A succinct, devastating case for errors, contradictions in the Bible

[NAO]

This is a very good piece on the case against biblical errancy. It is better than most I have seen because it picks the most glaring examples, and remarkably, offers the explanations of the best christian apologists alongside the contradictions.

So the bulk of the article is a table with three columns:

1) bible verses
2) apologist answer
3) the rational explanation

The contorted, ad hoc "explanations" of the apologists are as devastating to the case as the errors and contradictions themselves. Seen next to the actual errors and the rational explanations, they seem so clearly to be contrived and transparent...yet they are the way that these problems are explained away.

I can't see how a person could look over this brief article and continue to believe that the Bible is "the infallible word of God", and "has no errors".

A Brief Survey of Biblical Errancy
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible2.htm

[waiting for hope]

1. It's amazing that people will blindly believe

what they think is true. I sat in on two classes, Hebrew Scriptures and The New Testament at the local community college to help my Dad after he had surgery. Both teachers, a Rabbi and a Presbyterian minister were explicit in stating some basic truths - one of the Rabbi's first statements was not to take the Hebrew Scriptures as the literal word of God and then went on to point out the how scholars came to identify the four different author styles, J,E,P and D. There were about five students in the class that just could not accept what the teacher was saying and it turns out that all five who complained and argued ended up dropping out of the class. The minister had a similar problem when discussing the Revelation of St John - there were two in that class that were adamant that Revelations was a definite prediction of the end of days. The minister had gone on to tell of the historical time of John and that 666 represented Nero - one girl argued that it was the Anti-Christ and on and on..... The feeling I came away with was that these individuals didn't have a very rich or varied background of ancient history. If they were more versed in ancient history and how civilizations came into being, then perhaps they would be more open minded. There was one glaring inconsistency that I thought should have been in the article, there are two creation stories in Genesis, each just a slight bit different from the other. If God wrote the Bible, why have two and why are they different?

Good Post!
:hi:

[regnaD kciN]

2. The thing you need to keep in mind...

...is that only a relatively small percentage of Christians (obviously, fundamentalist) hold the Bible to be inerrant.

I can't see how a person could look over this brief article and continue to believe that the Bible is "the infallible word of God", and "has no errors".

You should probably keep in mind that "infallible" and "inerrant" do not, theologically, mean the same thing.

[FtWayneBlue]

3. For a look further, check out "Age of Reason" by

Thomas Paine.