What are your strongest arguments against inerrancy?

[Roland]

Mine are:

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN VS. THE SYNOPTICS

If Jesus did indeed say all the things attributed to him in John's gospel, how is it that Mark, Matthew and Luke managed to miss every single one of them?

THE INCREDIBLY LATE APPEARANCE OF ANY BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS OF JESUS' REMARKABLE LIFE.

Why is it that the details of Jesus' life don't show up with any regularity until the writings of Justin in the middle of the 2nd Century AD, after which they become commonplace in the writings of Christian authors? The miracles alone seem to get incredibly short shrift in the earliest accounts.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/OldTable.html

THE LACK OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR OLD TESTAMENT EVENTS

How could over two million people (and their livestock) have lived and died in the Sinai Desert for a period of 40 years and not left a single trace of their existence there? And why do at least half of the sites said to have been conquered by the Israelites in the Book of Joshua show no signs of occupation at the time of the supposed conquest?

THE UNDENIABLE CONTRADICTION IN THE RESURRECTION NARRATIVES

Mary Magdalene's actions in Matthew on the morning of Jesus' resurrection are irreconcilably contradicted by her actions in John's gospel.

These are my strongest arguments. What are yours?

[Joan of Bark]

The book of Ecclesiastes is a mass of often hilarious contradictions.

The fact that Christians cannot agree on which Bible is the 'correct' one.

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." vs. "love thy neighbor".

There are, of course, many more.

[Amaleq13]

The notion of an inerrant collection of texts clearly relies on the logical fallacy of special pleading. No further argument is necessary. :)

[mens_sana]

The notion of an inerrant collection of texts clearly relies on the logical fallacy of special pleading. No further argument is necessary. :)

Tsk, tsk, of course it is special pleading, but just how is that cogent with the inerrantist?

[Amaleq13]

Tsk, tsk, of course it is special pleading, but just how is that cogent with the inerrantist?

It should suggest to you that attempting to offer an argument that an inerrantist will consider cogent is a complete waste of time.

[mens_sana]

It should suggest to you that attempting to offer an argument that an inerrantist will consider cogent is a complete waste of time.

Of course it is, but you still have an inerrantist standing impatiently before you waiting for your cogent argument. "Special pleading" doesn't cut it. :devil3:

[gregor]

The same that is an argument against the paragon of Xian theology - the parousia within the generation of the authors of the synoptics (some "shall not taste death. . ."). When 2 Peter is added to the mix, it can't be logically squared.

[Laura D.]

What are your strongest arguments against inerrancy?

Premise 1: People do not rise from the dead.
Premise 2: The Bible states Jesus rose from the dead.
Premise 3: It refers to an actual, not metaphorical resurrecton.

Conclusion: The Bible is not inerrant.

If a person can accept that Jesus physically rose from the dead after crucifixtion, an alternative argument will not sway the belief of your subject, e.g.:

Q. "Do you believe people rise from the dead?"
A. "Well, Jesus and Lazarus. And maybe someone in the Old Testament."

"Hmmm."

Q. "Does it shake your faith in the inerrency of the Bible if I point out that it's impossible for the Israelites to have soujourned 430 years in Egypt when Exodus 6:16-20 states that only three generations passed between Levi and Moses?"

A. "Nope."

God bless,


Laura

[LoungeHead]

What are your strongest arguments against inerrancy?
Jesus Christ taught moral relativism as demonstrated in the Parable of the Vineyard Labourers and Prodigal Son. While Paul taught moral absolutism by specifying what a person specifically needed to do to get into heaven. As a result Christians tend to quote the Letters of Paul, and the Old Testament (another moral absolutist text) when making moral absolute claims. And rarely ever state the words of the Messiah in its full context, because the moral relativism of entire meanings in parable would destroy the absolutist arguments.

My other argument against inerrancy, which might not be as strong, is; God raped Mary or Jesus is in fact the son of Satan. If you look at Luke 1:26-32 it says the Mary was disturbed and afraid of the news the Angel Gabriel came with, which basically said God is going to impregnate her whether she liked it or not. I also add that God obviously didn't want to take responsibility when he pressured Joseph into staying with Mary despite the fact he wanted to dump her.

Then in Luke 1:35-38, if we associate light with good and God, then in the statement "...the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God," suggests Mary would be shroud in darkness while conceiving child. This suggests Satan, prince of darkness, overshadowed her! Jesus is the son of Lucifer! He obviously got his old mate Gabriel, an angel he hung out with when he was in heaven, to set the whole thing up and frame God. :huh:

[Doug Shaver]

These are my strongest arguments. What are yours?
An inerrant book would be coherent. The Bible is incoherent. Therefore it is not inerrant. QED.

[jjramsey]

It should suggest to you that attempting to offer an argument that an inerrantist will consider cogent is a complete waste of time.

I'd disagree. Strictly speaking, there are no errors in the Bible that cannot be reconciled with some combination of stretched interpretations and stretched facts. However, not all inerrantists are aware of the stretching involved, nor are they necessarily comfortable with the stretching involved when they are made aware of it. If you can show them in a discussion how much contortion is necessary to justify the bible's "inerrancy," you may induce in them some cognitive dissonance that they will have to deal with.

[GenesisNemesis]

Apparent contradictions. No infallible work would even contain APPARENT contradictions, not even if Free Will were the cause of it.