The real problem with an inerrant Bible (Jesus, ritual, virgin)

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Ronald,

Actually I was thinking of the Old Testament where the difference in some numbers is glaring. The New Testament does not lend itself to this question easily but I assume there are some as well.

So ....

Do you accept "scribal errors" as being beyond inerrancy? Or do you subscribe to the frequently expressed bit of Christian dogma that only the originals are error-free?

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Actually, that it does not claim inerrency, does not make it flawed. If God inspired it, then he provided that it has given us all we need to believe in him. No more and no less. That's niether inductive or abductive... it is deductive.

Please answer the question. If the Bible claimed to be inerrant, would that make it true?

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Well now you are comparing Matthew to Benny Hinn. I hope you don't mind if I take umbrage with that statement.

It might be educational if, instead of taking offense, we investigated why that might be a legitimate comparison.

[Scuba Pete]

If the Bible claimed to be inerrant, would that make it true?

I did or at least I tried. The veracity of the Bible depends on nothing but God. Claims, misconceptions, misunderstandings and the like have NO bearing on its validity. I am sorry I did not make that clearer when I said the lack thereof does not make it false.

It might be educational

Not sure how an ad hominid on a man who is not here to defend his honor can be considered "educational". I have made far less condescending statements about a certain person, and that did not stop YOU from making your displeasure known. Rather than chastise me for my response, it might be educational for you to try and figure out why I find such a statement as incredibly offensive.

Of course, if you have ACTUAL evidence of such egregious conduct by Matthew, or any of the apostles, please trot it out. Without such evidence, I find such unsubstantiated claims as HIGHLY inflammatory and intellectually vapid.

[oracle]

Originally Posted by Ronald

pah, The historical account is that says Matthew wrote his original in Hebrew. Since it can't be produced, we can only speculate as to its content. One would think he would write it as it happened, he would have nothing to gain by embellishing his account. If I made a quess I would surmise it would be accurate. That being said I have no clue, only it is recorded as historical.
I have seen writings of scholars in the Jerusalem Institute speaking of their efforts to back translate the gospels into Hebrew, stating that some of them(gospels) large portions of them easily back translate giving the appearance of being transliterated from Hebrew documents, My mind is that these portions are from the original writers document.
The places that defy back translation into Hebrew, they, surmise were added by someone. I assume the changes were to change the meaning to their advantage. Having something to gain by their additions, insertions and interpretations.
As I said there is enough truth left in the scriptures (New Testament) to do its job of the leading people to the Ministry of Yeshua/Jesus. God's word will not return to Him void!

Some actually speculate that the gospel of the hebrews was the original Mathew.

[oracle]

Anyways, people can argue over inerrancy of which is pointless and leads nowhere. You do not grasp the underlying message of Mathew by discussing inerrancy. Like I said, it wasn't written to be a history book and it wasn't written as a feat of perfect liturature. The authors used historical events that did happen, and events that did not happen but have symbolical and spiritual significance (for those who's understanding exceed the literalistic interpretations). On a literary aspect, the bible is not error free, however it's the interpretations that are full of error. Grammatical and historical error is irrelivent, because they were not written to be history books or God-written literature. They only used historical events as a method of preserving their spiritual message so that it will be passed down from generation to generation. There is a significant symbolic coding with a spiritual significance.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Actually, that it does not claim inerrency, does not make it flawed.

Actually, it does. What protocol do you employ to distinguish between 'truth', error, and pious fraud?

Originally Posted by NetDoc

If God inspired it, then he provided that it has given us all we need to believe in him. No more and no less. That's niether inductive or abductive... it is deductive.

No, it's speculation. As deduction it rises to the level of non sequitur at best.

Furthermore - and conversely - widespread belief in the Book of Mormon, the Qur'an, the Talmud, and the Vedas, suggest that the existence of belief is not evidence of God's presumed inspiration.

[Scuba Pete]

Actually, it does.

Cool... please explain your reasoning.

What protocol do you employ to distinguish between 'truth', error, and pious fraud?

Well I was going to run things by you...

Non sequitur? That's only because you don't understand it. This is not only intuitive, but derived as well.

Furthermore - and conversely

You are completely right. Your acceptance or rejection of the Bible has no bearing on it's validity. God is whether you accept him or not. The Bible is, whether you accept the evidence or not.

[Ronald]

pah, it is written on the hearts of those who believe, this one is inerrant! I am mortal, fallable man and what I say may not convey the acctual word written on my heart. Therefore the possibility/probability of you hearing error. I suppose that is clear as mud. LOL

Again my opinion. The only one I am qualified to give.

[painted wolf]

NetDoc- I'm sorry if I offended, I was just trying to point out that saying that any of the apostles had "NOTHING" to gain by embelishing thier stories a bit, is dishonest.
It is human nature to embelish stories when you tell them to make them 'better'. I'm not saying that they made the whole thing up, I'm saying they were human beings like the rest of us.

They were not infalible, they were human. Thus thier writings are human, however devinely inspired.

Again I'm sorry if what I have said is offencive, I did not indend it that way.

wa:do