inconsistencies abound?

how long did that take holy cow

Which one, 'Jesus wept'?

no, we've only learned the present active indicative tense so far...

It was Mark 8:18 - "Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear?"

the book supplied a couple words we haven't learned yet...

and as for inconsistencies - there are plenty of textual variants on basically every verse of the Bible. However, most of it is along the lines of leaving off a letter or a variant spelling - there are very few real inconsistencies. Of those, most are fairly easily reconcilable. Honestly there are very, very few things in the Bible that are not easily reconcilable.

And at that point, they are easily overwhelmed by the vast, overwhelming force of the rest of the consistency within the Bible.

somehow I have a feeling this is going to turn into a long thread now....

Stand your ground young man: have no fear.

Ah - the importance of quality editing.

I just want to bask in the joy of a nominally pro-Bible thread here.

It's refreshing.

I was about to plough in with 'inconsistencies are fine if other stuff is consistent' and its fallacy (and all the other standard criticisms of the text), but I think I'll be quiet. I don't want to ruin anyone's basking :P

basking is good.
almost as good as getting money from the tooth fairy under your pillow in exchange for your tooth:)

inconsistencies are fine, considering the amount of text it's almost impossible to avoid them

I just think it's funny how people are so willing to accept other ancient texts at face value when they have barely found any extant copies.

The Bible has far more support for it than any other ancient document - not just a little bit more, a TON more.

You guys who are making jokes about it obviously have never investigated it more than a very surface understanding.

A couple of things Jacob - First of all, congratulations on your first translations - that's pretty cool.

Second, the other texts are "Accepted at face value" because they aren't claiming to be from the hand of God. They aren't the basis of a major religion. Homer's Illiad is an ancient text. But it is accepted as an epic poem - not as a factual account of an actual war. The Epic of Gilgamesh is accepted as a Babalonian flood story - not as a factual account of gods being angry. So Moses, Noah, Sampson, Water to wine, fish and bread feeding thousands. People would redily accept those as stories as well, but "face value" in the case of the bible is that they were divinely inspired and flawless and infallible.

That's why even one inconsistancy screws it up - because God doesn't make mistakes.

I understand where you're coming from philcore, but you are misunderstanding a couple key points.

When we talk about inerrancy, we are talking about inerrancy in the original autographs - the first copy of what was written.

There are clearly errors in copying that were made over the years. However, when you compare all the variants across thousands of manuscripts, it becomes clear that not a single doctrine of the Christian faith is in danger of containing error.

The biggest problems we have are things like the difference in the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, or the whether or not the last chapter of Mark originally ended at verse eight.

What we don't have is five hundred manuscripts that say Jesus rose from the dead and five hundred that say he didn't. There is nothing like that at all - not even close.

I'm pretty sure that if it was so easy that after comparing everything it worked out perfectly, there would be no controversy (at least amongst academics), but there is. That also makes the colossal assumption that every manuscript has been located, and it also ignores a large number of texts.

Also, using words like 'error' when making claims about miracles is a bit inappropriate. Additionally, words like 'doctrine' don't tend to concern themselves with objectivity so error doesn't really fit with that either.

I'm pretty sure I can find five hundred academic manuscripts that say he didn't, if we're not excluding non-Christian historians and academics. I assume we're not excluding anyone if we're trying to discuss history fairly?

@philcore: actually, from the religion point of view there can be inconsistances, because the text has been passed on orally at first, and only after it was written down; this is true for both old and new testament, so there can be mistakes in both the original text and in the different versions, but of course the differences aren't enormous, but tend to be small

"words like doctine don't tend to concern themselves with objectivity"

You've got to be kidding me...

Also, the controversy you're talking about stems mainly from scholars trying to throw out things that Jesus said wholesale - like the whole Jesus Seminar thing...what a joke...

The controversy comes in because after it all DOES come in with clarity the message is still unpalatable to most people. So, they invent ways to discredit the Bible.

Also, Hereward - I think it would be great for you to go on that quest to find 500 manuscripts that say he didn't rise from the dead.

The Jewish Sanhedrin was pretty motivated to prove that he didn't rise from the dead. The very fact that there are not any manuscripts from them which state where the body is and where the tomb is should cause us to lean in the direction of the Bible.

Jacob you are obviously very well educated in this, significantly beyond what I know. However, I reject ANY school of though that claims it is free of error, and I reject any claim that any one single text is better than all the others. There are plenty of other, equally old and venerated texts that claim things, but for you they hold no great significance.

In the end it comes down to your faith in the Bible. It doesn't come down to proof or superior evidential basis. If you want to believe that a carpenter died on a Cross 2,000 years ago for our 'sins', that is up to you, but what I've never understood is people who then attempt to move these beliefs and claims into the realms of evidence and history with no more evidence than anyone else (you can claim until you're blue the Bible is a better source than any other text, that doesn't make it true).

I was using 'five hundred' in the same way you did, arbitrarily. If you want to claim he rose from the dead, it's your job to prove it satisfactorily (that means with reference to more than texts from the religion that claims it).

Also, your claim that people don't like the Bible and how perfect it is so they find ways to discredit it is a complete fallacy. 'My holy book is perfect, so anyone who discovers imperfection must be out to get me/my religion' isn't anywhere near a decent explanation.

where are the dinoasuars?

No, my claim was that people don't like the content of the Bible and so they subject it to methods which they do not use on other ancient manuscripts.

As for dinosaurs - there is a description of an animal referred to as "Behemoth" that sounds reminiscent of a dinosaur. I tend to believe that the flood account in Genesis 6 was the reason for the demise of dinosaurs. However, I don't think there is any way to prove that with any kind of certainty. Also, it doesn't account for the demise of any kind of ocean-dwelling dinosaurs.

And also, I think you are right about faith. In the end it does come down to that.

However, it should not be the 'blind faith' that so many people think that Christians have. To be sure, there are many Christians whose faith could probably accurately be described as 'blind faith', but if Christianity cannot stand up to tough questioning then it should not be followed.

Even if there is not 'proof' of the truth of Christianity, there are, at the very least, compelling arguments as to its validity.

Also, you want multiple texts? Perhaps it would be helpful to remember that the Bible is not one text. It is a collection of several different accounts. We have four separate eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ. "But," you say, "they were all disciples!" Well, what accounts are you looking for? Do you expect people who weren't followers of Christ to write down accounts of his life?

However, we do have a couple references to Christ that come from outside the disciples. Josephus is an important reference and there is also a Roman author but his name is escaping me at the moment. I'd have to go look it up.

-J

One other point Hereward - you said I am obviously well-educated in this. Well, that's not entirely true. I have a fairly basic knowledge of the science of textual criticism. However, I am motivated to learn more about it precisely because I want to know more about my own faith. I want to know that it can stand up to rigorous examination.

Who wants to dedicate their life to a farce?

I think it is fair to take the opposite tack with this as well. If there are good scholarly reasons to at least consider the fact that the Bible is what it claims to be (i.e. the inspired word of the God who made us and the universe) then there is another important question to ask:

Who wants to go through their whole life ignoring such a monumental truth?

you think geneologies are the bible biggest inconsistency???

k well you all seem to be enjoying this I wont ruin it for you

Jacob, I guess you're a Christian, is it correct?

I believe you are taking it a little too literally. The Genesis isn't an historical account, it's content is allegorical and its importance lies in the ideas that are told through it (the words I chose aren't exactly the ones I needed, sorry, but english isn't my first language).

I wouldn't like to add more to that statement, as different Christian religions give different importance to the Old Testament, so our experience might be very different about it.

Sic, if you have something to contribute then do so. Don't just make patronizing comments.

Or maybe you really don't have anything informed to add to the discussion?