Raf

As for the article you posted, I'll have to take the time to read it carefully, but the problem remains that no matter when the census was, the governosrhip of Quirinius simply did not overlap with the time of Herod, so the problem is going to remain no matter what Josephus wrote. Again, it will take more than a brief glimpse at the article for me to address it. BUT, kudos on finding it. In doing so, you implicitly acknowledge the need to address proposed errors to see if they are actual or apparent. "Don't take my word for it."

Way to twist the premise into a pretzel: I don't "need" an error in Luke. I recognize one. Luke is the one who erred in why Joseph went to Bethlehem. If you're content with the existence of that error, then we are in agreement. If you must insist he did not make an error, provide your proof. Wild speculation of the sort in every effort at an explanation I've encountered is not proof. It's not even evidence. It's baseless, wishful thinking that only has to be injected into the discussion to preserve a premise of inerrancy that the Bible doesn't even make about itself.

Then why offer it? As evidence that it's not really an error? But the article doesn't refute my point. At best, it makes the argument that Luke was a careful historian, in the face of evidence he was not. If you begin with the conclusion that Luke was a careful historian, I suppose you have to "leave the door open," but it's begging the question. It's assuming your conclusion and projecting it onto the evidence, rather than drawing your conclusion from the evidence. Abandon inerrancy, and the solution is simple: Luke was just wrong about that detail. His reason for Joseph needing to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem is just wrong. That's it. No harm done. It was a mistake. What facts remain? Jesus was born in Bethlehem, just like Matthew says. Matthew gives no indication of a journey to Bethlehem. But he doesn't rule it out either. He just doesn't address it. Luke's historical error of why Joseph brought his pregnant wife to Bethlehem does not negate the premise that he did so. Problem solved. Unless you just can't have an error in Luke or your Bible will fall to pieces. Then you have to wedge ahistorical information into the account. Quirinius was governor twice (no he wasn't. The records are complete in that regard). He held another office that Luke called "governor" (which would be a mistake, again making rather than refuting my point). We STILL would have the problem of a census that requires people to travel from where they live to a place where their great ancestors lived, for no discernible reason. At some point you just have to concede that it didn't happen that way. You only have to leave the door open to defend inerrancy. But why? Why defend inerrancy when allowing for an error answers every question? I submit that you would have to do more than "allow for that possibility." It absolutely demands for it to be the only possible solution. If there's an error, and it's really an error, not just apparent, then the only possible argument is that it wasn't in the original. If a resolution eventually surfaces, then it's just an apparent error. But in this particular case, I think it's highly improbable that you're going to find a resolution. Anyway, I'm approaching nitpicking territory (if I haven't crossed into it already), so I'll stop here on this point.

If you read that page carefully, you will see quite clearly, I think, that it makes my point quite nicely. In order to make Luke fit what we know from history, you have to change Luke or make up history. The conclusion of the article is "future unearthed evidence will vindicate Luke! You just watch! (To which I'll respond: Don't hold your breath). I'm sorry, but when you say you see no problem with believing the original inspired texts are inerrant (which you said in post 160), then you are implying that errors and contradictions, if they are actual and not just apparent, MUST be absent from the original inspired texts. So, yeah, you kinda ARE appealing to them in the terms of this discussion. But I agree with where you leave things off: "I see the context of said proving as being to oneself, not to somebody else." That statement is not substantively different from my saying that you can get there by faith but not by reason alone.

Yes, to prove inerrancy. Or at least to demonstrate it. If inerrancy is true, then all claims of errors must be addressed. An appeal to the "original inspired texts" is an appeal to the unknown and is a logical fallacy. It also assumes what you're setting out to prove, which is another fallacy. "The original inspired texts contains no errors or contradictions." Fine, by itself, but when evidence is presented that appears to refute that position, you need to address that evidence. You can never "prove" the Bible contains no errors. It's not an affirmative claim. It's my burden to prove that it does. But my assertion is quite easily proven. I've already given two examples: one error and one set of contradictions, both concerning the circumstances around the birth of Christ. Allowing for the possibility that the original inspired text was inerrant simply dodges the issue. It doesn't address it. Anytime someone points out an error or contradiction, you're going to say "well, the error or contradiction wasn't there in the original inspired texts." Fine, produce the texts. "I can't." Well, how many errors and contradictions have to be pointed out before you're willing to concede that your premise is faulty? If you can't answer that question, we have nothing to discuss. But you're not going by reason. You're going by faith. And again, that's fine. You go ahead and do that. Sure, it's possible the original gospel of Luke contained no reference to Quirinius. But where's our proof of that? Is it missing from any copies? Any evidence at all? I concede that some apparent errors are not errors at all. That's not the point. The point is that many, many, many errors are actually honest-to-goodness errors. That you have to appeal to the invisible non-existent original text to address such errors... doesn't address those errors. It merely dodges the question. If I told you I've never been sick or injured, and you produce a hospital bill showing I was admitted for three days in 1991 for a broken leg, then I have to address that evidence or admit that my premise is flawed. I don't get to say "well, in the original bill it shows I was never admitted; it was just a routine checkup." You have hard evidence that I'm wrong. You have evidence I had a broken leg. I don't get to just say "No, I didn't." I have to address your evidence! The evidence that there are actual errors (not "apparent errors," but bonafide lulus) in the Bible is abundant. If you're going to assert the book contains no errors or contradictions, then it is your burden to address each and every one. You might address some successfully. But you're going to find that you won't be able to address most of them, and appealing to the originals only serves to undermine any confidence in the book we DO have. Which is fine by me, but I'm not the one calling it God-breathed by any definition.

Walk Like a Man, by the Four Seasons ?

How about both? Saving Private Ryan Giovanni Ribisi Avatar

I thought it was pretty good. Not as good as Arrow or Flash, but not bad by any stretch. I don't know the comics, so I'm not familiar with Rip Hunter, but I think placing him in 2166 seems a little too soon. But whatever.

Cheating a little here because it's a two-word overlap. Two people have a wonderful, sappy and melodramatic romance, but their conflicting political views and convictions constantly threaten their happiness. He eventually becomes involved in the first major battle of the American phase of the Vietnam War.

The way I see it, we have four propositions. Proposition A: The Bible is God-breathed. Proposition B: The Bible is not God-breathed. Proposition C: The Bible contains factual errors and contradictions. Proposition D: The Bible does not contain factual errors or contradictions. A and B are mutually exclusive (taken as a whole). They cannot both be true in totality. They can both be true in part, but then we open a whole new can of worms, so let's keep the premise simple for now and we can explore the possibilities later. The Bible as a whole is either God-breathed or it's not. You can't have both. C and D are also mutually exclusive. This thread questions whether we can accept Proposition A at the same time as we accept proposition C. I don't see why you can't, especially when you recognize that Proposition D is objectively untrue. It does contain errors and contradictions (we've used the Quirinian census as a prime example, and no one has refuted it on this thread or, to an acceptable degree, anywhere else. There was no census that required Joseph to move from where he lived because his great-great-great-great-great-great-etc-grandfather was King David. That's not how censuses work. Plus, the census in question was taken after Herod died, so Jesus couldn't have been born during the census AND during the life of Herod. This is a factual error, pure and simple. As for contradictions, we again note the irreconcilable differences between the accounts in Matthew and Luke. There are errors AND contradictions in the Bible). So to me, the only question that remains is "A and C," or "B and C"? "B and C" is off-topic. There's nothing to discuss there. So we're back to the original question: Is A and C possible? I contend that if you're employing reason AND faith, you must accept A and C. A and D employs faith but abandons reason. You're entitled to the opinion, but you carry the burden of refuting the errors and contradictions. Good luck with that. Personally, I reject appeals to "the original inspired writings" because, frankly, it undermines the Bible we have to such a degree that it becomes pointless to examine. You can't say "This is the Word of God," have me say "ok, but here's a blatant error and/or contradiction" and then answer that with "Well, the original writing was inspired and perfect. You just caught the aberration." There are hundreds of such aberrations. Again, you can accept proposition D as a matter of faith, and I won't argue it. But you can't, in my opinion, draw reasonable inferences from it because reason didn't get you there in the first place. You can try! No one's stopping you. But when you do, there's no guarantee the inference you draw will stand up to reason. That's about as far as I can go in this discussion, because I accept Propositions B and C. But I firmly believe that if anyone is going to argue "A and D," the burden to address errors and contradictions becomes theirs.

And this being the doctrinal section, I do not have a doctrinal argument against your position.

No need. It's your opinion and fine by me. I don't think it's much of an argument.

Why not, instead, adopt the premise that fits the facts? Since the Bible DOES contain errors and contradictions, why adopt a premise that is contrary to the facts? You can still study it, analyze it, try to see things from multiple perspectives, without having to make it all fit like a hand in a hooker. For example, how many were crucified with Jesus? Ask Matthew: 2. Ask Mark: 2. Ask Luke: 2. Ask John: 2. Ask Bullinger/Wierwille: 4. HOW? And more importantly, why? Because two gospels have them crucified at the same time and the other two have them showing up later, so there had to be four? Even though not a single gospel writer gives you four? How about just allowing the contradiction and moving onto something more important, like the number of times Peter denied Jesus, which every single gospel says unequivocally was three times, so it must have been... six. And the cock crowed once. Or twice. Because twice Peter denied him thrice. It's nonsense! They're minor quibbles that are completely beside the point, but Wierwille would have you believe your Bible would absolutely crumble to pieces if Matthew and Luke contradict each other on when the others were crucified with Jesus or whether they both reviled him. It would crumble to pieces if Peter didn't deny Jesus six times, even though not a single gospel says it was six times. Was Judas alive after the crucifixion and resurrection? Yes! Because Paul said Jesus was seen of the 12! Never mind that Matthew makes it clear the death was beforehand. Never mind that not a single gospel writer found it worth noting that Judas returned to the company of the apostles after the betrayal, which would have been a MOST noteworthy act of forgiveness, no? But we can't have Matthew contradicting Luke and John about the number of apostles who saw Jesus and who was missing. We can't have Paul simply be wrong when he says Jesus was seen of the "12" after his resurrection (probably because the story of Judas' betrayal had not yet been fabricated, but that's a whole other story. So one gospel says Jesus appears to "the eleven." Another says the missing apostle was Thomas. So Judas must have been alive and in the company of the apostles. Because heaven forbid any one of the gospel writers slipped on a detail. Easier solution: Not every detail needs to fit to have an honest account. Three denials. Three crucified. 11 apostles after the resurrection. It's not complicated, unless you try to force inerrancy.

No, money is a generic concept of wealth, currency, etc. The statement that the love of money is the root of all evil is generic enough that it covers all the basis. "Scripture" is not, on a couple of levels. What gets included, and what gets excluded? "All scripture" is pretty much all inclusive. But on what basis do you propose James is included in "scripture" but the Gospel of Thomas is not? They're both scripture. So is II Timothy. So is the paragraph of notes I just took explaining why Yankees closer Aroldis Chapman will not be facing criminal charges. So is the Q'uran. Scripture just means "that which is written." So the author of II Timothy says "all scripture." What is he talking about? HE TELLS YOU. He is not talking about the letter he is writing. He is not talking about letters and documents that have yet to be written. He tells you precisely what he's talking about in the preceding verses (I'll save you time: it's the Old Testament). But when he says it's God-breathed, he is not saying that makes it without error or contradiction. Back to John, Jesus says the scripture "cannot be broken." He's talking about the Old Testament too. More precisely, he's talking about THAT scripture. But even more to the point, "cannot be broken" DOES NOT mean without error or contradiction. If it does, then Jesus Christ just proved the Old Testament is not scripture, because the Old Testament contains errors and contradictions galore.

This, of course, has nothing to do with whether the Bible can contain errors or contradict itself. It has only to do with a prophet making a prediction that does or does not come to pass (for example, promising to return within the lifetimes of the people who hear him preach live and in person, but still not having returned nearly 2,000 years later. Just for example). So you can accept the verse in John and the verse in Deuteronomy without having to accept the premise of Biblical inerrancy, because neither verse addresses Biblical inerrancy. At all. Let's look again at the verse in John 10: Let's start with the obvious: The answer to Jesus' question is NO. It is NOT written in the law, "I said You Are Gods." So Jesus was wrong. It's written in Psalms, not in the Law. So as an example of a verse that establishes the Bible cannot contain errors or contradictions, you are pointing to a verse in which Jesus Christ himself makes an error. What does "the scripture cannot be broken" even mean? Does that mean it is without error or contradiction? Because then we have a problem, because the Old Testament is chock full of errors and contradictions. For example, it indicates a population of Hebrew slaves in Egypt that was way, way WAY higher than any such population could have been. There is as much evidence of a Nephite kingdom in pre-Colombian America as there is of widespread Hebrew slavery in pre-Moses Egypt. Heck, there's as much evidence of Nephites as there is of Moses. Which is to say, none. Does the Old Testament contradict itself? Sure it does. All over the place. Errors? Aplenty! So if "the scripture cannot be broken" means "it cannot contain errors or contradictions," then we have a serious problem, because the scripture objectively DOES contain oodles of errors and contradictions.

John 10:35 is not talking about the gospels, itself, Acts, the Epistles or Revelation. I'll check the other verse at a later time, at which point I will be gleefully happy to address the remainder of your post.

Really looking forward to Legends of Tomorrow. It looks like loads of fun.

The Burning Bedknobs and Broomsticks

Those responses are not mutually exclusive. A generation "in search of the truth" can be unusually gullible, especially when the group offering the truth is making an attractive case for its product. And one other thing: WELCOME TO THE GSC, TLC.

Gordon Gecko Henry Pym

The Elephant Man John Hurt Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

You had me at Kirk Lazarus. Robert Downey Jr. Nick Curran Oliver Rose Jack Colton Name the actor

Of course

And his whole family. It was DeBarge, not just El as a solo act. You're up (or you could be a sport and repost Hw/oB's). :)/>

Anyone and everyone can be rude about their beliefs. Sometimes it's impossible to even express an opinion without offending someone else, especially when it comes to religion. You can say "I believe in God," and I can respond "I used to, but I don't anymore," and neither of us is being rude. But the moment you say, "Well, the Bible says you're a fool and like a dog returning to its vomit," you're being rude. I don't care that the Bible actually does say those things. It's rude, whether you came up with it on your own or you're citing an Iron Age goatherder. And if I respond, "Well, you're a brainwashed irrational superstitious nitwit who believes in fairy tales," then I'm being rude. That's why it's imperative that we all check ourselves now and then.