Starting this thread to branch off the conversation in Israel thread. @RT_Nomad thanks for engaging.
With the understanding we all have different beliefs and viewpoints here, we can discuss with civility the various points.
RE: contradicts/possible errors in the Biblical cannon.
Luke 1 and 2 - traditionally the story used for Jesus birth. These two chapters are historically inaccurate with one another given the timeframes of Herod and Corrinius [sic] being non-congruent. That is known from other historical texts. If the Bible is inerrant - shouldn’t these at least agree with each other if they don’t agree with known history?
Genesis 1 and 2 present two different stories of the creation. Many biblical scholars agree that what is now seen in genesis 1 is the newer of the two tales and is incongruent with Genesis 2
Versus in Genesis indicate God walked among Adam and Eve in the Garden and spoke directly with them. Later versus in other claim no one can look upon the face of God.
The contradiction of Psalms and Proverbs here sticks out:
A list of some - note the author of this one has misjudged a few of these from my knowledge right off the bat - other contradictions are fairly solid
Using an earlier mention of a word in the Bible to help explain its later use is self referential at best and disingenuous at worst. Not to mention if that words crosses the Testament threshold it was written initially in different languages.
Also, explain how this is not circular logic.
Starting with the belief that the Bible is inerrant → Find versus that contradict one another → Apply first constraint that it cannot be in error → apply some human rationale that either somehow harmonizes the two versus or selectively negotiate with the text that one of the versus is not applicable → that conclusion applied (usually through bad apologetic reasoning or other means) then is used to justify that the text is inerrant.
God might very well exist, but the books arbitrarily chosen to spread the story of God kind of fall apart under scrutiny of the inerrant constraint.
There are a number of other things too such as the Trinity as commonly understood today is not actually present in the text.
Let’s take these one at a time. I am a little dull on history, and for my discussion I don’t care what history says. You say that chapters 1 and 2 don’t agree with one another. Show me verses that indicate a contradiction in your opinion.
Corrinius was not governor of Syria when Herod was in charge of Judea.
This guy (biblical scholar) does a better job explaining it in a short video
Best case, the author of Luke made a historical error. But if the Bible is the inerrant word of God, this should not have happened since God by common Christian definition does not make mistakes.
Luke 2:2 This was the first census that took place while[1] Quirinius was governor of Syria.)
People who knew more about the texts in question than any poster here knows or will ever know, have already given their thoughts on them. There are inconsistencies and it’s only a matter of how believers reconcile and explain them.
Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible. There were several authors. Now, someone may ask me to prove that however, I have zero knowledge of Hebrew, so I defer to people who are experts on the language. Spinoza, for example, would be an expert.
We can use English translations and attempt to interpret what the words mean in context but, I would look to people who lived not long after the events of the New Testament and spoke the actual language it was written in. For example Origen stated that the Gospels had been tampered with and that stories like the Garden of Eden were allegorical.
Marcion claimed the Old and New Testaments were incompatible with one another.
So what. Did you (or they that think this is a contradiction) read the pertaining verse?
Luke 2:2, “(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)”
How about us Americanize Luke 2:1-2?
“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree for the IRS that all the citizens of the USA should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when William Taft was President.”
Very few are qualified to actually study the Bible and understand it. And it’s also impossible to understand without knowing the historical context.
Some validity there for sure.
I also want to know why it was arbitrarily narrowed down to the 66 books currently contained. There are many more related writings that have historical validity to be included.
It dates the census to a specific timeframe. That timeframe is incongruent with the rest of the story. Quironius is after Herod and the rest of the account of the birth. Not the other way around.
Trying to “Americanize” it is apologetic style reasoning to try and to make it fit because of the belief in univocality and inerrancy.
That just flew right over your head. I was demonstrating how absolutely stupid that supposed accusation of a contradiction was.
Had Luke 2:2 said, “(And this taxing was when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)” I would have admitted that a contradiction had some substance in its accusation.
BUT, those two pesky words “first made” were right in the middle of the verse. Why would God put those words there? Just to be verbose? An honest reading of the verse definitely casts doubt on there being a contradiction.
It does not. It reveals when the taxing was “first made.” As the example in when the US government first began taxing citizens (1909).
If this will be your go-to argument against everything I respond, this entire discussion is stacked against a fair exchange of ideas. My belief that the Holy Bible is the inerrant word of God is no more up for debate than “If a=b, then b=a” is up for debate.
I see your point, but this is based on historical record, which I don’t hold to as I said in my initial reply.
I have one historical account of Quirinius where his first census was in 8 BC, which predates the agreed on birth date by Tertulian, Oregen, and Eusibus who all held that Christ was born on 2 BC.
It comes down to being told by a person, who I respect and is quite bright, that there are no contradictions in the Holy Bible (KJV). I text constantly with two friends about the Bible. We spend much time searching for contradictions (though most of our discussions are interpreting scripture.)
One of my friends sent me the link about Quirinius. I don’t know very much history. I am mostly a mathematical and statistics geek.
The Bible clearly says that there are other gods. But they are false gods.
I think what you are actually asking from my perspective is that are there groups of people who worship God (of the Holy Bible) from their own understanding. I do believe that it is most very likely. I understand them from the perspective of John 1:9, “That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”
Your position is understandable. My question to those who believe that is:
“Do find anything written in the Bible as impossible for God to do? If so, why do you believe he can raise those who die and give them everlasting life?”
I have encountered many believers who think God of the Bible is the only god, but I am in agreement with you that the text doesn’t support that notion.
What do you think of the Trinity as commonly understood? It’s not exactly mentioned as such in the text.