Without contradiction

[alkech]

Why is it so important for (many) believers to maintain that the Bible is without error or contradition? Does it really matter if two books don't mirror the same events to the exact degree? The writers were multiple, very human, and they were writting in differing times, so more than not, there are going to be some events out of alignment. Surely one's faith does not hinge on this idea, so why the vehement defense and the obsurd reconcilations?

[jpholding]

Why is it so important for (many) believers to maintain that the Bible is without error or contradition? Does it really matter if two books don't mirror the same events to the exact degree? The writers were multiple, very human, and they were writting in differing times, so more than not, there are going to be some events out of alignment. Surely one's faith does not hinge on this idea, so why the vehement defense and the obsurd reconcilations?

It doesn't matter to me personally; however, most of the claims of error and contradiction are so absurd and show so much ignorance of the social and literary world of the Bible that if I were an atheist I would be out correcting other critics because they were making the atheist view look so bad.

[Mountain Man]

...most of the claims of error and contradiction are so absurd and show so much ignorance of the social and literary world of the Bible...

That's it in a nutshell.

[Minnesota]

It's because they've committed themselves to an untenable position. So, no matter what contrary evidence comes along their conscience (read: sense of security) demands that they reject it. PERIOD!!! Of course, to justify their rejections, they tap dance around the issue like the Ritz brothers, and come up with explanations worthy of the Brothers Grimm. But don't come down to hard on them, the psyche can be a pretty fragile thing at times, and when it comes to attacks on one's primary grip on life, any chink in the armor is seen as the beginnings of a descent into the hell of reality.










(a little drama added for Dee Dee's benefit, and a little pontificating ala LakeGeorgeMan)

[salvationfound]

I've never truly believed that the Bible we have today is inerrant. Thanks to
mistranslation and copyist errors and so forth I believe only the original
books were inerrant.

[Seasanctuary]

I've never truly believed that the Bible we have today is inerrant. Thanks to
mistranslation and copyist errors and so forth I believe only the original
books were inerrant.

Can you provide an example of where the manuscripts we have are in error but the originals weren't?

[alkech]

It doesn't matter to me personally; however, most of the claims of error and contradiction are so absurd and show so much ignorance of the social and literary world of the Bible that if I were an atheist I would be out correcting other critics because they were making the atheist view look so bad.

I tend to agree that some of the quibbling over obvious scribal errors, while taking metaphor for literal is absurd. However, they would not be bringing up such mundane issues if the inerrant and non-contradiction position were not taken in the first place. How can one respond when the theist position is, “yeah, what do you expect, these are different people describing the same event, even today’s eyewitnesses to natural events have the same problems.”

~take care

[alkech]

I've never truly believed that the Bible we have today is inerrant. Thanks to
mistranslation and copyist errors and so forth I believe only the original
books were inerrant.

Can I ask a question, could it be the problem is compounded because, particularly the NT, the gospels and letters, where never meant to become an anthology to be compared with side by side anyway?

~take care

[jpholding]

However, they would not be bringing up such mundane issues if the inerrant and non-contradiction position were not taken in the first place. How can one respond when the theist position is, “yeah, what do you expect, these are different people describing the same event, even today’s eyewitnesses to natural events have the same problems.”

One can respond, "That is correct."

However, I do find that the authors of the first century and before were not precision literalists in the way that some on both sides demand they ought to have been. The standard for what was "error" simply was not as precise as we demand.

Some will say that this waters down inerrancy, but when you get down to it, even if the Bible is a normal human document, it still has claims that need to be dealt with as would any other recorded in a secular history.

[Dee Dee Warren]

a little drama added for Dee Dee's benefit

Don't mind Minn. He is smitten with me.