Welcome to the boards, gum.
The traditional Jewish answer is, yes, Adam’s children slept with one another, as there was no one else in the world.
Zev Steinhardt
Thank you, ** Zev**
I’m not sure what you mean by manuscript evidence. Do you have any, for instance, that Moses wrote the Torah?
The conclusion that the Bible is not inerrant came about by applying exactly the same criteria we do to other historical documents. We do not believe that every person quoted actually said what was quoted - clearly Socrates did not say all that Plato attributed to him. Few historical documents are believed without supporting evidence. Historical accuracy was not the primary standard by which documents were judged in those days, so we need to understand if there were reasons why a writer might distort information, such as to support a religion or to curry favor with a ruler.
Like Holmes’ dog, sometimes lack of evidence is very telling. If there were as many people wandering around the Sinai during the Exodus as claimed, there would certainly be campsite evidence. None has ever been found. Floods leave evidence. There is none for the Noachian flood.
Perhaps you could give examples of where Bible critics have gone wrong?
I once had a discussion with a wiser-than-average fundamentalist who made the near-Talmudic point that Adam and Eve’s children married people that were the least closely related to them of all the people in the world at the time they lived. 
Did you not see my distinction between inerrancy and error in fact? Read back in my 3rd post.
No one is claiming inerrancy from our POV. THe only thing we can do from our disabled POV is locate errors in fact and narrow it down by expert judgement whether it was a translational error, or a purposeful error made to deceive.
Didn’t you see my reply about this? It is an obvious translational error. The words 8 and 18 are very similar, with 18 having an extra word attached to it. Maybe the extra word was smuged out of one of the manuscripts? Probably, seeing that it is over 1000 years old!
Again, expert judgement need be applied here to make inferences about whether this type of error is translational in nature, or a blunt error or even worse, purposely deceptive.
In other words, when you see an error, use your head before running to the bank to cash in on an inferior or deceptive author.
Clarifications needed:
“our. . . POV”? Who’s “we” Kemosabe?
There are clearly people who hold a literalist position regarding the bible who do not believe there are any “errors of fact.” It seems that you are claiming that you do not hold that same position. However, you have also seemed to distance yourself from those who take the “literary” position.
So, if you are not a member of either of the two principle groups with opposing views toward Scripture, in what group are you that your refer to “our” POV?
In this post, you have also set up an apparent false dichotomy between “translational error” and “purposeful error made to deceive.” I can think of several alternative explanations for various errors that are quite different from “translations,” yet have no deceptive intent. Could you clarify this point?
Actuary is my dad. His internet connection is down for another day or so at home, but when it comes back up, he’ll be here to use his library of books to provide some cites. I will also be there with him this weekend.
I think it’s about time I (and him) provided some cites and such, so I will get to it in the next couple days. Until then, let’s put some of the conversation/debating on hold (or at least keep it to a minimum) and just stick to pointing out some cites and some more possible errors. That way this thread won’t get too long and bogged.
I know he has a book about the Quirinius census… and to our suprise and probably yours as well, he was in fact governor of Syria twice! (Which may or may not explain the census/Herod argument) We’ll expand on that later…
No, No. The sentence structure threw the communication off there. When I said our POV, I meant everyone that lives in the 21st Century right now. When I said disabled, I meant that it is very hard to make inferences about perceived Biblical errors due to the immense time lag between our time and the time these manuscripts were written. (Many things can happen in between the writing and now which can make it seem that there are errors when there are not)
I am not on any side or group… but I am certainly not a literalist (it would be illogical to be a literalist as the Bible claims inerrancy in essence, not in wording. It requires taking an extra non-foundational step to assume that God made sure the actual words in my Bible have no errors of any nature.). I believe the Bible is a work completed by many people who may have made errors, but certainly not errors which alter the essence of the Bible’s message. I believe the Bible is perfect because it conveyed God’s message exactly how he intended… with or without errors.
However, if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that an author lied to cover up or lied to deceive, this is of paramount importance to me and I am prepared to alter my image of that author in my mind and possibly of the Bible as a whole. That is my motivation for this thread.
Changing gears… maybe I should come up with a grouping for various types of errors we might find, listed in order or least important to most.
- Translational error: Weathering of 'scripts, mistake transferring, no English word for Hebrew/Greek (or fuzzy translation).
- Geniune error: Author got bad info while interviewing/researching, author forgot, author was lazy and filled in fact with most likely instead of making sure, ect.
- Deceptive Authorship error: False info put in in order to make other facts mesh, falsified info in order to persuade reader, falsified info in order to puff up a character or story, ect.
I think that covers it.
Keep in mind that any work of the same nature and age as the Bible will always have the first two kinds of errors, and these errors, as long as they are not widespread, should not count against the Bible in such a way to discredit it, IMO. Who knows? Maybe some human errors were part of God’s plan for the Bible? But the last type of error, if proved, is unacceptable and should be noted and your opinion of the author and Bible adjusted for accordingly.
TO be more thorough in explaining my midset, I DO care about the first two types of errors, expecially the 2nd type, because knowing about these errors wil help me understand the nature of the Bible porperly. But, I would not consider a reasonable amount of Type II errors to discredit the whole Bible. It just means that the words should be taken with a grain and the essence sought for more intently.
I feel that if this thread turns out like I want it to, I will gain a better understanding of the Bible and I will be able to interpret it better (whether we find none or many errors).
OK, I’m not sure if this one qualifies as a logical error, but it certainly doesn’t gel with reality:
So what exactly is this ‘expanse’ described here? - the first passage says there is water above the expanse (suggesting that the expanse is the Earth’s atmosphere), the second passage says that the sun, moon and stars are contained within the expanse, which pretty much rules out it being the atmosphere and pretty much rules out there being any water ‘above’ it.
“The New Evidence” by Josh McDowell cites Geisler and Leach saying that there are 24,970 surviving manuscripts supporting the New Testament. (Extant Greek- 5,686 and 14 other languages - 19,284)
He quotes F. E. Peters: “on the basis of manuscript tradition alone, the works that made up the Christians’ NT were the most frequently copied and widely circulated books of antiquity”.
John Warwick Montgomery: “…no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament”.
Sir Frederick G. Kenyon (former director of the British Museum and MSS authority): “In no other case is the interval of the time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament”.
I’ll be back to share more from a book I just found.
To clarify, those 24,000+ manuscripts are NOT all complete. Many are partial.
This is the standard literalist assertion…no surprise from this corner…unfortunately it doesn’t hold up. The claim that Quirinius was governor twice comes from an inscription on a stone called the Lapis Tiburtinus which refers only to a person who was “governor again.” It does not name the governor or say what he was governor of. Literalists have lept on this inscription and extropolated that it must refer to Quirinius. Their only argument for this is the discrepency in Luke. There is absolutely no other reason to think that this refers to Cyrenius. Even more importantly, we know for a fact that the governor of Syria at the time of Herod’s death was Varius Quinillius.
There are other problems with this argument. There is no record of a census before 6 CE. This is not a small issue because the census in 6 CE caused riots in Palestine. The Jewish people didn’t like censuses. If an earlier census had been taken there would have been a similar revolt to the one in 6 CE.
Furthermore, the reason for the census in 6 CE was that Archelaus had been removed from power and Judea had come under direct Roman rule. Prior to that time Judea was a client kingdom-- a Roman protectorate, but not under direct Roman rule. Rome did not take censuses of client kingdoms.
To sum up:
1.) The inscription on the Lapis Tibiturnus does not name Quirinius but only one “who was governor again.” The identiication of this governor as Quirinius is completely unsupported, and is actually directly contradicted by, other historical evidence.
2.) We also know from Josephus that the governor of Syria at the end of Herod’s reign was Varius, not Quirinius. There would not have been two governors for one province.
3.) There is no record of a census before 6 CE. A census was a major event, and an undertaking which was greatly resented and violently resisted by the Jewish people. It is simply not possible that an earlier census could have taken place without any notice from Roman or Jewish historians.
4.) Before 6 CE Judea was not a province which was even subject to a Roman census.
The firmament/heaven could be the atmosphere & space and the waters above the firmament could be outside the realm of space as we know it (as in, where God lives)… keep in mind the Hebrew word used here for heaven is shameh which means lofty, sky, ether where the celestial bodies are. So, the use of the label “Heaven” did not mean the same as in other places in the Bible where it said things like “Our Father, which art in heaven”. Different word, descriptive word, not to be confused with God’s home, which very well could be the water above the firmament.
Why go into detail about the locations of these three places if it isn’t going to add up from our point of view here on earth? I don’t know, which leads me to believe that the author and God intended it to be this way for a purpose. It doesn’t look like a mistake, more like a purposefully ambiguous description or such. The reason I think this is that it was written so close together in the same chapter in the same description, not many chapters or books later. It was inteded. (I’m sure this assertion breaks some sort of logical rule, but what the heck?)
Apos:
Doesn’t the Bible also say that God hardens the heart of the Pharoh basically so that he can have a chance to show off his power? Part of which showing off includes killing all the firstborn in Egypt. In other words: he prods someone to do a wrong just so that he can have a chance to commit acts of supernatural terrorism against Egyptian civilians just to show off his oogly-googly powers. If true, I would think that this would be something people should hope ISN’T the literal truth.
I agree and here is your cite, though I left out most of the bloody details to save bandwidth:
Romans 9:17
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Exodus 7:3
And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.
Exodus 7:13-14
And he hardened Pharaoh’s heart,that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said. And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh’s heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go.
Exodus 9:12
And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.
Exodus 10:1
And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him:
Exodus 10:20
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.
Exodus 10:27
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let them go.
Exodus 11:10
And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.
Exodus 14: 8
And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand.
Exodus 14:17
And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honor upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen.
Exodus 14: 27-28
And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen. And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.
Of course Pharaoh wasn’t the only one:
Deuteronomy 2:30-34
But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand… And the Lord our God delivered him before us: and we smote him, and his sons and all his people. And we took his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones…
Joshua 11: 18-20
Joshua made war a long time with all their kings. There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the in habitants of Gibeon: all other they took battle. For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly…
Of course as any true Scotsman, er Christian will tell you Jesus and god are the same guy and have been since the beginning.
It seems to me that what you are calling type 2 errors includes the process by which all mythology arises. People make up stories in an attempt to explain the phenomena around them, and after the stories have been handed down for a few generations they become fact. Regardless of the motivation, these are serious misstatements of fact, and I don’t see why those “errors” shouldn’t “count against the Bible”.
If you’re only going to count those cases where the author deliberately lied (type 3 errors), you won’t find much there. My guess is that even the most outrageous Biblical stories were the result of someone describing something that he sincerely believed happened. Was the author of Genesis there at the creation, or did he just pass along the story that had been passed on to him? Even if he got the story all wrong, you can’t blame him for deliberately lying.
Oh, you mean like coming up with an all-powerful Deus ex Machina character (pardon the pun) that not only created the stage but lit it and added the entire supporting cast?
Jesus was called the Messiah, Son of God, the savior of all mankind- this isn’t “puffing up” a character?
He was later brought back from the dead- falsified info?
The all-loving God character will send you to eternal torment if you don’t worship him- this isn’t to “persuade” the reader?
I had a subsequent post that cleared up what you are talking about.
DtC,Slightly biased, but informative cite for the census that somewhat supports Luke:
http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/luke_census.htm
Another cite that supports Luke(less biased???):
http://www.interlog.com/~dlim/Luke2v2.html