Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,253
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 119:
Line 119: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless. (view source)
Revision as of 13:52, May 4, 2008
, 13:52, May 4, 2008→Two accounts of creation - the Bible contradicts itself in the first chapters of the first book
In the example of Jesus' resurrection, some gospels say there's one angel present, some say two. But, is that a contradiction? No. It would be if it was said that there were only one and only two. That's a contradiction. But, one of the writers could have seen just one and wrote about that one, while another could have seen both there. It's not necessarily a contradiction.[[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:22, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
In the example of Jesus' resurrection, some gospels say there's one angel present, some say two. But, is that a contradiction? No. It would be if it was said that there were only one and only two. That's a contradiction. But, one of the writers could have seen just one and wrote about that one, while another could have seen both there. It's not necessarily a contradiction.[[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:22, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:That's an extremely precarious argument to raise in defense of the notion of Biblical inerrancy, Ultimahero. In a court case today, if two witnesses to a crime were questioned, and one said that there were two suspects and the other said there was one, significant effort would be taken to ascertain which one was right. If, in fact, there were two suspects, then the person who said that there was one is, in fact, in error. He's made a mistake. That mistake might not say anything at all about his honesty--it's quite likely that he honestly believes there was only one--but it does say something about his powers of observation. It would especially say something about his powers of observation if the person he failed to notice was had an appearance like lightning and clothes as white as snow.
:Accepting that the authors of the Bible were fallible men, capable of errors of this sort, is an absolute denial of the concept of inerrancy.
:Your argument is also flawed in another respect: the authors of these books ''weren't at the tomb.'' They didn't see anything--not one angel, not two. Their accounts aren't based on first-hand observation, but on the reports of the witnesses who ''were'' there: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (I suppose the guards at the tomb could also have given an account, but it seems unlikely, given that they were ordered to lay the blame on the Apostles.)
:Thus, the several Apostles received the same account of the episode at the tomb from the same witnesses.
:There are stronger arguments for the difference in accounts; it would be prudent to raise these arguments rather than then one you raise.
:[[User:BenP|BenP]] 09:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)