Bible errancy discussion

[Matthew78]

This is the appropriate forum.

Excellent! I have a number of examples that I want to discuss so that might result in many threads being started.

 

[Raymond Sheen]

i do not know the exact placement in the bible...
but there is a passage where the jews complain that pharoah orders them to create bricks, but will not supply the straw.
What is conviently left out is that the pharoah was about improveing upon with the resources they had in the best possible way.
While the jews cried out they left out that Pharoah insisted they use sand instead of straw. It made stronger better bricks!
I assume it was left out because it gave Pharoah a good light & they wished to make him look bad!

Exodus 5:7-19 - You must not gather straw to give to the people to make bricks as formerly. Let them themselves go and gather straw for themselves. Moreover, the required amount of bricks that they were making formerly, you will further impose upon them. You must not make any reduction for them, because they are relaxing. That is why they are crying out, saying, ‘We want to go, we want to sacrifice to our God!’ Let the service be heavy upon the men and let them work at it, and let them not pay attention to false words.”

So those who drove the people to work and their officers went out and said to the people: “Here is what Pharaoh has said, ‘I am giving you no more straw. You yourselves go, get straw for yourselves wherever you may find it, because there is to be no reducing of your services one bit.’” Consequently the people scattered about over all the land of Egypt to gather stubble for straw. And those who drove them to work kept urging them, saying: “Finish your works, each one his work, day for day, just as when straw was available.” Later on the officers of the sons of Israel, whom Phar′aoh’s taskmasters had set over them, were beaten, these saying: “Why is it you did not finish your prescribed task in making bricks as formerly, both yesterday and today?”

Consequently the officers of the sons of Israel went in and began to cry out to Pharaoh, saying: “Why do you deal this way with your servants? There is no straw given to your servants and yet they are saying to us, ‘Make bricks!’ and here your servants are beaten, whereas your own people are at fault.” But he said: “You are relaxing, you are relaxing! That is why you are saying, ‘We want to go, we want to sacrifice to Jehovah.’ And now go, serve! Though no straw will be given to you, yet you are to give the fixed amount of bricks.”

Then the officers of the sons of Israel saw themselves in an evil plight at the saying: “You must not deduct from your bricks one bit of anyone’s daily rate.”

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I was wondering if this was the appropriate area to discuss what I consider to be flaws in the Bible. For example, I could list what I consider to be a flaw and then ask for responses from people who believe that the Bible is inerrant and explain my skepticism of their answers if I have any.

Interesting thread I must say. Thank you Mattew78!

Sound like a discussion/debate about Cain. My question is if the account of Adam and Eve is a historical account and Adam and Eve were the first people on the earth. Why, after Cain kills Abel, is Cain worried about the "other people". It's only Adam, Eve and Cain, now that Abel is dead.

Genesis 4:13-14 NIV

13 Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

The story of Adam and Eve, imo, has to be allegorical to fit within the Adam and Eve story and comply with God's sixth day creation, mankind.

Genesis 1:26-27 NIV

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

The only way, imo, to reconcile Gen. 1:26-27 and Genesis 4:13-14 is to realize that Adam and Eve were, in the mist of other people and therefore, NOT the very first people to have occupied the earth.

How I describe the six days of creation is for another thread.

 

[Matthew78]

Interesting thread I must say. Thank you Mattew78!

You're quite welcome. It's encouraging to have intelligent and thoughtful Christians like yourself who are interested in dialogue.

 

[Skwim]

I was wondering if this was the appropriate area to discuss what I consider to be flaws in the Bible. For example, I could list what I consider to be a flaw and then ask for responses from people who believe that the Bible is inerrant and explain my skepticism of their answers if I have any.

I always found the discrepancy in Biblical genealogies to be interesting. So far I have yet to see a reasonable explanation of the following.

Genealogies of Chronicles and Luke

1 Chronicles 1:17-18
17 The sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. And the sons of Aram:[d] Uz, Hul, Gether, and Meshech. 18Arpachshad fathered Shelah, and Shelah fathered Eber.


Luke 3:35-36
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
​

Putting the two lists in descending order it's easier to see the flaw.

Chronicles 1:17-18         Luke 3:35-36

Noah                    Noah
Shem                   Shem
Arpachshad               Arphaxad
                       Cainan
Shelah                   Shelah
Eber                     Eber

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Wouldn't you agree that since Adam was mentioned in the legal genealogical records as a literal person who bore offspring we can deduce that Adam was an historical person?

Of course not.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Let me clarify. If the position is taken that Adam was an allegorical character, as presented by the Bible, then there would be no need to have included him in the genealogy, especially as having offspring.

You mean you see no value whatsoever in being able to trace a Hebrew lineage literally back to God's first workings? As opposed to not? Really?

Come on now.

 

[cablescavenger]

Wouldn't you agree that since Adam was mentioned in the legal genealogical records as a literal person who bore offspring we can deduce that Adam was an historical person?

I see the problem here Raymond. You are using logic.

You have to throw that out of the window if you want to discuss the bible.

:tribal:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I see the problem here Raymond. You are using logic. You have to throw that out of the window if you want to discuss the bible.

There is an inordinate amount of high quality biblical scholarship available. Don't confuse your inability with necessity.

 

[Caladan]

I see the problem here Raymond. You are using logic.

You have to throw that out of the window if you want to discuss the bible.

:tribal:

Oh dear, are you saying there is no scholarship around the Bible?

 

[cablescavenger]

Oh dear, are you saying there is no scholarship around the Bible?

No. You are saying that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No. You are saying that.

Either you're not being honest or you literally do not know what you're talking about.

 

[cablescavenger]

There is an inordinate amount of high quality biblical scholarship available. Don't confuse your inability with necessity.

It appears I owe you an apology. I mistakenly thought that the bible was so ambiguous that if you randomly chose different passages from a bible and assumed you knew how they would be interpreted based on your own literal view, you would get a plethora of different responses ranging from agreement to accusation of straw man.

I sincerely apologise if I am mistaken, but I didn't know this "High Quality Biblical Scholarship" was available to rectify all precious misgivings and is entirely logical. Given that you assert the bible is now Pro-Logic I can assume this inordinate amount of high quality biblical scholarship has resolved all of the conflicts, and knows exactly what the bible does and does not mean and how it should be read?

So cn I ask when this revised Bible will be released in hardback? and when we can expect to see the different Judaism, Christian and Islamic denominations reunite?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Either you're not being honest or you literally do not know what you're talking about.

It appears I owe you an apology. I mistakenly thought ...

Thed third option being: all of the above.

 

[Caladan]

No. You are saying that.

Honesty is an appreciated quality on this forum. consider it as a long term investment.

 

[cablescavenger]

Honesty is an appreciated quality on this forum. consider it as a long term investment.

I did not say there was no scholarship. You said that. It was your straw man.

 

[cablescavenger]

Thed third option being: all of the above.

Apology accepted :beach:

 

[Caladan]

I did not say there was no scholarship. You said that. It was your straw man.

Your assertion was simple. 'it is impossible to discuss the Bible in a logical way.'
Maybe its time you clarify it a little bit more what you meant with your words:

I see the problem here Raymond. You are using logic.

You have to throw that out of the window if you want to discuss the bible.

:tribal:

 

[cablescavenger]

Your assertion was simple. 'it is impossible to discuss the Bible in a logical way.'
Maybe its time you clarify it a little bit more what you meant with your words:

Nope, still not got it, but you are getting warmer.

I am saying Raymond made assumptions about the logic that would be applied by the reader, and what their interpretation would be, and was surprised to be pulled up on it (as I was when I joined here), but the book is so ambiguous even people who read it religiously cannot agree on the passages.

So "No, you cannot apply logic".

 

[Caladan]

Nope, still not got it, but you are getting warmer.

I am saying Raymond made assumptions about the logic that would be applied by the reader, and what their interpretation would be, and was surprised to be pulled up on it (as I was when I joined here), but the book is so ambiguous even people who read it religiously cannot agree on the passages.

So "No, you cannot apply logic".

You know, sometimes its better being upfront instead of going in circles.
you have been on the forum for what, maybe a couple of months?
members have been able to discuss the scriptures here for a decent amount of years using scholarship and avoiding subjective assumptions about the scriptures.
don't pick up a fight so soon, some of us actually aim to enjoy our time spent here.