Errors in your Holy book

[Otherright]

Because skepticism is good, it's how we achieve the correct answers to our questions. As to my apparent need to feed off it, why wouldn't I want to know discrepancies in texts?

You can treat it as a test of your faith. Either your faith will grow by studying discrepancies, or it will annihilate your world view of your religion.

I can list a lot really good scriptural discrepancies. Now there are some that appear to be scriptural discrepancies such as Exodus 33, but in reality it isn't. You just have to know the rest of the facts. There are plenty, however, that are incredibly blatant.

 

[Desert Snake]

You can treat it as a test of your faith. Either your faith will grow by studying discrepancies, or it will annihilate your world view of your religion.

I can list a lot really good scriptural discrepancies. Now there are some that appear to be scriptural discrepancies such as Exodus 33, but in reality it isn't. You just have to know the rest of the facts. There are plenty, however, that are incredibly blatant.

Well I think the OP want's those discrepancies listed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So you're saying that skepticism of 'holy' texts is "rubbish"? lol I think not.

I'm saying this thread has absolutely nothing to do with skepticism. It's a juvenile attempt to bait theists and debunk scripture by inviting folks to wallow in flaws.

 

[CaptainBritain]

I'm saying this thread has absolutely nothing to do with skepticism. It's a juvenile attempt to bait theists and debunk scripture by inviting folks to wallow in flaws.

The only error ive responded to so far was done so in the spirit of finding truth to the contradiction, whatever crawled up your *** kindly ask it to vacate the area.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The only error ive responded to so far was done so in the spirit of finding truth ...

Your intent is more than transparent -- and petty.

 

[CaptainBritain]

Your intent is more than transparent -- and petty.

Yet my actions seem not to reflect my so called intent, the FBI want mind readers, go and apply though im guessing you will fail the practical.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yet my actions seem not to reflect my so called intent, ...

No, it did not. In truth you started back peddling very early in the thread.

 

[CaptainBritain]

No, it did not. In truth you started back peddling very early in the thread.

nope just corrected fragile folk who got the wrong end of the stick.

Quote from the OP

*Could be historical, scientific, contradiction, illogical statement etc etc

Who knows, you could list that error here, and a fellow might explain it.*

intent established at the start and consistant throughout, you read what you wanted to, seems to be a pattern.

 

[Smartt33]

As I see it, man is not without error. I believe the Bible was put together by men because of the inspiration of God. I believe that because God is the initiator of it, it is written to deliver a spiritual message.

You can find errors in copy, in some history, in some scientific inforkation, etc, but it is not a book written for these purposes.

I believe that it is a book wriotten to the spiritual side of mankind. God made us to be able to communicate and relate to Him. I believe the spiritual message that God created us in his image, gives us grace to be able to communicate and relate to him, and has a plan and design in it all, is the "perfect" message, without any error at all. It is consistent throughout the4 Bible, and it is the parts that change the lives of man when they see and receive that message. the rest is information.

that is my thought.

 

[BruceDLimber]

sn't it a truthful stance to say..."i don't know?"

Of course.

But that's an entirely different circumstance from willful ignorance due to refusal to investigate, as I pointed out!

Bruce

 

[sojourner]

But there are scribal errors. Thousands of them across manuscripts. The question is, does it change the theology? It doesn't. Well except for Mark 16's interpolation at the end. That did change theology for a certain denomination.

That's not a "scribal error." And it did completely skew the tenor of Mark's story, because it rewrote the ending.:areyoucra

 

[waitasec]

That's not a "scribal error." And it did completely skew the tenor of Mark's story, because it rewrote the ending.:areyoucra

because the ending was
Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid

and it was changed to

Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

curious, do you think mark was written 1st and along with Q were used as a source for matthew and luke?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

curious, do you think mark was written 1st and along with Q were used as a source for matthew and luke?

The Synoptic Problem probably deserves its own thread.

 

[sojourner]

because the ending was
Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid

and it was changed to

Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

curious, do you think mark was written 1st and along with Q were used as a source for matthew and luke?

The original ending makes Mark a comedic tragedy. It drives the point home that no one really knew what to make of the event, which is a theological statement.

The longer ending adds the resurrection/ascension, which completely changes the complexion of the story.

 

[waitasec]

The original ending makes Mark a comedic tragedy. It drives the point home that no one really knew what to make of the event, which is a theological statement.

The longer ending adds the resurrection/ascension, which completely changes the complexion of the story.

makes sense... but
do you think mark was written 1st and along with Q were used as a source for matthew and luke? if so, pre edited version or post?
i'm interested in your take, since you have a really interesting and unique interpretation of it from my experience.

 

[sojourner]

makes sense... but
do you think mark was written 1st and along with Q were used as a source for matthew and luke? if so, pre edited version or post?
i'm interested in your take, since you have a really interesting and unique interpretation of it from my experience.

I think Q predates Mark by at least 30 years. I think Mark did not know about Q. I think Matthew and Luke knew about both Mark and Q, and used them extensively in their "new and improved" versions. I think the longer ending of Mark post-dates.

 

[waitasec]

I think Q predates Mark by at least 30 years. I think Mark did not know about Q. I think Matthew and Luke knew about both Mark and Q, and used them extensively in their "new and improved" versions. I think the longer ending of Mark post-dates.

let me get this straight.
mark didn't know about Q
matthew and luke used both Q and mark as a source
and the additional verses in mark came after matthew and luke?
right?

then i am to assume, and correct me if i'm wrong, the resurrection story came from Q...

 

[sojourner]

let me get this straight.
mark didn't know about Q
matthew and luke used both Q and mark as a source
and the additional verses in mark came after matthew and luke?
right?

then i am to assume, and correct me if i'm wrong, the resurrection story came from Q...

Mark doesn't use Q, so, given that the other gospelers use Q, I assume Mark was unfamiliar with Q.
Yes. Matt. and Lk. both use Mark and Q as source material.

Why would you think the resurrection story came from Q? There is no resurrection story in Q.

 

[waitasec]

Mark doesn't use Q, so, given that the other gospelers use Q, I assume Mark was unfamiliar with Q.
Yes. Matt. and Lk. both use Mark and Q as source material.

Why would you think the resurrection story came from Q? There is no resurrection story in Q.

where else could it come from? if the resurrection wasn't in Q or in mark and matthew and luke used those as sources...

isn't it true that we have evidence of Q's existence but we do not have it or a copy of it?

 

[sojourner]

where else could it come from? if the resurrection wasn't in Q or in mark and matthew and luke used those as sources...

isn't it true that we have evidence of Q's existence but we do not have it or a copy of it?

Matt. and Lk. also used their unique material. Neither is simply a "rewrite" of the earlier stuff.

There is no extant copy of Q, other than what scholars have reconstructed. If you're interested, there's a really good book you could peruse:

Q the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus, John S. Kloppenborg, WEstminster John Knox Press, 2008.