out for my self. Also check out the search term "fallacy FAQs", also
urbanlegend.com. Truth is out there and probably is a life time search.
enoy yourn journey,
best to all
battman
JanH

Arniem,
You really should make yourself a bit more familiar with science before you start posting these wild claims.
You are probably right, many bible people, including myself will tend to bend science to fit our bible. Those on the other side of the fence do so also.

I am glad you acknowledge that you have erred in this regard, even though an attempt to implicate others is much misquided. Science is, like all human activities, an errant activity. Science has built-in controls and checks to correct errors, which is why it works and has improved our knowledge of the world. Religion has few or no such checks, which is why it has been such a disaster.
Evolution was, and still is, just a theory but is readily accepted as fact by much of the world.

Anyone who can utter the word "just a theory" has demonstrated himself very ignorant of the methods of science. It is also "just a theory" that lumps of matter attracts each other with a force that diminishes proportionate to the inverse square of the diatance (or whatever that was). Yet, I can assure you that if you jump off a high building, gravity will get to you no matter how much you think it's "just a theory."
Theories are the explanations that science formulates to cover known facts. Facts are the world's data. And it is a fact that things tend to fall down, and it's also a fact that species evolve and that all living things on this planet are genetically related. That isn't theories, it is fact.
The attempts to explain these facts, like Einstein's general theory of relativity, and Fisher/Hamilton's synthetic theory of evolution which united genetics and Darwin's theory of evolution, are patterns of explanation. Some such theories may be in doubt, but the two theories I just mentioned are among the most rigurously tested and solidly confirmed theories in the whole body of science today. Anyone saying "only a theory" does not know what a scientific theory is. It is obviously based on confusing everyday use of the word "theory" -- where we assume a theory to be better than a guess but worse than a fact -- with how this word is used in scientific jargon. There is nothing implicit in the word "scientific theory" that indicates that there is reasonable room for doubt. In the case of some theories, it surely is. In the case of evolution, it is not.
As science progresses at today's fast pace the theory of evolution is faltering here and there,
You have to live in the la-la-land of religious fundamentalism to get this impression. The theory of evolution is solidly founded in fact, and it becomes better and better confirmed every year. Indeed, to express what you just did shortly after the completion of the human genome project is very ironic. The genome confirms the fact of evolution (as if it needed better confirmation) and is a direct written testimony to the evolution of our species over millions of years. It will require massive ignorance and/or dishonesty to avoid that conclusion in the year 2001.
Even many conservative Christians have started abondoning the discredited creationism ship, and prefers the pro-evolution but anti-"materialism" "intelligent design" bandwagon. These, mostly, accept evolution, even though they look for gaps wherein they will squeeze their god.
This is very hard for many to accept because it seems the only option is the theory of creation which is unnaceptable so they hang on tooth and nail to their ancestors , the monkey people.

What you say is so stupid and ignorant that I suggest you take a few years off and start reading some science. It is difficult to comprehend that people can be so ignorant and still sprout off such cocksure statements about what they know nothing about.
Creationism exists almost exclusively in the sub-society of American fundamentalist Christianity, thriving on the ignorant masses who don't know anything about science. I bet 90% of them would fail to know the value of PI to more than two significant digits. I bet 99% of them can't tell the differnce between DNA and RNA. Their only knowledge of biology is what they read on boxes of breakfast cereals. Yet, they sprout with great confidence that all the world's biologists are wrong, and they are right, and that some old semitic creation epos is a better guide to our biological history than the careful study of nature we call science.
I sure hope my ancestors were not monkeys and that we were indeed created by God and the bible turns out to be true

It does say a bit about your knowledge of science that you call our ancestors "monkeys". It is true that we are closely related -- in evolutionary terms -- with the great apes, and somewhat more distantly related to monkeys. I don't see why this should be a problem for anyone. There are many people that are much more troublesome to me as relatives than any ape I have ever heard of, and this includes creationists.
As pointed out by others, one can believe in God and evolution. One of the first great American evolutionists, Asa Gray, was also a devout and serious Christian. Being a careful observer of nature, he corresponded with Darwin over many issues related to biological evolution. Darwin himself was originally a serious Christian (having considered studying for priesthood). Evolution caused him great personal struggles, and he died a self-declared agnostic.
Yet, you wishfully wanting something to be true does not change the reality of things. If there is no god, then there is no god even if you want one to exist. And we are the result of biological evolution from older species whether you or other creationists want it or not.
- Jan
--
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"
-- Albert Einstein
arniem

JanH
Do you want me to read Numbers 3:33-39 for you? It looks pretty straight forward to me! The numbers of all the males a month older or more was 6,200........vs39....the total number of Levites counted including every male a month old or more was 22,000. Pretty straight forward to me! Also Ezra 1:9-11.....if you start back at verse 5 you will see the inventory totaling 2279 were the articles from the temple of Nebuchadnezzar and the 5400 articles was the total from all the family gifts from Judah & Benjamin including the 2279 from the temple. your statements are totally incorrect!
arniem

JanH
evolution teaches that nothing became something that became everything. You need a whole pile of faith to buy that story. I do not have rocks for brains , however I have one sitting on my desk for a paperweight. It has been there for a long time and is still a rock. You are telling me that if I add a bit of water and a lightning strike it will become human. Oh, not quite you say, I have to wait for b i l l i o n s of years and then it will have become human. Evolution teaching has no basis in fact and the teachers alwys throw in the billion year argument to get out of the argument they cannot otherwise win.
arniem

Hey dreamer
Are you able to give absolute proof that we desended from protohomonids? You want my bible to offer proof but you are unwilling to let me ask for your proof?
JanH

Arniem,
Again you talk before you think. Bad habit, that.
Do you want me to read Numbers 3:33-39 for you? It looks pretty straight forward to me! The numbers of all the males a month older or more was 6,200........vs39....the total number of Levites counted including every male a month old or more was 22,000.

See the text for yourself, including the context: http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Numbers+3%3A16-39&version=NIV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english
You don't seem to understand the problem.
The Gershonites were 7,500; the Kohan clan 8,600 and the Merarite is given to be 6,200. This adds up to 22,300, not 22,000.
Also Ezra 1:9-11.....if you start back at verse 5 you will see the inventory totaling 2279 were the articles from the temple of Nebuchadnezzar and the 5400 articles was the total from all the family gifts from Judah & Benjamin including the 2279 from the temple. your statements are totally incorrect!
Imaginative. Nothing in the text indicates such an explanation. It starts the inventory list by saying "This was the inventory:" and ends with the words "In all, there were 5,400 articles of gold and of silver." This is not very hard to understand.
See for yourself at http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Ezra+1%3A5-11+&version=NIV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english
The verses list a number of articles, and then summarizes their count to be 5,400. In fact, the correct number is 2,499. Again, the Bible author knew nothing of math. In fact, there are a large number of such discrepancies in the Bible, especially books like Ezra, Joshua and the Chronicles. In the age before the arab-hindu numerical system we use, math was hard and few could do it.
If you want more examples: Go through Joshua chapters 15 and 19. Count villages and cities, and you'll see the math skills are laughable. The author could not even count with his fingers. In 1. Chronicles 3:19-20; 3:22; 25:3 we find that lists of persons, even with small numbers, are off by one or two.
- Jan
--
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"
-- Albert Einstein
JanH

Arniem,
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
You must really have a fetish for making a fool of yourself. Why do you refuse to make yourself familiar with the subject at hand? Why not get a basic textbook of evolutionary biology and learn a bit before you sprout fundie slogans? Afraid the deeeminz will bite you if you educate yourself past 3rd grade?
evolution teaches that nothing became something that became everything.

Evolution does not even remotely concern itself with such things. Evolution deals with the propagation of self-replicating molecules, wherever those came from.
You need a whole pile of faith to buy that story. I do not have rocks for brains , however I have one sitting on my desk for a paperweight. It has been there for a long time and is still a rock.

You've just crossed the line between being a dimwit and a total moron, Arniem. Do you seriously think that is an argument that has any merit whatsoever? You obviously haven't half a clue what evolution is about, so how can you seriously think you can discuss it?
You are telling me that if I add a bit of water and a lightning strike it will become human.
No.
Oh, not quite you say, I have to wait for b i l l i o n s of years and then it will have become human.
No.
You, on the other hand, claim that if you add an unknown, invisible super-ghost to this equation, the stone (after it has become dust) will become human, in a period of around 6 days.
Evolution teaching has no basis in fact and the teachers alwys throw in the billion year argument to get out of the argument they cannot otherwise win.

I have already demonstrated that evolution has solid merit, unlike your laughable non-arguments above.
Instead of you sprouting off such absurd acrobatics in mind-bending, I will ask you a simple question, and you will either answer it, or you will shut up.
Please explain, other by evolution, how come we share large number of psuedogenes with e.g. chimpanzees.
See if you can put up with answering a serious issue.
- Jan
--
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"
-- Albert Einstein
Farkel

: evolution teaches that nothing became something that became everything. You need a whole pile of faith to buy that story.
Yeah, it's much more logical to believe that EVERYTHING was created, huh? Oh, by the way, who created God, then?
: I do not have rocks for brains, however I have one sitting on my desk for a paperweight. It has been there for a long time and is still a rock.
How many billions of years have you been observing it, then?
: You are telling me that if I add a bit of water and a lightning strike it will become human.
Arniem puts words into JanH's mouth.
: Oh, not quite you say,
Arniem then TAKES words out of JanH's mouth that he put there in the first place.
: I have to wait for b i l l i o n s of years and then it will have become human. Evolution teaching has no basis in fact and the teachers alwys throw in the billion year argument to get out of the argument they cannot otherwise win.
That's quite an arrogant claim: evolution has NO basis in fact, despite the point that scientists are nearly universal in stating it as fact and JanH pointed out. Just where are your arguments? He presented his.
Farkel

Biblical Inerrancy

Share this