Bible Inerrancy: A Belief Without Evidence, By Farrell Till [Archive I]

View Full Version : Bible Inerrancy: A Belief Without Evidence, By Farrell Till

January 26, 2001, 01:59 AM

hi -- just to start things off, i'm not a christian, anyone looking to be converted had better look elsewhere. there are quite a few problems with the inerrancy article, however.

first off, it repeatedly calls him "jesus" -- this is quite wrong. his hebrew name is "yeshua" -- this translates to "joshua". for the sake of argument, however, we will leave it at the commonly-accepted "jesus".

it makes no mention of his marriage (judaic law required that ppl marry -- for a single man in his 30s to be traipsing about the middle east with other men would have opened up charges of homosexuality, a crime punishable by death -- the deliberate murder of your bloodline).

doesn't mention the twin.

the discussion of jesus's genealogy misses one vital point: in judaic law, bloodline is inherited through the *mother*, NOT the father. simple reason: the father might be questionable, but you *always* know who the mother is! therefore, for jesus to be "of the house of david" means that mary was the "daughter of david" mentioned.

bunch of other points, but who's quibbling? lol!

have a good one.

Richard Carrier

January 26, 2001, 05:55 PM

Which inerrancy article are you referring to? Just on your remarks, you should know:

1. You can't even spell Jesus' real name in Roman letters, so quibbling about a Latinized nomenclature is just silly.

2. I would be interested to see the references on the "requirement" of marriage, as well as examples of someone being accused of homosexuality just for being single and hanging around men (though there were women in Jesus' entourage).

3. The bible doesn't mention the twin either.

4. You are wrong about geneology. No such religious law has ever existed in Judaism. Judaic ancestry was traced through the male line until 1948, when the formation of Israel led to the parliamentary creation of the mother-criterion as a requirement of citizenship, for the obvious logical reason that they had to limit the flood of immigrants somehow, and cutting off bastards with no Hebrew blood was a logical plan to that end. And when you read the Greek text of the NT, you will realize that both geneologies trace a male lineage in no uncertain terms.

May 5, 2003, 08:26 PM

In response to the NO TAKERS article, I didn't see a name that went with the article.

If what you believe isn't true, would you WANT to know it? I sense in your writing the attitude "I dare you to try and teach me something". Be that as it may, maybe God will use something I say to help unlock your thoughts.

First, and only for a second, let's say you believe the bible is 100% inerrent. If you came across the two passages you mentioned, and you thought they were in disagreement with one another, what are your options? You can choose to accept that by all the best reasoning available to you, they disagree and you cannot accept the inerrancy of the Bible any more. However, you could choose to say that, since they appear to disagree with each other, and you don't know if you know everything there is to know about the passages (like what were the original Greek and Hebrew and Arabaic texts using for the expressions of what was going on etc..), then maybe you should shelve that concern for a later time, but let God know you have some trouble with the texts and would like Him to clarify it for you. There are still more options that you could choose, but I'll leave it at that. The reason not to get bogged down in God's word with what you may not understand, or think you do and can't rest over it, is because there are so many other things God made so clear in His word, that a lifetime of putting them into practice would not be long enough to realize and follow His simplier truths - like love your enemies, pray for those who hate you, do good to them that persecute you.

I hope this helps you in your quest.

Dave.

-DM-

May 5, 2003, 10:32 PM

Thank you for your feedback regarding No Takers (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1990/3/3front90.html), which appeared in Volume One, Number Three of Farrell Till's (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/index.shtml) The Skeptical Review (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/index.shtml).

I doubt that you could sense "I dare you to try and teach me something" in Mr. Till's writing. What he dares you to do is to either learn something from him about the alleged inerrancy of the Bible (namely, that it is, in fact, errant) or to show him that he is wrong (which he is convinced you cannot possibly do).

In terms of "God" unlocking Mr. Till's thoughts, keep in mind that Mr. Till is an ordained minister who eventually came to see the insurmountable problems in Christian theology and in the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and subsequently gave up his career in the ministry to become a teacher.

With regard to your proposal about how one might at least temporarily accept two biblical passages which "appear" to be inconsistent and mutually exclusive, one could, of course, do exactly the same with such problems in the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon--or any other so-called holy book. But doing so would get you nothing in terms of answering the primary question: Is this alleged holy book the "Word of God" in the first place? And that is the point. My take on it is that a perfect, loving, and omnipotent "God" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it than the Bible; there are simply too many problems in the Bible for it to be the "Word" of a perfect and omnipotent God. (See: Biblical Criticism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/criticism.shtml) and Biblical Errancy (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.shtml).)

In any case, if you care to discuss this issue further, please consider becoming a registered user (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/register.php?s=&action=signup) of our discussion board and do so in the Biblical Criticism & Archaeology forum and/or join the Errancy (http://www.infidels.org/electronic/email/secular.shtml#errancy) discussion list.

-Don-

Hey Guys

December 21, 2005, 04:06 PM

I'm not going too say much about this article except for an alleged Bible contradiction used to undermine the "inerrant stand." I myself do not know exactly what people mean by inerrancy of the Bible. I see inerrancy of the Bible as a belief that the Bible has the stories correct and that every principle of the Bible is inerrant or from God (therefore inerrant). It is true that many people have shot many flaming arrows of "Biblical contradictions" at the Bible, but I believe that many that can be explained have. Ferrill says that the explanations by fundamentalists are not explanations at all but more or less excuses to hold to an inerrant view of the Bible. This may be true, but this is an intellectually dangerous view to hold. Christians along with Richard Dawkins can write math textbooks. They can make scientific and historical observations that are perfectly true. A right wing Fundamentalist "crazy person" who says 2+2=4 may have a bad reputation to Ferrell, but nonetheless be correct. What I'm saying is we shouldn't ignore arguments just because someone has a bias. Everyone is biased! That's not a cynical statement either (at least not to me).

Well here it is. Farrell Till makes the assumption that Mary Mag. saw the angels in the tomb of Jesus and runs to tell the disciples that "They have taken the Lord's body out of the tomb, and I don't know where they have put him"(John 20:2). I think it's possible that Mary did not see the angels first and left to tell the disciples that the tomb was empty. The angel never specifies what women he is talking to. Matthew 28:5 says "Then the angel spoke to the women." In context Mary Mag. and the other Mary go down to the tomb. If these two women were the only ones there my observation would totally break down. Luke talks of their being 5 or 6 women going to see the tomb. So Matthew may be recording the resurrection scene using two characters while excluding others. In Mark 16:5-6 it says "The (women) were startled, but the angel said, 'Do not be so surprised." Luke 24:5 it says "The women were terrified and bowed low before them"(ie. they bowed to the angels). In Luke 24:10 it says that "The women who went to the tomb were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and several others." What is really interesting is that after it says "They told the apostles what had happened, but the story sounded like nonsense, so they didn't believe it"(Luke 24:11). Someone ressurecting from the dead would sound like nonsense, but if there was one story from Mary Mag. saying someone had moved the body, and another saying the body was walking around that would sound even more nonsensical to me. It is possible that Mary Mag. left before the angels appeared and would logically deduce that the Roman soldiers might have moved him. There is no mention of her seeing an angel in John 20:1 "Early Sunday morning, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and found that the stone had been rolled away from the entrance." She then rushed home and said to the disciples, "They have taken the Lord's body out of the tomb, and I don't know where they have put him!"(John 20:2). Why should we just assume that Mary Mag. saw the angels before running to tell the disciples? The whole basis of Till's article is about a belief without proof when ironically he doesn't give any proof that Mary saw the angels before running to tell the disciples about the empty tomb. Sort of an ironic twist, considering his dislike of assumptions. So here is what I think really happened at the resurrection: Mary Mag and 4 or 5 others went to the tomb to do burial rights. They notice that the tomb is empty; Mary Mag runs off before the other women see the angels in the tomb; Then the other women run home to tell the disciples what the angels said. Scripture doesn't demand that Mary Mag. see the angel before telling the disciples about the empty tomb. This I deduced in less than 7 minutes. Just think what other assumptions or "contradictions" have been worked out in 2000 years.

I'm not certain, but I think Mary goes back to the tomb. This uncertainty is a result from my ignorance to whether or not John 20:11 occurs after Mary Mag. tells the disciples about the empty tomb. But the story goes that she was crying and met two angels inside the tomb. Then she meets Jesus. Jesus then tells her to tell the disciples that he is ascending to his Father.

To anyone who wishes to "expose" the Bible to error I'm well aware that there are errors. Why God foreordained that there would be errors I do not know. I've looked at a few that occur usually with numbers like the age of a king. However, I don't think anyone's salvation rests on whether or not this many exiles were in Babylon or how old a king was. I think that God has also preserved a very accurate revelation of himself to us. The OT accuracy according to the Dead Sea Scrolls is astounding. The New Testament has 538 some documents (20,000 fragments) to check for inaccuracies and so on. Try saying that about ancient secular book written.

Before saying that something is in error or is in contradiction be able to substantiate exactly and unambiguously why it is in error. It is better to be totally ignorant of any error of an author until fully understanding and perceiving the author's ignorance (quote from somewhere).

I know why you guys cite these "errors" and "contradictions." I know because I'm writing why these "errors" and "contradictions" are false. I'm trying to prove to myself and to others that what I believe is true. This doesn't automatically mean what I say is false but shows human nature. What you say about the Bible is an attempt to make yourself feel good and comfortable about it being nonsense, or to elevate yourselves. Because if the Bible where true then you'd be in a whole world of trouble. I make myself feel good by saying you're wrong. Maybe you're right and I'm wrong or vice a versa but to say that bias clouds other people's vision but not your own is silly. The axe falls both ways. Just ask yourself the question, if I am given irrefutable evidence that Jesus is the Messiah and God will I choose to believe it? Only then will you understand why Christian explanations for "contradictions" are not "good" explanations because there is no possibility for it being true even when there is irrefutable evidence that it is. It's not about the intellectual aspect of it, but the will.

I hope that helps

-DM-

December 21, 2005, 07:45 PM

Thank you for your feedback regarding Bible Inerrancy: A Belief Without Evidence (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1992/4/4evide92.html) by Farrell Till (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/). E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post.

In the meantime, a few comments...

I myself do not know exactly what people mean by inerrancy of the Bible.Perhaps not "exactly," but people generally mean what the common dictionary definitions provide: "exemption from error"; "Freedom from error or untruths"; "infallibility: belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures"; "1. lack of error; infallibility. 2. the belief that the Bible is free from error in matters of science as well as those of faith."

I see inerrancy of the Bible as a belief that the Bible has the stories correct and that every principle of the Bible is inerrant or from God (therefore inerrant).The problem with idiosyncratic definitions is that one can thereby make his/her assertions come true through definition. It would probably be better for the sake of discussion were you to stick to the commonly accepted definition.

It is true that many people have shot many flaming arrows of "Biblical contradictions" at the Bible, but I believe that many that can be explained have.All would have to be satisfactorily explained, or be capable of satisfactory explanation, in order for the Bible to be legitimately considered inerrant.

Ferrill says that the explanations by fundamentalists are not explanations at all but more or less excuses to hold to an inerrant view of the Bible. This may be true, but this is an intellectually dangerous view to hold.Farrell Till is himself an ordained minister. He served for many years as a missionary. He has a pretty good handle on what fundamentalists think and how they operate. In my opinion, he is right that "explanations" offered by fundamentalists are not really explanations but rather excuses to hold to an inerrant view of the Bible. My experience has been similar: "explanations" offered by Christian apologists (and I include you here inasmuch as you offer this kind of explanation below) tend to be as hoc "explanations" that take the how-it-might-have-been approach in an attempt to get the Bible and/or "God" off the hook.

Farrell Till makes the assumption that Mary Mag. saw the angels in the tomb of Jesus and runs to tell the disciples that "They have taken the Lord's body out of the tomb, and I don't know where they have put him"(John 20:2).There is very little agreement between one Gospels and the next with regard to the details of the story of the allegedly empty tomb and subsequent events.

For example:

Was there or wasn't there a guard at the tomb?
-----------
MT: yes
MK, LK, JN: no mention of a guard

-----------
Exactly who were the first visitors to the tomb?
-----------
MT: Mary Magdalene & the other Mary (2)
MK: both of the above, plus Salome (3)
LK: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (5 or more)
JN: Mary Magdalene (1)

-----------
Exactly what time of day was it when the first visitor(s) arrived.
-----------
MT: toward dawn
MK: after sunrise
LK: early dawn
JN: still dark

-----------
Was there or wasn't there a stone still in place over the entrance to the tomb when the first visitor(s) arrived?
-----------
MT: still in place, rolled away later
MK, LK & JN: already rolled or taken away

-----------
Was there or wasn't there an earthquake?
-----------
MT: yes
MK, LK, JN: none mentioned

-----------
Was there or wasn't there an angel present? If so, how many?
-----------
MT: 1 angel who rolled back the stone and then *sat* on it
MK: 1 young man *sitting* inside the tomb
LK: men (2 or more) suddenly appear *standing* inside the tomb
JN: 2 angels *sitting* inside the tomb

-----------
What did the woman/women do immediately after finding (or being told) that the tomb (was) empty?
-----------
MT: ran to tell the disciples
MK: said nothing to anyone
LK: told the eleven & all the rest
JN: the disciples returned home, Mary remained outside weeping

-----------
Where was Jesus' first post-Resurrection appearance?
-----------
MT: fairly near the tomb
MK: [not specified other than to Mary Magdalene, which presumably would have been fairly near the tomb]
LK: in the vicinity of Emmaus, seven miles from Jerusalem
JN: right at the tomb

-----------
Did Jesus allow anyone to touch him prior to his Ascension?
-----------
MT: he lets Mary Magdalene & the other Mary hold him by his feet
JN: on his first appearance to Mary, he forbids her to touch him because he has not yet ascended to his Father, yet he tells Thomas a week later to touch him even though he hasn't yet ascended

-----------
Did those who first learned this story believe or disbelieve?
-----------
MT: although some doubted, most believed because they followed the revealed instructions
MK & LK: the initial reaction was one of disbelief--all doubted

-----------
What was the order of post-Resurrection appearances?
-----------
MT: Mary Magdalene, the other Mary, the eleven
MK: Mary Magdalene, two others, the eleven
LK: two, Simon (Peter?), the eleven
JN: Mary Magdalene, the disciples without Thomas, the disciples with Thomas, then the eleven again
1CO: Cephas (Peter?), the twelve [really? one disciple was dead], 500+ brethren [120 in Acts], James, all the Apostles, Paul.

(It is also interesting to note that--although the Gospels were written after Paul wrote his 1 Corinthians--the Gospels do not even mention the alleged appearance to Paul.)

... and there's more.

I think it's possible that Mary did not see the angels first and left to tell the disciples that the tomb was empty.What you think possible is not an explanation. What you need to do in addition to coming up with what you think possible is to demonstrate why it is that your explanation should be believed to be a better explanation than that there is a contradiction or an inconsistency, keeping in mind that a perfect and omnipotent "God" would have no problem whatsoever in seeing to it that such problems did not exist at all in a book that "He" inspired.

Just think what other assumptions or "contradictions" have been worked out in 2000 years.Yes. Armies of apologists have come up with mostly [I]ad hoc "explanations" to explain just about every alleged biblical problem. Interestingly, the explanations offered are quite often inconsistent with each other--and sometimes even mutually exclusive. In addition, some biblical problems have been covered up with clever translations that make them much less obvious.

To anyone who wishes to "expose" the Bible to error I'm well aware that there are errors.Then by definition, it is NOT inerrant. So on this, you agree with Farrell Till.

Just ask yourself the question, if I am given irrefutable evidence that Jesus is the Messiah and God will I choose to believe it?Given irrefutable evidence, how could one refuse to believe?

What someone needs to do--"God" himself could--is to provide that evidence. It doesn't even need to be irrefutable. Convincing evidence would suffice.

It's not about the intellectual aspect of it, but the will.As an ex-Christian who has a very good understanding of the Christian belief system and of the foundations of the Christian belief system, I could not possibly will to believe--barring some new and convincing evidence and/or argument--unless I were to completely subvert my intellect; I have simply learned too much about the problems inherent in the Bible and in Christian theology to be able to believe.

Regards,
-Don-

*** Internet Infidels needs your tax-deductible financial support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

Hey dudes

December 21, 2005, 11:53 PM

I see that we both agree that Christians make hoc explanations for why some part of the Bible is not in contradiction or error. That's interesting that the Till was a minister and quit because of his convictions. I think however you are trying to convince me that I should give up on the Bible because of someone else's convictions. This is bad logic because there are skeptics that have become Christians and Christians that have become atheists. I will not submit to someone's belief based merely on their knowledge of Christians or the Bible. There is something to be said about wisdom and people who are older than you and are more experienced. I've just seen people older than myself that I know aren't mature and seem knowledgable but use their knowledge only out of arrogance. I'm not saying that Till is arrogant. I don't know him.

I've had a conversation with a librarian at my school who was a comparative religions teacher that uses some of your tactics in talking about the bible. He ignored any defensive explanation of the bible and asked other questions that were meant to pelt my faith and could not be given explanation in the time given. This is in fact what you have done. Instead of looking at what I'm saying you cite other "disagreements" with the gospels. It's true that I said "I think" but what I meant by "I think" is that the scripture does not demand or insinuate that Mary Mag. saw the angels before she ran off to tell the apostles about the empty tomb. That's all I meant. Here is what you decided to throw out at me For example:

Was there or wasn't there a guard at the tomb?
-----------
MT: yes
MK, LK, JN: no mention of a guard
[In fact, there could not have been a guard insofar as the women visitors were concerned in MK & LK given that they were planning to anoint the body with spices.]

This didn't really have to do what I was talking about but it's an interesting argument. Should I believe that the gospels are not in agreement because three gospels don't mention a gaurd and one does? There is no case in the gospels where one says there were only three gaurds, and another says there were only two. That would be a disagreement. Just because the event isn't told in the way you want it told doesn't make it in disagreement.

I don't understand why history has to somehow parallel your train of thought. You say that there could not have been a guard if the women were going to annoint the body. I "think" that you weren't there to see the event take place so it is my "thought" that you don't know that the gaurds could not have been there. To summarize what I mean, what your saying is the same as "the British could not have lost the war because they were too strong." Crazy things happen everyday. Your line of thought does not change historical facts one iota.

The rest of your "disagreements" are pretty much the same as the one I talked about above. The line of reasoning is: if one story doesn't have something happening that another one does they are in disagreement. That is rubbish. If you were hypothetically wearing purple pants, a neon green shirt, (ruffles on the shirt), dragon cufflinks, a blue sash, and I wanted to describe your appearance along with another person this might be how it would go:Person 1 "He had an amazing green vest with cufflinks like dragons and the oddest pants that were pure purple." Person 2 "Though I was caught off gaurd by his appearance he seemed to have a pleasant demeanor. He had some interesting ruffles on his shirt (purely anachronistic) and a silly blue sash. The rest of his appearance was like a cacophony of colors."-Notice how the first person left out the ruffles. Notice how the second included them. Would you object that what they both described was accurate? The illustration is absurd but it makes the point. One person can ommit some detail he is describing while another includes it and still be in total agreement.

Your other observations about the time the women went to see the tomb are also interesting. Lee Strobel talked with a man who explained that in The Case For Christ (encourage you to read it unless you allready have). I don't feel the need to explain it because all the gospels are clear that it was morning. It doesn't take a genius or theologian to know that. Besides I feel that it has been "satisfactorily explained, or be capable of satisfactory explanation." Not only do I feel this, but know it for a fact. The arrival at the tomb is like asking the pessimist and the optomist whether the glass is half full or half empty.

I haven't answered all your questions because I want to leave you to it.
Thanks for your response to my response

-DM-

December 22, 2005, 01:27 AM

I think however you are trying to convince me that I should give up on the Bible because of someone else's convictions.You are mistaken.

This is bad logicIt is a straw man inasmuch as it doesn't apply to me.

there are skeptics that have become Christians and Christians that have become atheists.I often point that out myself.

I will not submit to someone's belief based merely on their knowledge of Christians or the Bible.I wouldn't either "merely" on someone else's knowledge of Christianity and the Bible. I would want to read on both sides of the fence, read the Bible for myself, study Christian theology for myself, then make up my own mind. That is what I did.

I've had a conversation with a librarian at my school who was a comparative religions teacher that uses some of your tactics in talking about the bible. He ignored any defensive explanation of the bible and asked other questions that were meant to pelt my faith and could not be given explanation in the time given. This is in fact what you have done.I do not ignore "defensive explanations," but your "explanation" wasn't convincingly "defensive." Rather, it was a made up, ad hoc, how-it-might-have-been scenario.

Instead of looking at what I'm saying you cite other "disagreements" with the gospels.You provided an ad hoc "explanation" of why it was that the alleged contradiction cited by Farrell Till regarding one of the details surrounding the alleged empty tomb might not have been a contradiction. I pointed out that there were many such inconsistencies in the story. My point proves nothing necessarily about Till's point or yours; it does, however, offer evidence that the details of the story might not be trustworthy.

This didn't really have to do what I was talking about but it's an interesting argument.It is related at least peripherally because it tells us something about the inconsistencies inherent in the story as related by the various authors.

Should I believe that the gospels are not in agreement because three gospels don't mention a gaurd and one does?Perhaps you should. That "perhaps" becomes stronger when you realize that Matthew, of all the Gospelists, seems to like to exaggerate and/or embellish his stories so as to make them more dramatic.

There is no case in the gospels where one says there were only three gaurds, and another says there were only two. That would be a disagreement. Just because the event isn't told in the way you want it told doesn't make it in disagreement.You noticed that I pointed out there could not have been a guard insofar as the women visitors were concerned in MK & LK given that they were planning to anoint the body with spices. Keep in mind that I did not say there was no guard, but rather I pointed out that the women could not have believed that there was a guard.

I don't understand why history has to somehow parallel your train of thought.History has to have the appearance of history rather than the appearance of fiction--especially where an omnipotent and perfect "God" is alleged to have had a part in that history--else I am not going to be convinced. If you are, so be it.

You say that there could not have been a guard if the women were going to annoint the body. I "think" that you weren't there to see the event take place so it is my "thought" that you don't know that the gaurds could not have been there.All we have to go on is the so-called Gospel record. We have a perfect right--and even a duty--to subject that so-called record to the same sort of criticism and analysis that we would any other so-called Holy Book or history book. My guess is, though, that you you wouldn't likely accord the same sort of leniency toward the claims of the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon as you do the Bible. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

To summarize what I mean, what your saying is the same as "the British could not have lost the war because they were too strong."Hardly.

Crazy things happen everyday.I don't agree that "crazy things" happen everyday. So far as I can tell, everything that happens is in accord with natural law.

Your line of thought does not change historical facts one iota.We agree. Keep in mind that your line of thought does not make fiction into reality.

The rest of your "disagreements" are pretty much the same as the one I talked about above. The line of reasoning is: if one story doesn't have something happening that another one does they are in disagreement. That is rubbish.In my opinion, what is rubbish is that a perfect and omnipotent "God" couldn't and/or wouldn't have done a better job of "inspiring" the biblical authors to get their alleged facts to accord with each other.

One person can ommit some detail he is describing while another includes it and still be in total agreement.It should be a different matter when an allegedly perfect and omnipotent "God" is involved. It would be morally reprehensible for a perfect and omnipotent "God" to so sloppily inspire the authors of what is alleged to be His Word.

It doesn't take a genius or theologian to know that.It doesn't take a genius to know that a perfect and omnipotent "God" would have done a better job of "His Word." It does take a theologian or apologist, though, to "explain" why "He" didn't.

Besides I feel that it has been "satisfactorily explained, or be capable of satisfactory explanation." Not only do I feel this, but know it for a fact.... as do Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. "know for a fact" that the same kinds of problems in their Holy Books have been satisfactorily explained.

It's like asking the pessimist and the optomist whether the glass is half full or half empty.I would say that it's more like asking a believer which so-called Holy Book is the one true Holy Book.

The difference between you and me is likely that you reject just one less so-called Holy Book than I do.

Regards,
-Don-

*** Internet Infidels needs your tax-deductible financial support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

hey bros

December 22, 2005, 02:46 AM

It seems that if there was a God He could never write a Book good enough for you. If my reasoning for why the Bible does not demand that Mary Mag. see the angels before running back to the disciples prove me wrong. So far you've just been saying that God if there is a God has not inspired the Bible in a "Godly" manner. Then you throw out that History shouldn't sound have the appearance of fiction. Pertaining to documents nobodies arguing with you there. Listen I have trouble with the Bible just like you, but to say that God has done a sloppy job of inspiring requires a real mastery of the Bible as a whole. I'm sorry if this sounds like I mean nobody should be allowed to question the Bible or make personal inquiries that are valid, I mean that particular claim requires a thorough understanding of culture, context, language, and other aspects in interpretation. I can only go as far as culture and context. I do not read the three languages of the Bible or anything like that. I need commentaries to help me there. Keil and Deilitczh (probably misspelled) is a very helpful commentary when it comes to this.

You're right that I haven't examined Muslim proofs or evidences. I know a little about the religion but not a lot. Since sacrifice was always the main tool for salvation in the Old Testament, it would follow that works could not get you to heaven. No death is required for admission to heaven in Islam. This goes against the teachings in the Old and New Testament. The Levitical laws are thrown out the window in Islam and so is Christ. He is just someone who was a prophet and ascended to heaven. The Koran no doubt has truth in it, but I do not believe it will gain you salvation. This is because God showed himself as a Holy God to the Israelites through miracles, punishments, and through His law. The Law predates Islam, and so do God's miraculous interventions in the history of the Israelites. Either the Israelites were mistaken in their sacrifices or Muhammed was correct. A Holy God cannot tolerate sin. That's evident in many places in the Bible. Sacrifice is needed, and Muhammed was wrong about that.

All I know is that chance is unlikely to have been the result of me. The Design Inference, Darwin's Black Box, and opening up a biology textbook are helpful in my conclusion of this. I have yet to read The Design Inference but Have looked at Darwin's Black Box and a Biology textbook. You've heard this all before, but Nature itself though orderly in respect to gravity, precipitation, wind, laws, cannot produce my body. Nor could it likely produce even the most simplest of cells (which actually aren't simple at all). So I'm saying that I believe that something made us and that Jesus is a likely candidate. I believe that he is the most likely because of prophecy, miracles, personality, and the devotion of his followers (ie. martyrs).

When I was talking about the glass half full or half empty it was in the context of the time Mary and the others went to the tomb of Jesus. One Gospel says it was after sunrise, another says it was still dark. Can the sun have been risen and it still be dark? It can, I'm a surfer so I've cracked it at dawn a few times and know what I'm talking about.

BTW I do know about other religions and am not totally one sided. In fact other religions reflect Biblical truths. Hinduism believes in many lives. The Bible says that God has put the idea of eternity into us. Other religions promote love and peace (Islam, RC, Mormonism) though Islam also promotes other bad things. The Bible promotes love. It also does not give an excuse for genocide because God was not talking to us today but to the nation of Israel. I don't want to rip on other religions but show where they are wrong and where they are right.

Honestly, deep down inside, I'd rather have the Bible be right. Eternal Pleasure!!! Since God allegedly invented pleasure he would know how to give it; and since he is eternal our pleasure would reach no limit. Just think, sex is merely a prelude to heaven if it's true. AHhhHhaha you know?

take it easy dude!

-DM-

December 22, 2005, 03:43 AM

It seems that if there was a God He could never write a Book good enough for you.If there were a perfect and omnipotent "God," then any book that "He" wrote should be so obviously without fault that I would not have difficulty accepting the details of its alleged-to-be historical accounts as nonfictional. But that isn't the case. Instead of appearing to me to be the work of a perfect and omnipotent "God," the Bible instead appears to be the work of a bumbling oaf of a god who sets a very poor moral example for his alleged creatures.

If my reasoning for why the Bible does not demand that Mary Mag. see the angels before running back to the disciples prove me wrong.Inasmuch as I have never disputed that the Bible does not demand that Mary Magdalene see the angels before running back to the disciples, I don't accept your challenge.

So far you've just been saying that God if there is a God has not inspired the Bible in a "Godly" manner.No, what I have been saying is that a perfect and omnipotent "God" surely could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it were "he" to have anything to do with the inspiration of a Bible.

But to say that God has done a sloppy job of inspiring requires a real mastery of the Bible as a whole.I believe that I have sufficient mastery of the subject to be able to say that no perfect and omnipotent "God" was involved in the inspiration of the Bible. You need not agree, of course. Keep in mind, however, that if your assertion were correct, then you and anyone else would need to have a "real mastery of the Bible as a whole, etc., in order to say either that it was not a sloppy job.

I mean that particular claim requires a thorough understanding of culture, context, language, and other aspects in interpretation.At this late date, no one can have a thorough understanding of all those things. The best that anyone can do is to try.

I do not read the three languages of the Bible or anything like that.I have known those who do. One in particular who started to be a minister, was at one time Chairman of the Dept. of Religion at a University, taught Bible at West Virginia Wesleyan College and Northwestern University. He agrees with me.

Keil and Deilitczh (probably misspelled) is a very helpful commentary when it comes to this.It's "Keil & Delitzsch." I use that myself.

The Koran no doubt has truth in it, but I do not believe it will gain you salvation.That is exactly the way that I feel about the Bible.

I'll leave it at that.

Regards,
-Don-

*** Internet Infidels needs your tax-deductible financial support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

Hey chaps

December 22, 2005, 12:00 PM

Well the point that Till makes about Mary Mag. seeing the angel before running to the disciples is what my argument was about. If she saw the angel before and then ran home and told the disciples that deal about someone placing Jesus's body somewhere she didn't know then that sounds pretty strange. Especially if the angel told her that Jesus was going up to Galilee.

Since you agree with me, I've then dispensed the alleged discrepancy of Mary Mag.'s words to the disciples and Till's simple example of a discrepancy. Hurray!

Of course this will not change anything. There will always be another "discrepancy" and another "hoc" answer.

It may appear that the Bible was poorly written but it doesn't appear that way to many people. In fact I've read some interesting stuff about the Dead Sea Scrolls and their similarities and differences with our text now. The similarity I heard was 95.5%(correct me if i'm wrong). This doesn't change the content of the text but shows that it was at least accurately transmitted. Of all the differences or "variants"(to you a euphemism) appear to only be slight details that do not affect crucial doctorine (ie. salvation). It's usually a misspelling or an exchange in synonyms. There is of course a huge chunk in Mark that is just hovering at the end but it's substance does not conflict with any doctorine set in the Bible or add anything new. Isaiah is also said to be one of the most accurately transmitted. The very book with the prophecy of the Messiah (as thought by the ancient people of Israel in the targum but not today). The New Testament also stands on pretty good ground as far as the preservation of content. We have material that dates about 150 yrs after the actual Biblical events occur. not only that but 2000 fragments of scripture and the great three uncials. The NT is also verified in historical accuracy (in luke) by writers such as Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Mara Bar Serapion, and other church fathers. However, what's interesting is the Pagan writers. Why write about a "superstition"(tacitus) that never existed? Or the death of Christus (Tacitus) that never happened? Or the conviction of Christs followers unto death?(Tacitus). You may say that only some didn't recant and the rest did. Maybe, but you still have to explain why the disciples (most likely) were even Christians at this time not to mention preaching the word of Christ and dying for it. That takes balls. It's like raising your hand in ww2 Germany and saying "hey I'm a Jew." The conviction of the apostles is a big reason why I don't throw the Bible aside. There's reason to believe that they were honest men, and not men trying to create some fake religion they knew was fake.

I agree that an omnipotent God could do all of what you said. But I disagree that our Bible now is some load of crap. We obviously don't have the original autographs of the NT and OT but from what I've read from Josh Mcdowell's Evidence that Demands a verdic(volume 1) that you can pick the worst quality NT manuscript and it will still give you the same saving doctorine as all the others. It's also true that the documents have been acurately transmitted. It's just your bleat that their content does not reflect an omnipotent God.

Since there are four Gospels I don't see how you could ever reason that they came from God from the start, even if altered to "perfection". Make them identically the same with Mary. Mag. and friends all leaving at sunrise (not the dark) and you end up with only one Gospel. Now you don't have corroborating evidence as to the events. Utohh. Maybe you could salvage the pagan historian's words. But if you did have a perfect Bible like you wish you would still meet a lot of Bible criticism. Besides, what would a "perfect" Bible look like? Are the writings of Shakespeare perfect? Does the writing exhibit "perfect" imagery and imagination? What I think you are saying is that the Bible should be free from historical error, and internal error. I don't think you'd be so picky as to complain about the style of writing.

Ok my last words. This is my bleat. My explanations I give for your Biblical disagreements and "contradictions" and so forth are just as hoc as your claims. However, I think my explanations help decipher that ambiguousness of your argument and further solidify mine. I see your arguments all the time and they meet a satisfactory answer; not one that sounds like an excuse but a convincing explanation. Your arguments for why the Bible does not appear inspired lacks thoroughness. For instance your claims that there is disagreement between the gospels. You know there aren't. Or if you do I'm not sure why. I've allready shown that one of Till's simple discrepancies is not a discrepancy at all. Or at least the Bible doesn't demand that it is. So let us go down the line of simple "errors" until they're all acounted for and explained. We can then no longer result to "throwing elephants" like the Bible is full of disagreements or there are contradictions on every page. The Bible is actually very harmonious. Each account further explains another in the Gospel. You can use one piece of scripture to interpret another. God has always been a God of grace from Genesis to Revelation. God has also provided us with his son. A person who fulfilled tons of prophecy, did miracles, then rose again. He is someone who loved me enough to die a horrible death. Should I look away from this event? Should I tell God in heaven that He did not "fully show himself" to be God in his person and the Bible? That will not fly. Even without the Bible you can know there's a God so you are really without excuse. God has revealed himself all throughout history. Tons of nations heard of him and had the chance to come to him. The same can be said today. He has accurately given us all we really need to get to heaven. That's what I would think an omnipotent LOVING God would do. He also has given us very accurate records of his intervention. I cannot verify that all of it has been acurate (ie. Genesis) but archaeology has shown the Bible to have merit.

If you truly are convinced that your reasoning rules out the Bible's true authorship (God) then that's fine. Mine does not. Some books that have illustrated this to me are: Evidence that Demands a Verdict 1, 2, 3 by Josh Mcdowell, Lee Strobel's Case for Christ, Easter. I strongly suggest you read Josh, he's pretty good. Lee Strobel is good too but less thorough. Of course you don't need to read these if your allready convinced the Bible is nonsense, but I've read it and it's hard to refute Josh's points and Lee's. Not that you can't but they are good points! -Sorry this is so long, but your allegations need this kind of space for explanation.

Hey chaps

December 22, 2005, 12:01 PM

Farrell Till

December 22, 2005, 02:09 PM

I'm not going too say much about this article except for an alleged Bible contradiction used to undermine the "inerrant stand." I myself do not know exactly what people mean by inerrancy of the Bible.

The expression is rather self-explanatory. It is simply a belief that there are no errors of any kind in the Bible. In a three-part series on my website http://www.theskepticalreview.com/jftill/inerrancy/inerrancy.html, I discussed this doctrine. If you read these articles, you should understand what the doctrine is and why most biblical fundamentalists believe it.

I see inerrancy of the Bible as a belief that the Bible has the stories correct and that every principle of the Bible is inerrant or from God (therefore inerrant).

That may be the way that you see it, but there is far more to this doctrine than that. Those who adhere to it will claim that there are no errors of any kind in the Bible in matters of history, science, chronology, geography, etc., as well as in matters of faith and practice. Read the articles linked to above, and perhaps you will better understand the doctrine.

It is true that many people have shot many flaming arrows of "Biblical contradictions" at the Bible, but I believe that many that can be explained have.

Good. Then if you believe this, perhaps you will be willing to go to my website http://www.theskepticalreview.com and show where I erred in explicating, usually in great detail, some specific examples of discrepancies in the Bible. If you will select an article, reply to it, and send it to me, I will be glad to post it there. The only drawback is that I will reply to the article as I am replying to your post here, and as you can see, my style is to reply point by point.

Ferrill

If you are going to refer to me, please spell the name correctly.

Ferrill [sic] says that the explanations by fundamentalists are not explanations at all but more or less excuses to hold to an inerrant view of the Bible. This may be true, but this is an intellectually dangerous view to hold. Christians along with Richard Dawkins can write math textbooks.

Has Richard Dawkins written math textbooks? His field is biology.

They can make scientific and historical observations that are perfectly true. A right wing Fundamentalist "crazy person" who says 2+2=4 may have a bad reputation to Ferrell [sic], but nonetheless be correct. What I'm saying is we shouldn't ignore arguments just because someone has a bias.

You certainly won't get any disagreement from me when you say that people who are mentally challenged can be correct, because my wife's occupation as a social worker has brought me into contact with many people who others would say are "crazy," and I have seen examples of abilities they have that I could never begin to duplicate. However, you need to consider the reverse of what you are saying: no matter how intelligent a person may be, he can be wrong in some things. I have had conversations about religion with many people who are otherwise very intelligent, but in my opinion, they simply cannot apply that intelligence to the logical examination of religious beliefs.

Everyone is biased!

Isn't that the truth!

That's not a cynical statement either (at least not to me).

No, it is a simple statement of fact. I have tried and tried and tried to get would-be internet apologists like Everette Hatcher III, David Conklin, and Robert Turkel (in particular) to understand that filling their articles with citation after citation of what Gary Demar or Stephen Miller or John Goldingay or Gleason Archer, etc. think or say about whatever doesn't prove anything, because such writers have known biases slanted toward the traditional view that the Bible is "the word of God." They seem not to understand that regardless of what biblical doctrine or view one is trying to defend, he can always find books and articles that agree with it.

Well here it is. Farrell Till makes the assumption that Mary Mag. saw the angels in the tomb of Jesus and runs to tell the disciples that "They have taken the Lord's body out of the tomb, and I don't know where they have put him"(John 20:2).

No, I don't assume this at all. I simply say that Matthew's narrative of alleged events on resurrection morning requires readers of this narrative to understand that Mary Magdalene was present throughout the narrative. I will soon show that a grammatical analysis of this narrative will allow for no other conclusion.

I think it's possible that Mary did not see the angels first and left to tell the disciples that the tomb was empty.

In http://www.theskepticalreview.com/jftill/mary/problem.html my reply to Robert Turkel's article http://www.theskepticalreview.com/jftill/bobby/checklist.html "Tomb Visitors Checklist," I showed that the grammatical structure of Matthew's resurrection narrative absolutely requires readers to understand that Mary Magdalene was present from start to finish of this account of what "the women" saw and heard that morning, so, therefore, the Mary Magdalene of this account had to have seen the angel, heard the angel, and encountered Jesus as the women were leaving the tomb.

To save space, I am going to paste from my article, the grammatical analysis of the relevant section of Matthew's narrative.

---------------------------------------
Matthew's resurrection account:

Many inerrantists contend that Mary Magdalene simply panicked when she saw the empty tomb and ran to Peter before she had heard the angel(s) announce that Jesus had risen. This "explanation," however, is completely incompatible with Matthew's gospel account. Let's look at it first, and then I will explain why the explanation is incompatible with what "Matthew" clearly said.

Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. 5 But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you." 8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9 And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "Rejoice!" So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me."

I have emphasized in bold print certain words to call attention to them. They will establish that Matthew intended for his readers to understand that Mary Magdalene didn't just hear the angel announce that Jesus had been raised from the dead but that she also saw him and touched him after she had run from the tomb. To establish this, let's notice that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary are the only two women mentioned in Matthew's version. The fact that Mark and Luke may have mentioned other women has nothing to do with the obvious fact that Matthew mentioned only two women: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Therefore, "THE WOMEN" in verse 5 to whom the angel said that Jesus had risen must have necessarily included Mary Magdalene; otherwise, Matthew's text is incoherent and would not have conveyed an accurate picture of what had happened to early Christians who may have lived and died having had access only to this one gospel account. I assume that inerrantists are willing to admit that the New Testament in bound volumes didn't exist until many years after the gospels were written, so a reader of Matthew very likely would have been unable to consult Mark, Luke, and John to see if they shed any "additional light" on what had happened. If nothing else, Christians living at the time Matthew's gospel was completed could not have had access to Luke and John, since (as most biblical scholars agree) they were written after Matthew. Therefore, the picture they formed in their minds after reading Matthew's gospel could not have included anything that was written in gospels that came after Matthew's.

Besides this, there are linguistic factors that inerrantists must consider. All rules of literary interpretation that I ever heard of (and I studied a lot of literature on the subject when I was teaching college English) would require readers to understand that "THE WOMEN" in verse 5 of Matthew's text were Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. No other assumptions can be made, since Matthew did not himself specify that any other women were with the two Marys. In other words, whether Mark and Luke mentioned up to five other women or 500 other women is immaterial to what Matthew's narrative said. If he mentioned only two women, then "the women" in his narrative grammatically had to be Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Hence, any plural pronouns like they and them that obviously referred back to the women had to be references to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. By necessity, then, the grammar of Matthew's narrative requires readers to understand what whatever they did in this narrative or whatever happened to or was said to them were things done by or to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.

The rules of pronoun-antecedent agreement will, therefore, require readers to understand that the antecedent of the pronouns they and them (emphasized in bold print) is "THE WOMEN." Since "THE WOMEN" by grammatical necessity had to be Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, the antecedents of they and them are indirectly (by necessity) Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.

It is a rule of literary interpretation that the substitution of antecedents for the pronouns in a text will not alter the meaning of the text but will, if anything, help clarify its meaning. With that in mind, I will now take Matthew's text quoted above and present it with the antecedents substituted for the pronouns they and them when they made obvious references to "the women." Readers should keep in mind that where Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (in bold print) appear, the pronouns they or them appeared in the actual text.

Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. 5 But the angel answered and said to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you." 8 So Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9 And as Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, saying, "Rejoice!" So Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me."

It is clearly evident that Matthew meant for his readers to understand that Mary Magdalene heard an angel announce that Jesus had risen and that she ran from the tomb with great joy after hearing this and that she met Jesus and touched him after she had run from the tomb. So my question to Turkel and his inerrantist cohorts who think that there are no inconsistencies in the resurrection narratives is a simple one: If Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen and if she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb, why did she go tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?

Some inerrantists use the two-visits theory to explain the inconsistencies in Mathew's and John's narratives. They argue that John's narrative told of a first visit that Mary M made to the tomb while it was yet dark, at which time she encountered an empty tomb and ran to tell Peter and John that the body had been stolen, whereas the synoptic narratives told of a second visit that Mary M made to the tomb "when the sun was risen." I do hope that Turkel will try to present this as a solution to the Mary Magdalene problem.
-------------------------------

Actually, you are trying to present the two-visits "solution," so if you would care to present your evidence for this "solution," supported by textual evidence rather than just your statements of opinion, I will be glad to reply to it to show the many problems that it presents.

The angel never specifies what women he is talking to.

No, but as I just showed, Matthew did specify what women the angel was talking to, because the grammatical structure of his narrative requires readers to understand that the antecedent of the pronouns they and them throughout his account was Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. If I have erred in my grammatical analysis of the narrative, please show us where the errors occurred.

Matthew 28:5 says "Then the angel spoke to the women." In context Mary Mag. and the other Mary go down to the tomb. If these two women were the only ones there my observation would totally break down.

As I showed above, it does not matter how many women may have gone to the tomb. If Matthew named only two women, then by grammatical necessity when his narrative referred to "the women" and then used the pronouns they and them, readers must understand that Mary Magdalene was one of the women in the theys and thems.

If not, why not? Please be specific.

Luke talks of their [sic] being 5 or 6 women going to see the tomb.

It doesn't matter that Luke referred to other women. The grammatical structure of Matthew's account requires readers to understand that Mary Magdalene was one of "the women" whom the angel spoke to and that she was included in the antecedents of the pronouns they and them.

If not, why not? Please be specific.

So Matthew may be recording the resurrection scene using two characters while excluding others.

Please show us why the grammar of Matthew's account does not require readers to understand that Mary Magdalene was one of "the women" whom the angel spoke to and why she was not included in the antecedents of the pronouns they and them.

Please be specific.

In Mark 16:5-6 it says "The (women) were startled, but the angel said, 'Do not be so surprised."

What Mark said doesn't matter. The relevant issue here is what the grammatical structure of Matthew's narrative requires. Please explain to us how the grammar of Matthew's narrative will allow the exclusion of Mary Magdalene from "the women" whom the angel spoke to and from the antecedents of the pronouns they and them.

Please be grammatically specific.

Luke 24:5 it says "The women were terrified and bowed low before them"(ie. they bowed to the angels). In Luke 24:10 it says that "The women who went to the tomb were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and several others." What is really interesting is that after it says "They told the apostles what had happened, but the story sounded like nonsense, so they didn't believe it"(Luke 24:11).

What Luke's narrative said is irrelevant. If the grammatical structure of Matthew's narrative requires readers to understand that he was saying that Mary Magdalene was present when the angel spoke to "the women" and that she was included in the pronouns they and them who ran from the tomb, encountered Jesus, touched and worshiped him, then you must explain plausibly why Mary M would have said to Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen.

Someone ressurecting [sic] from the dead would sound like nonsense, but if there was one story from Mary Mag. saying someone had moved the body, and another saying the body was walking around that would sound even more nonsensical to me.

Then will you agree that it was nonsensical for John to have said that Mary Magdalene had said that the body had been "moved" [stolen] while Matthew said that Mary Magdalene was present when an angel told her that Jesus had been resurrected and then later said that she had met Jesus and touched him?

If not, why not?

It is possible that Mary Mag. left before the angels appeared and would logically deduce that the Roman soldiers might have moved him.

My grammatical analysis of Matthew's account above requires readers to understand that he was saying that Mary M was present throughout the message delivered by the angel and that she had encountered, touched, and worshiped Jesus after "they," the women, had run from the tomb.

If not, why not? Please be specific.

There is no mention of her seeing an angel in John 20:1 "Early Sunday morning, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and found that the stone had been rolled away from the entrance."

No, there isn't, but Matthew certainly mentioned that Mary M had seen and heard an angel announce the resurrection of Jesus, so why did she tell John that the body had been stolen, especially since she had met and touched Jesus on the way to tell the apostles what she had seen and heard at the tomb?

She then rushed home and said to the disciples, "They have taken the Lord's body out of the tomb, and I don't know where they have put him!"(John 20:2).

Why did she do this if she had seen the angel, heard the angel announce the resurrection, and then had met and touched Jesus? That is the problem, so please explain it.

And please be specific.

Why should we just assume that Mary Mag. saw the angels before running to tell the disciples?

Because the grammar of Matthew's narrative requires us to understand that when the angel spoke to "the women," he was speaking to the women earlier identified in the narrative. Since Mary M and the other Mary were the only women mentioned by Matthew, readers have to understand that Matthew meant for them to understand that Mary M was one of the women that the angel spoke to. If not, why not?

Since no one besides Mary M and the other Mary were mentioned in Matthew's narrative, readers must also understand that Mary M was included in the antecedents of the pronouns they and them.

If not, why not? Please be specific.

The whole basis of Till's article is about a belief without proof when ironically he doesn't give any proof that Mary saw the angels before running to tell the disciples about the empty tomb.

I didn't? I gave you a detailed grammatical analysis of Matthew's narrative, which requires readers to understand that Mary M was present when "the women" heard the angel announce the resurrection and when "they" ran from the tomb, encountered Jesus, touched, and worshiped him. Your task, then, is to show us how Mary M can be grammatically eliminated from Matthew's narrative. If you attempt to do this, please be specific.

Sort of an ironic twist, considering his dislike of assumptions.

Well, if there are any unsupported assumptions in my grammatical analysis of Matthew's narrative, please show us what they are.

So here is what I think really happened at the resurrection:

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I don't particularly care what you think happened. My interest is in what Matthew said happened, so I want you to show us that what Matthew said happened that morning would allow grammatically for an early removal of Mary M from the scene before she heard what the angel said and before Jesus was encountered and worshiped by "the women." Just show how the grammatical structure of Matthew's narrative will allow for the early removal of Mary Magdalene from the scene.

Please don't tell us what you think or what you want the narrative to say. Show us that the grammar of this narrative does not require the presence of Mary M throughout.

Mary Mag and 4 or 5 others went to the tomb to do burial rights. They notice that the tomb is empty; Mary Mag runs off before the other women see the angels in the tomb; Then the other women run home to tell the disciples what the angels said. Scripture doesn't demand that Mary Mag. see the angel before telling the disciples about the empty tomb.

Matthew's account requires readers to understand that Mary M did see and hear the angel and then later met and touched Jesus. If not, why not?

This I deduced in less than 7 minutes.

No, not really. You didn't "deduce anything"; you are simply parroting the how-it-could-have-been scenarios of those who have tried to eliminate this problem.

Just think what other assumptions or "contradictions" have been worked out in 2000 years.

Oh, certainly "apologists" think that they have "worked out" solutions to all biblical discrepancies that have been identified, but what they think is simply what they think. Let's see you "work out" the grammatical problem that Matthew's narrative presents to your claim that Mary M ran away from the tomb before she saw and heard the angel and then later encountered Jesus.

I'm not certain, but I think Mary goes back to the tomb. This uncertainty is a result from my ignorance to whether or not John 20:11 occurs after Mary Mag. tells the disciples about the empty tomb. But the story goes that she was crying and met two angels inside the tomb. Then she meets Jesus. Jesus then tells her to tell the disciples that he is ascending to his Father.

You are probably referring to "John's" claim that Mary stooped, looked into the tomb, and saw two angels, but this will in no way explain why Matthew said that she and the other Mary encountered an angel after they arrived at the tomb, heard this angel say that Jesus had been resurrected, and then encountered Jesus and touched him as they were running from the tomb. I will eagerly wait to see your grammatical analysis that will allow for Mary M's removal from the scene before she encountered the angel and Jesus.

To anyone who wishes to "expose" the Bible to error I'm well aware that there are errors.

Then you are not a believer in biblical errancy, so why do you care whether there are errors in the different resurrection narratives concerning what allegedly happened on the Sunday after Jesus's crucifixion and burial?

Why God foreordained that there would be errors I do not know.

Now you are begging the question of whether "God" had anything to do with the authorship of the Bible.

I've looked at a few that occur usually with numbers like the age of a king.

Oh, the errors run much deeper than that. If you will spend some time reading the detailed analyses of discrepancies identified in the articles at http://www.theskepticalreview.com, you will see that there are some rather significant discrepancies in the Bible, enough of them to give pause to those who want to believe that the Bible is "the inspired word of God."

However, I don't think anyone's salvation rests on whether or not this many exiles were in Babylon or how old a king was.

As I said, I don't really care what you "think," but since you are saying that errors in the Bible don't matter, perhaps you can answer a question that I have asked many who espouse the errant-but-still-the-word-of-God view of the Bible. Just how do you determine truth from error in an errant Bible? If the Bible erred in reporting how many exiles returned from Babylon, how do you know that it didn't err in claiming that Jesus was born of a virgin or that he was the son of God or that he rose from the dead?

If you answer this, try to keep in mind that wishful thinking doesn't explain anything. We would like to see a logical explanation of how you could know that what the Bible says about "salvation" is true if you admit that it contains errors in other matters.

I think that God has also preserved a very accurate revelation of himself to us.

As I have said several times now, we don't particularly care what you "think." We want to see logical evidence to support your claims.

The OT accuracy according to the Dead Sea Scrolls is astounding.

I am sure that someone who has admitted (above) to being "ignorant" about when exactly John 20:11 occurred in the resurrection accounts is probably not expert enough in the Dead Sea Scrolls to talk with any degree of expertise about how they corroborate the accuracy of the Old Testament. You are simply parroting something you have heard or read. If you will resolve the Mary Magdalene problem identified above, I will be glad to discuss OT accuracy with you.

The New Testament has 538 some documents (20,000 fragments) to check for inaccuracies and so on. Try saying that about ancient secular book written.

You are still parroting what you have read in apologetic works, and it sounds very much as if you have been reading in Norman Geisler's books. Perhaps you can explain to us how the number of NT fragments in existence would in any way prove the inerrancy of the NT. If I wrote a document that became so popular that 20,000 copies of it were made by others, would that in any way prove that the content of my original was inerrant?

If so, how?

Before saying that something is in error or is in contradiction be able to substantiate exactly and unambiguously why it is in error.

Well, I certainly try to do that. If you will go to http://www.theskepticalreview.com and spend some time there reading my articles, you will see that I explicate in detail those parts of the Bible that I consider discrepancies. Perhaps you would be kind enough to take some of those examples and show that they aren't really discrepancies.

It is better to be totally ignorant of any error of an author until fully understanding and perceiving the author's ignorance (quote from somewhere).

Well, I see no need to try to reply to a "quote from somewhere."

I know why you guys cite these "errors" and "contradictions." I know because I'm writing why these "errors" and "contradictions" are false.

You didn't even begin to explain why these errors and contradictions are false. You simply asserted that they are false. However, you now have the chance to go through my grammatical analysis of Matthew's resurrection narrative and show us--show us, not just tell us--how the grammar of this narrative will allow for the removal of Mary Magdalene from the scene before she had encountered the angel and then later Jesus.

I'm trying to prove to myself and to others that what I believe is true.

Well, having once been a believer in biblical inerrancy, I am reasonably sure that you don't really need to "prove" to yourself that what you believe is true. However, you need to understand that those of us who don't believe what you believe are going to require much more than just your say-so that what you believe is true.

This doesn't automatically mean what I say is false but shows human nature.

Yes, and, unfortunately, human nature seems to be that one is going to believe in matters of religion what he was indoctrinated to believe as he was growing up.

What you say about the Bible is an attempt to make yourself feel good and comfortable about it being nonsense,

I attended two Bible colleges at considerable expense to my parents, spent 12 years preaching for a fundamentalist church, and five of those years in foreign missionary work, but "feeling good" about myself was about the last emotion I experienced when I began to see things in the Bible that were inconsistent with what I had been taught to believe about biblical errancy. I finally had to quit the ministry and retrain for another profession, at great emotional and financial expense to my family of five at that time. What happened to me was as if someone who had trained to be an engineer should suddenly encounter reasons that would not ethically allow him to continue in the profession he had invested considerable time and money in training for, so please don't accuse me of opposing the traditional view of the Bible because I want to "feel good." It just isn't so.

or to elevate yourselves.

How does my opposition to the Bible "elevate" myself? It actually has caused many people to dislike me.

Because if the Bible where [sic] true then you'd be in a whole world of trouble.

Oh, please don't come at us with Pascal's wager. It begs the question of the existence of "God."

I make myself feel good by saying you're wrong.

Well, to each his own. If it makes you feel good to say that I am wrong, then go ahead and say it. You need to understand, however, that I don't really care how many times you say that I am wrong. Until you can show--show and not just assert--that I am wrong, I will just consider you as another Bible believer who is upset at my view of the Bible but can't really explain why I am wrong.

Maybe you're right and I'm wrong or vice a versa but to say that bias clouds other people's vision but not your own is silly.

When have I ever said that? (See my comments above about bias.)

The axe falls both ways. Just ask yourself the question, if I am given irrefutable evidence that Jesus is the Messiah and God will I choose to believe it?

Well, if you have been given irrefutable evidence that Jesus is the Messiah and God, please share it with us.

Only then will you understand why Christian explanations for "contradictions" are not "good" explanations because there is no possibility for it being true even when there is irrefutable evidence that it is.

This statement really doesn't make sense. If your evidence is "irrefutable," why wouldn't it be "good explanations"? What I want, however, is to see this "irrefutable evidence" that you speak about. Please share it with us, or at least use some of it to show us that the grammatical structure of Matthew's resurrection narrative allows for the early removal of Mary Magdalene before she encountered the angel and then Jesus.

It's not about the intellectual aspect of it, but the will.

Let's suppose that a Muslim trying to defend the truth of the Qur'an should say to you, "It's not about the intellectual aspect of it, but the will." How impressed would you be? Answer that question, and then perhaps you will understand why we are not at all impressed with your apologetic efforts in this post, which consisted primarily of telling us what you "think" or want to believe.

I hope that helps

It really didn't help at all.

-DM-

December 22, 2005, 10:02 PM

Since you agree with me, I've then dispensed the alleged discrepancy of Mary Mag.'s words to the disciples and Till's simple example of a discrepancy. Hurray!Apparently you had a problem in this case in understanding the plain meaning of what I said, which was this:

"Inasmuch as I have never disputed that the Bible does not demand that Mary Magdalene see the angels before running back to the disciples, I don't accept your challenge."

The meaning of that statement is that I have not disputed your assertion, not that I necessarily agree. In other words, I have not taken a position on this issue.

Of course this will not change anything. There will always be another "discrepancy" and another "hoc" answer.It won't change anything for the reason that it is a straw man argument that has nothing to do with my position on the matter. But you are probably correct that there will always be another ad hoc argument inasmuch as there is a seemingly never-ending supply of Christian apologists who come up with new ad hoc how-it-might-have-been "explanations" in an attempt to get "God" and the Bible off the hook and out of trouble (just as do Muslims and other religionists in the case of their so-called Holy Books).

It may appear that the Bible was poorly written but it doesn't appear that way to many people.I didn't say that it was "poorly written," but now that you mention it I am inclined to say that. Nevertheless, the point that I made previously was not that it was "poorly written" but that a book inspired by a perfect and omnipotent "God" would be better written--much better written. After all, we wouldn't say that a carpenter who built kitchen cabinets with obvious defects was "a perfect carpenter."

In fact I've read some interesting stuff about the Dead Sea Scrolls and their similarities and differences with our text now. The similarity I heard was 95.5%(correct me if i'm wrong). This doesn't change the content of the text but shows that it was at least accurately transmitted. Of all the differences or "variants"(to you a euphemism) appear to only be slight details that do not affect crucial doctorine (ie. salvation).There are 20,000+ differences in the various scraps of NT manuscripts and NT manuscripts themselves, most of them minor but some not so minor. This doesn't speak well for those manuscripts having been "accurately transmitted."

In addition, there are also 20,000+ Christian denominations, each with their minor and/or major differences in interpretation of Bible verses and in doctrine. This doesn't speak well for the ability of "God" to inspire his adherents to get it right.

Further, there is not even agreement on the most important doctrine of all, namely the requirements for salvation. For more on this, please see Christian Salvation? (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=192) by B. Steven Matthies (http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/author.asp?AuthorID=578) as well as the Feedback discussion thread Christian Salvation (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=72557).

It's usually a misspelling or an exchange in synonyms.... not to mention spurious additions, emendations, and revisions.

There is of course a huge chunk in Mark that is just hovering at the end but it's substance does not ... add anything new.Really? Where else in the Bible does it say that a believer can handle snakes or drink any deadly thing without suffering any harm?

(And by the way, thank you for mentioning this. The longer ending of Mark is an example of what is very likely a spurious addition to the original text.)

There's reason to believe that they were honest men, and not men trying to create some fake religion they knew was fake.Perhaps, but people seem to be willing to die for what they believe to be true, whether it is or not. After all, do you believe that Muslim suicide bombers are blowing themselves up for what they know to be true, or for what they believe to be true.

I agree that an omnipotent God could do all of what you said. But I disagree that our Bible now is some load of crap.I don't know who it is that you have in mind when you state this disagreement inasmuch as I have not said that the Bible is "some load of crap." What I do say is that it contains some fact and some fable, some history and some fiction, some good moral precepts and some impractical or even reprehensible moral precepts, etc. It is not one-sided--as it would be were it the work of a perfect and omnipotent "God."

We obviously don't have the original autographs of the NT and OT but from what I've read from Josh Mcdowell's Evidence that Demands a verdic(volume 1) that you can pick the worst quality NT manuscript and it will still give you the same saving doctorine as all the others.Josh McDowell is, so far as I am concerned, an untrustworthy amateur when it comes to apologetics. There are certainly more trustworthy and better-informed Christian apologists to be found. For more on this, see the articles in the Secular Web Library on Josh McDowell (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/apologetics.html#mcdowell).

It's also true that the documents have been acurately transmitted. It's just your bleat that their content does not reflect an omnipotent God.An omnipotent "God" could certainly have done a better job of it. A perfect "God" would have done a better job of it.

Since there are four Gospels I don't see how you could ever reason that they came from God from the start, even if altered to "perfection".If the Gospels and Paul agreed on the details of the stories they relate, if Jesus' alleged post-Resurrection appearances had been to people who would have been reliable witnesses (such as the Sanhedrin, Pontius Pilate, "all of Jerusalem" as during the so-called Triumphal Entry, etc.) instead of just to those who were mostly his friends and followers, if there were historical corroboration of such things as the alleged rising of the Saints--things like that--then I would not have the problem that I have with believing the Bible. As it is, however, the Bible has what look to me like the earmarks of fiction. If you believe otherwise, that is fine with me.

I wonder, though, if there is much difference between the way that you likely view the Qur'an and the way that I view both the Bible and the Qur'an.

Maybe you could salvage the pagan historian's words.There is no corroborating historical evidence outside of the Bible to support the alleged Resurrection.

What I think you are saying is that the Bible should be free from historical error, and internal error.This is, of course, the claim of biblical inerrantists. Their claim makes sense if you also believe that the Bible was inspired by a perfect and omnipotent "God."

Ok my last words. This is my bleat. My explanations I give for your Biblical disagreements and "contradictions" and so forth are just as hoc as your claims.Lists of biblical problems are hardly ad hoc. They are taken from the Bible itself. (You really need to get a handle on the meaning of terms such as "inerrantist" and "ad hoc.")

You know there aren't.You are not by any means the first Christian I have met who seems to think he is perhaps a mind-reader. Would you be impressed, by the way, if I said to you, "You know there are"?

Or if you do I'm not sure why.Or if I added, "If you don't, I don't know why"?

I've allready shown that one of Till's simple discrepancies is not a discrepancy at all.You have done no such thing.

Or at least the Bible doesn't demand that it is.Apparently you didn't understand. See Farrell Till's response, above.

So let us go down the line of simple "errors" until they're all acounted for and explained.Please do. If you succeed, it will be a first.

If you truly are convinced that your reasoning rules out the Bible's true authorship (God) then that's fine. Mine does not. Some books that have illustrated this to me are: Evidence that Demands a Verdict 1, 2, 3 by Josh Mcdowell, Lee Strobel's Case for Christ, Easter. I strongly suggest you read Josh, he's pretty good. Lee Strobel is good too but less thorough.I have read such works. Back when I was a Christian, I thought they were quite convincing. Now that I have been exposed to the other side of the story and to the criticisms of these works, they seem unconvincing.

For more on McDowell, Strobel, and other Christian apologists: Christian Apologetics and Apologists (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/apologetics.html)

If you haven't done so, be sure to read Farrell Till's reply, above.

Regards,
-Don-

P.S. I have said all that I want to say on this subject. If you have something new to say, feel free to have the last word.

*** Internet Infidels needs your tax-deductible financial support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

Hey You All

December 23, 2005, 05:20 PM

I have read Both of your responses and they're very good. Till has done a great job in his examination of the scripture. The editor has done a good job in explaining what would help him believe in the Bible's claims. Till's claims are good and require a lot of studying on my part. I think I agree with Till that Mark does insinuate that Mary Mag. and Mary saw the Angels. The only reason I don't fully agree is because I think there may be other possibilities that Till or myself have overlooked concerning the event. You may and probably are right that Mary Mag. saw the angels but I need to examine it myself and take your words with a grain of salt. Thanks for your responses.