I am a believer in Christianity who is seeking a way out because I am having great difficulty taking the doctrine of eternal damnation of the many (which is clearly taught in _script_ure). Since my religious experience is in line with what the Bible teaches, the only honest way I can see to do this is to 'prove' the bible is in error. So I have been looking at some web stuff relating to the errancy of the Bible... And I have not found anything that can be called a major error or contradiction. Let me give a couple of examples of alleged errors and contradictions which are only useful for one who presupposes the Bible is in error. King Zedekiah from Je 34:4-5 and JE 52:10-11 ? I'm surprised this is even in the list. The prophecy was that he would not die by the sword but would die in peace. O.K. dying in prison after one's sons eyes have been put out is not my idea of peaceful either, but let's face it, the God of the Bible makes his own rules and has his own idea of peace... The fact is Zed did not die by the sword. 1SA 21:1-6 Ahimalech was high priest when David ate the bread. MK 2:26 Abiathar was high priest at the time. The Christian anti anti Bible websites say that this is not a problem since Abaithar was Ahimalech's son. Don't know much about it, but it seems plausible, I guess. MT 27:28 Jesus is given a scarlet robe (a sign of infamy). MK 15:17, JN 19:2 A purple robe (a sign of royalty). This really is nitpicking, isn't it? MT 27:44 Both of those who are crucified with Jesus taunt him. LK 23:39-42 Only one taunts Jesus, and he is rebuked by the other for doing so. So they both taunt him, then one stops and defends Jesus. Am I nuts or is this a plausible reading of the text? MT 27:48, LK 23:36, JN 19:29 Jesus was offered vinegar to drink. MK 15:23 It was wine and myrrh, and he did not drink it. JN 19:29-30 Whatever it was, he did drink it. So Jesus was offered wine and he did not drink it, then he was offered vinegar and he did drink it? Does each of the Gospel accounts have to give 'all' details? MT 27:54 The centurion says: Truly this was the son of God. MK 15:39 He says: Truly this man was the son of God! LK 23:47 He says: Truly this man was innocent (or righteous ). LoL. MT 27:55, MK 15:40, LK 23:49 The women looked on from afar. JN 19:25-26 They were near enough that Jesus could speak to his mother. Jesus yelled? The women were afar, then his mother came closer? MT 24:9 Even some of the disciples of Jesus will be killed. JN 8:51 If anyone keeps Jesus' words, he will never see death. HE 9:27 [All] men die once, then judgment follows. Anyone who has been a christian will understand why this is silly. MT 28:1 It was toward dawn when they arrived. MK 16:2 It was after sunrise. LK 24:1 It was at early dawn. JN 20:1 It was still dark. One has to stretch a bit to get that meaning into Mt 28:1. It could mean that, or it could mean they left 'when it was still dark'. The point I'm trying to make is that so many errors listed on websites are misunderstandings or stretches. What are the 'best' errors and/or contradictions you've seen in the Bible? What are the 'best' websites and books for this sort of thing? BTW, if you bring up minor things, like wrong dates for deaths of kings, etc, christians will just say, well that's a copyist error or it's due to the different way the jews kept time, and is unimportant because it does not affect doctrine. Thanks for any help, Kevin

The problem is that there is no absolute way to disprove the Bible, nor is there a absolute way to prove it.  One has to look at the evidence. There is a great body of arguments that 'explain' why there are apparent contradictions and discrepancies.  Sometimes they are as simple as a scribal error and others as complicated as explaining why Jesus's dad had two different dads. In the end, one can appeal that God did it and there is no absolute way to prove or disprove this.  Evidence is the only way.  How can so many contradictions exist.  How can so many times statements in the bible have to be taken 'spiritually' or 'as a figure of speech' so as not to offend science or sensibility.    How many times have theology changed to meets fashion or new discoveries. In the end, all one can assume is the Bible is not without errors. Jim

I am a believer in Christianity who is seeking a way out because I am having great difficulty taking the doctrine of eternal damnation of the many (which is clearly taught in _script_ure). Since my religious experience is in line with what the Bible teaches, the only honest way I can see to do this is to 'prove' the bible is in error. GRAY:         Major errors? How about when Jesus said God's kingdom will be established within the lifetime of some of those in his audience at the time? (In other words before about 80 C.E.)         Apologists make up excuses for this, including giving the Greek word genea a false and incorrect meaning. But Jesus said exactly what I wrote above. Variants of it appear in about 10 places in the NT.

Hello Kevin, I would also say that I am an Bible believing Christian, yet I will here explore one of the greatest challenges I have seen for the Christian faith and/or the Bible. Kevin Brown wrote : I am a believer in Christianity who is seeking a way out because I am : having great difficulty taking the doctrine of eternal damnation of the : many (which is clearly taught in _script_ure). Since my religious : experience is in line with what the Bible teaches, the only honest way I : can see to do this is to 'prove' the bible is in error. Some of the other hard things to swallow are that God told Abraham to kill his son, even though he prevented it in the end. Another, that God told the Isrealites to commit Genocide in the Old Testament. Yet another, is the harlot Rahab, who by LYING assisted the Isrealites, and is in Hebrews 11 heralded as an example of faith. Or maybe you dislike the fate of Uzza, who in an act of goodwill tried to save the ark of the covenant from falling off of a cart. God killed him for that. How about Job? God allowed Satan to crush Job, take away his family, torture Job, turn his friends and wife against him. As a well-studied Christian, I can probably come up with a better and bigger list than most! Wait! God didn't directly harm Job, he merely allowed it. Oh yes, this is true but it touches on what I think is the greatest difficulty with most any monotheistic religion. It is known as The problem of Evil . It goes something like this: (1) God is omnipotent. (2) God is omniscient. (3) God is perfectly good. (4) Evil exists in the world. From (1), (2) & (3), since God is all good, he would and could not create any evil. Evil exists in the world which God created, so is such a God real? The typical response is the so-called free will defense that states that God did not create the world with evil, some creatures (like humans and Satan) used their free-will to introduce evil into the world. God's perfection of creation had to allow that free-will to happen. Reply: (5) God knew what his created beings would choose, before he created them (omniscient). (6) God could have created everything in such a way that his created beings would not choose to introduce evil (omnipotent) (7) Therefore, God is responsible for evil, and (1), (2) & (3) contradict (4) Another line of attack: (8) Since God is perfectly good, God would not (want to) allow evil in his goodness. (9) Because God is omnipotent, God could prevent all evil choices from happening. (10) God would want to prevent all evil from happening, according to his character. (11) Evil exists, so God is either not (1), or God is not (2), or God is not (3). By now, you should be thinking that this is pretty hefty stuff comming from a Bible believing Christian! I must be a lunitic, radical, or something like that, to still belive in Christianity! More to this later... : So I have been looking at some web stuff relating to the errancy of the : Bible... And I have not found anything that can be called a major error : or contradiction. Let me give a couple of examples of alleged errors and : contradictions which are only useful for one who presupposes the Bible : is in error. All of the contradictions you mention are only technical contradictions. These pale in light of philisophical contradictions, like the one I have mentioned. Imagine this scenario. Four people see a car accident. They are later asked to give a report to the police. Allthough the main thrust (heart) of thier stories seem to coincide, there are many technical differences in thier de_script_ions. One person talks about a red jeep hitting a blue car. Another about a red Explorer hitting a blue Thunderburd. Two witnesses even contradict on the issue whether the Thunderbird went through the intersection on red or orange. Another two contradict on whether the Driver of the Explorer was male or female. This is not uncommon! Especially for historical accounts that were compiled centuries later, as you find them in the Bible. So is the Bible not the inerrant word of God? I can say yes. How? As much as the total inerrantists may want to believe, one will find some technical indescrepancies in the Bible. Nonetheless, there is something that is virtually unaffected. That is the heart (thrust of) the message in the Bible. This is what is important to God (see Jesus emphasis on the inner) and should be important to us. Another thing to realize, is that Israel was primarily an oral culture. They had some scribes to compile thier oral reports. Yet, research shows that oral cultures will emphasize and even re-arrange different technical details of their stories to better emphasize the main point (heart) of what they are trying to communicate. So, back to the heart. What about the philisophical cantradictions I have given above? : What are the 'best' errors and/or contradictions you've seen in the : Bible? What are the 'best' websites and books for this sort of thing? : BTW, if you bring up minor things, like wrong dates for deaths of kings, : etc, christians will just say, well that's a copyist error or it's due : to the different way the jews kept time, and is unimportant because it : does not affect doctrine. Kevin, I will leave you hanging with the answer to the problem of evil . I am sure someone else will come along and give you a good defense (I could also). However, my main point is different. I have just used the above to lead to this main point, like I would in any good oral culture. The heart of my message is this: You will easily find contradictions, hard things to swallow, not least things you do not like in EVERY form of faith that you hold on to. What do I mean by this? No matter what you take to believe of this world, you will necessarily _base_ it on some kind of faith! You will not be able to prove any world view, since we are too limited to do so. Say, you put your faith (=trust in) atheism. Well, then you must accept that everything, including life, is meaningless, since only a Who can give it meaning. And without an eternal Who (i.e. God), who gives everything an eternal meaning, there is no absolute meaning. It just is. What about evolution. Well, survival of the fittest. If I can outsmart, outwit, outperform you and can beat you at anything, then evolution gives me the right to do so (by any means I can, ... cheating, killing are allowed, if I can live and get away with them). What about many eastern religions that teach that life is basically futile. We are doomed to almost eternal rebirth. Suffering will just be the main part of it. Maybe, one day in almost eternity, we will break the chain of rebirth and be able to just be nothing (or everything). Certainly not an individual anymore, since this is what causes suffering. You do not need a reason to abandon Christianity, Kevin. You are a Christian by faith. You can just stop trusting in it (or in Jesus), and start trusting in something else (like yourself)! But, for one thing I applaud you, you seem to try to find the world-view that is most worthy of your faith! Oh, one more thing. Since we are bound to put our faith in something, how does faith prove itself? If you want to find which world-view is most worthy of your faith, then ponder this last question. How does faith prove itself? I am a Christian, by proven faith, Patrick.

Kevin Brown: King Zedekiah from Je 34:4-5 and JE 52:10-11 ? I'm surprised this is even in the list. The prophecy was that he would not die by the sword but would die in peace. O.K. dying in prison after one's sons eyes have been put out is not my idea of peaceful either, but let's face it, the God of the Bible makes his own rules and has his own idea of peace... The fact is Zed did not die by the sword. Paul Robson: and didn't die in peace either ? Have you really thought this through ? Christians will often comment about the peace of mind one gets through believing etc. If you go to Heaven then presumably God's peace consists of being locked away and having your eyes put out. Which doesn't sound very nice. This is a global cop out solution ; you redefine peace by effectively allowing God to make his own definition of peace ; you can't lose with anything here.

PATRICK Kevin, I will leave you hanging with the answer to the problem of evil . I am sure someone else will come along and give you a good defense (I could also). However, my main point is different. I have just used the above to lead to this main point, like I would in any good oral culture. The heart of my message is this: You will easily find contradictions, hard things to swallow, not least things you do not like in EVERY form of faith that you hold on to. What do I mean by this? No matter what you take to believe of this world, you will necessarily _base_ it on some kind of faith! You will not be able to prove any world view, since we are too limited to do so. Say, you put your faith (=trust in) atheism. Well, then you must accept that everything, including life, is meaningless, since only a Who can give it meaning. Tim Once again, we have this tired assertion that the type of faith required to believe that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago despite a myriad of contradictions is the same as the faith required to believe that your car will start, the sun will rise, your medication will work, etc. This is a blatant attempt to equate the absurd with the reliable, legend with science. Claiming that atheism requires faith is like claiming a bald man has hair. It takes no faith to conclude that you have offered no evidence that a dead man was resurrected 2000 years ago. That evidence being absent, a belief system that proceeds under an assumption that a man did not rise from the dead is certainly reasonable. Does you lack of belief in Santa Claus require faith? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/