240
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 235:
Line 235: + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant? (view source)
Revision as of 16:53, April 7, 2007
, 16:53, April 7, 2007I do not understand this argument.
Looks like a long paragraph of someone's personal opinion. Is there a source somewhere that defines what a "Biblical contradiction" is? A generally accepted rulebook that says whom the "onus" is upon and so forth? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Looks like a long paragraph of someone's personal opinion. Is there a source somewhere that defines what a "Biblical contradiction" is? A generally accepted rulebook that says whom the "onus" is upon and so forth? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:A biblical contradiction is the same as any other contradictions, and contradictions are generally the responsibility of the speaker/writer or his/her representatives to clear up. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:A biblical contradiction is the same as any other contradictions, and contradictions are generally the responsibility of the speaker/writer or his/her representatives to clear up. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
== I do not understand this argument. ==
Could someone please explain to me how anyone in their right mind could think this is a sensible argument to have? The collection of works called the bible was written over thousands of years by a load of different guys in various languages, with different agendas, different points of view, and using their limited understanding of the world as it was at the time they wrote it. Following this, bits were lost, added to, lost again, and then transcribed, translated, re-transcribed, re-translated etc. by a whole load of different guys all struggling to make sense out of a fragmented text in a different language, sno longer spoken. How on earth would anyone expect that there would not be inaccuracies and contradictions arising form that process?
... and if you claim that 'God guided the hand of the writers, translators etc...", think again.
Why on earth (or in heaven) would he bother? Wouldn't it have been much simpler to write the thing once and set it in stone for all time, and ensure that his word was preserved intact? If God actually wanted that, then that was what he would have done. Come on guys, think about it... even if tou are a believer, the real point about having a bible is that it does contain inaccuracies. No believer can be 100% sure that God has not deliberately inserted inaccuracies, simply so that mankind is forced into a debate about 'higher' matters, such as his existence, what the passages actually mean, and the moral and ethical debates ensuing; non-believers of couse just say that that it's just a disparate load of stories & prejudices, to be taken with a pinch of salt.
What you cannot claim, by any sensible and logical reading of the situation, is that it is bible infallible. How on earth could it be, or more importantly, why would it be?
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 12:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)