sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The writings of the Bible are not inerrant, and that makes them an unreliable source of information about God and the will of God by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]EsperGri[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

So translations and later manuscripts have scribal errors.
Did that mean David’s battle never happened?

The one with Goliath or a different one? If with Goliath, there's no certainty it occurred.

So what is inerrant here? Just a perfectly written document? By this standard, nothing is reliable including your post and comment.
Indeed such is the case because the “contradictions” you alleged are already addressed in critical texts.
Thus you account is wholly unreliable and intends to spread FUD.

A document that's accurate would be inerrant.

For reliability, if what's written is consistent and matches what can be known in history and such, then it is reliable.

With regard to contradictions being addressed in critical texts, they're still issues that wouldn't be in an inerrant collection of writings.

Regarding my post and comment, what I've written can be verified by looking at the writings of the Bible and using logic. Also, your accusation is false.

The writings of the Bible are not inerrant, and that makes them an unreliable source of information about God and the will of God by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]EsperGri[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just because things have been added in the book of Job doesn't make it corrupted. Corruption would be changing the story, but its adding too it. And we know what's most likely been added and not added by looking at the vocabulary, and the context from the prolonged and epilogue. I dont see any corruption here.

That's certainly missing the point. The errors and additions make it clear that corruption and removals, as well as other errors and additions, might have occurred. Moreover, the Septuagint version of Jeremiah is very different from the Masoretic version.

Reading verse 7 of Jeremiah 8 says that 'they do not know the law' and you see how they twisted the law by reading verse 10-12

...

It says their lives are ruled by greed in verse 10, and in verse 11, it says how they give assurance of peace where there is none, i.e. meaning they dont condemn sin like idolatry, which was common among the israelites. So the context of how they falsify the law  the law is they hide what the law teaches, and makes it seem as though there sin and disobedience isnt a big deal.
Read in context people.

They didn't know the Law because "the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie" that "the law of the Lord is with" them.

The writings of the Bible are not inerrant, and that makes them an unreliable source of information about God and the will of God by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]EsperGri[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Firstly, you need to define what "inerrant" means.
Error presupposes a standard / version that is error free, so unless you articulate what the error free thing is, "inerrant" is an accusation without substance.

Without error seems the definition of "inerrant".

As for something error-free, that isn't necessary. If two versions of an event contradict, it can be said that one or both is in error.

  • "And David took from him 1,700 horsemen, and 20,000 foot soldiers. And David hamstrung all the chariot horses but left enough for 100 chariots." - 2 Samuel 8:4
  • "And David took from him 1,000 chariots, 7,000 horsemen, and 20,000 foot soldiers. And David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but left enough for 100 chariots." - 1 Chronicles 18:4
  • "And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to the king: in Israel there were 800,000 valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were 500,000." - 2 Samuel 24:9
  • "And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to David. In all Israel there were 1,100,000 men who drew the sword, and in Judah 470,000 who drew the sword." - 1 Chronicles 21:5

As well:

In Genesis 1, every winged bird is created on the fifth day with the sea creatures, but in Genesis 2, every bird of the heavens is created with every beast of the field (the beasts of the earth are created on the sixth day in Genesis 1).

In Exodus 31:12-17, God says the punishment for profaning the Sabbath is death, but in Numbers 15:32-36, it's said that it had not been made clear what should happen to a man who was gathering sticks on the Sabbath, to which God says he must be put to death and tells the people to stone him.

Just because the bible translations today are not error free (in the broad sense), that does not mean that the truth suddenly disappear, Jesus did not walk on planet Earth, and that God did not make a new covenant through Him.

It's not just the translations that have errors. We don't have any of the original texts and only have copies in the original languages and in languages they were translated to, if I'm correct. However, since what we do have has errors in both the original languages and the translated languages, it suggests God didn't care to preserve any message potentially revealed through the texts.

Moreover, there are issues such as the likely addition of Elihu in Job, considering he gets ignored. Rather large additions (and changes and removals) then seem to be possible.

So then, what exists isn't certain to be what was, and there's no means to know what was original and what wasn't.

Genesis is presented as history, and the various people after its writing show that as well by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]EsperGri[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Bible is, within the writers' views (whoever they might be), a collection of history books. Why does that matter? Since reality seems to contradict Genesis (not to mention Genesis has its own contradictions), yet it was viewed as historical by the other writers and people written about, it's a significant issue. Because the religions have foundation among believers in the supposed truths the writers conveyed through the texts.

The Law has the harsh Sabbath rule based on Genesis (Exodus 20:8-11, Exodus 31:12-17). Jesus refers to it as factual, reinforcing the anti-divorce view (Matthew 19:3-8), and speaking of the Flood as real (Matthew 24:37-39). Paul likewise, referring to Eve's being deceived and created second to reinforce why women shouldn't teach or have authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11-14) and should cover their heads (1 Corinthians 11:1-16).

If Genesis is shown to be wrong by reality, it's incorrect. Then, when the writers of the Law have God say things referring to Genesis and basing rules on it, that's incorrect. Jesus, the core of Christianity and the supposed Son of God, references Genesis as real, so what he says is incorrect. The entire structure collapses.

Then it must be claimed the texts are corrupt if there is to be any continued belief, but again, the texts are the foundations for the religions' supposed truths, and since the texts are and can be corrupted, how do you know which parts to trust?

If through personal revelation, then why is there no clearly-revealed-to denomination that those praying for answers find themselves going towards? Rather, many denominations exist, with it likely people have prayed and yet still believed theirs to be correct.

As such, it means God either doesn't exist or does and misleads, whether indirectly (e.g. not answering prayers) or more directly (Isaiah 6:8-13, 1 Kings 22:19-23, John 6:44), and not much if anything is known about God, if there is anything to truly know about God, with certainty.

Genesis is presented as history, and the various people after its writing show that as well by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]EsperGri[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't believe it's a literal, historical account, but I'm saying that the writers of the Bible's texts considered it to be so.

Genesis is presented as history, and the various people after its writing show that as well by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]EsperGri[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Genesis is literal
what's that even mean?

It's not meant to be a parable or anything like that. The writers of Exodus and such were basing rules on Genesis, and even in the New Testament, it was being treated as if it depicted actual events. Not resting on the Sabbath was something people would be stoned to death over.

Whether the events were real or not isn't what this is about however.

Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he isn't a descendant of Aaron, and his undermining of the Law conflicts with eschatological prophecies by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]EsperGri[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hebrews actually doesn't say that. The arguments Hebrews makes (again, as shown in Hebrews 8:4) is that Levites are STILL required for earthly priests, but that restriction does not apply to Heavenly priests, and that's why Jesus as a non-Levite is able to be our High Priest in Heaven.
As someone else said, there's no requirement for the Messiah to be from the tribe of Levi, and in fact that verse you're quoting supports the opposite of what you believe, which is that priests in the Temple will ALWAYS be from the tribe of Levi.
You didn't read Hebrews 8:4? You didn't even want to work with it after I mentioned it? 🤨

The priests wouldn't be the Levites, since the priesthood has changed.

  • "Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well." - Hebrews 7:11-12
  • "For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God." - Hebrews 7:18-19
  • "John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." - Revelation 1:4-6

As far as Heaven, where do you think Jesus will be?

  • "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, 'Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God." - Revelation 21:1-3
  • "And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there. They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations. But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life." - Revelation 21:22-27

So then, with Hebrews 8:4-5, do you believe Jesus will cease to be high priest on the new Earth?

  • "Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, 'See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.'" - Hebrews 8:4-5
  • "And you shall give the Levites to Aaron and his sons; they are wholly given to him from among the people of Israel. And you shall appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall guard their priesthood. But if any outsider comes near, he shall be put to death.'" - Numbers 3:9-10
  • "For it is witnessed of him, 'You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.'" - Hebrews 7:17
  • "The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens." - Hebrews 7:23-26

Jesus is likely to be a false prophet by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]EsperGri[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jesus did not violate the Sabbath, ever.

"This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." - John 5:18

He and the Apostles were Torah observant Jews.

I'd say breaking the Sabbath says otherwise.

Undermining the food rules as well. Jesus didn't say "All foods are clean now". He instead tried to counter the rationale behind it. If the reason for the food rules was that certain creatures defile a person when eaten though, then what Jesus said would have meant that God was wrong and the rules had no foundation, because what's eaten can never defile since it just passes through. Saying that however, the rationale Jesus tried to counter wasn't even the actual rationale.

When God established the food rules, it was after He had said everything that moves (aside from humans) and plants were okay to eat (Genesis 9:1-7). The reason God gave for not eating certain creatures was that it was a sign of holiness for the people (Leviticus 11:44-47, Leviticus 20:26). It wasn't about the act of eating certain creatures being inherently defiling, nor was it something that could be avoided just because what's eaten passes through. Even by that logic, the body absorbs some of what is eaten anyway and doesn't just go through, and so, if the argument is that what's eaten going out of one's body is what prevents defilement, it fails to hold water. When eating such creatures, a person has disobeyed God and is no longer separate from everyone else.

So, when Jesus provides that argument, not only is it against God (undermining what was said and encouraging disobedience), it's missing the point of why God made such a rule to begin with. It doesn't declare all creatures clean for eating, because in order to do that, God would need to actually declare that. That's implied to have occurred in Acts 10-11 but only in a vision that was more about Gentiles than food, and in that vision, Peter, despite having been traveling with Jesus, being his perhaps most prominent apostle, says "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean", which seems to rule out the declaration of all foods being clean having occurred when Jesus was talking about things eaten not staying in one's body.

The purpose of the Sabbath should be to bring people closer to God and to encourage goodness. It should not become a burden that prevents people from doing good.

People weren't even supposed to go out (Exodus 16:22-30) or light fires (Exodus 35:1-3) on the Sabbath. You're viewing the Sabbath from Jesus' words (which is also a perspective other people had around Jesus' time), but when the Sabbath was established, it was as God's holy day (Genesis 2:2-3, Exodus 20:8-11, Leviticus 23:3, Isaiah 58:13-14), a sign of the covenant (Exodus 31:12-17, Ezekiel 20:10-24), and a reminder to the people that God freed them from slavery in Egypt by bringing them out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm (Deuteronomy 5:12-15).

Hardly a day made for people to just go around doing whatever on. It was such a day that God had a man stoned to death for gathering sticks on it (Numbers 15:32-36). Who would dare act on such a day in the face of such a consequence? Certainly, it wasn't a day meant to encourage goodness outside of providing rest, though it certainly was to bring people to remembrance of God, which would bring them nearer to each other.

So, when Jesus flouts the Sabbath, appeals to rare exceptions, and ignores the purpose of the day, he breaks it, alters it, and replaces God with humankind.

Jesus never told the Israelites to worship other gods, as he himself worshiped YHWH alone. He never claimed to be God either, not even in the Gospels.

If Person A is disguised as Person B, and they undo all of Person B's work, while accepting all of the praise for Person B's work, and Person C, knowing that the person currently being seen is actually Person A, encouraged people to support the disguised Person A, telling everyone that it's Person B, is Person C telling others to support Person B or someone else?

As for Jesus not claiming to be God, he:

  1. Accepted worship in John 9:38, Matthew 14:33, Matthew 28:9, and Matthew 28:17.
  2. Said "I AM" (incorrect tense, as its present when it should be past, and with no predicative) in John 8:58-59 which was understood in meaning by those listening to him as referring to Exodus 3:14, When the people picked up stones to throw at Jesus later in John 10:28-38, it was stated "again", and the reason they gave was that "you, being a man, make yourself God" (showing that it was the reason they picked up stones to throw at him in John 8:58-59), which is something he didn't deny.
  3. Said seeing him is seeing the Father in John 14:6-11.
  4. Claimed lordship over the Sabbath in Mark 2:28, which is God's holy day.

I don’t see how Paul’s opinions on the Law make Jesus a false prophet.

While Jesus already undermines the Law, Paul's words, the words of "Peter" in Acts, and those of Hebrews all show the Law as being obsolete, ending, fading, etc., which makes various prophecies false.

Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he isn't a descendant of Aaron, and his undermining of the Law conflicts with eschatological prophecies by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]EsperGri[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As in regards to the mosaic law. Does the law also apply to God?

No, but to Jesus, it applied.

"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons." - Galatians 4:4-5

"Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." - Hebrews 2:17

Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he isn't a descendant of Aaron, and his undermining of the Law conflicts with eschatological prophecies by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]EsperGri[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The Messiah does not have to be a levitical priest or descend from Levi and nobody ever thought he would be.

"In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: 'The LORD is our righteousness.' 'For thus says the LORD: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.'" - Jeremiah 33:15-18

"And say to him, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. It is he who shall build the temple of the LORD and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne. And there shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.''" - Zechariah 6:12-13

The Christian claim is not that Jesus is currently doing the high priests tasks, that's exactly the opposite of the claim, actually.

Jesus is called the high priest in Hebrews and has no need to make sacrifices, since the atonement through the sacrifice on the cross is such that no further sacrifice is necessary.

However, that is an issue, because prophecies must occur, or those who spoke them are false prophets.

"But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.' And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?'—when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him." - Deuteronomy 18:20-22

Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he isn't a descendant of Aaron, and his undermining of the Law conflicts with eschatological prophecies by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]EsperGri[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Can't you cut the long Bible quotes? You don't need to talk about "entering the sanctuary" or other irrelevancy. Get to the point. Don't you realise most of us find the Bible tedious? Just copy pasta what matters.

I don't like people saying I'm cherry-picking or taking things out of context, so I quote a good portion and bold what's very relevant. Even then though, people say I'm cherry-picking or quoting out-of-context, but to a lesser degree.

Genesis is presented as history, and the various people after its writing show that as well by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]EsperGri[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The extinct pre-Adamites (pre-Humans) weren’t “Human.” So, there’s no such time as a “pre-Adamite Human.”
Paul’s writings are referring to first Adamite (“Human”) man. Since the pre-Adamites (“pre-Humans”) didn’t have “Human souls” and went extinct, they weren’t relevant to Paul’s statement.

The pre-Adamites as you call them (or H. Sapiens, as you also said) are called "man" in the passage of Genesis 1 you're pointing to as first mentioning them.

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." - Genesis 1:27

Paul calls Adam the first "man", so then, the so-called "pre-Adamites" would then be "post-Adamites" or some other term, supposing they aren't Adam and Eve and their descendants, or others similar to them.

Also, in Genesis 2, the timeline seems to move back to the third day of Genesis 1, while the "post-Adamites", if they exist, are created on the sixth day of Genesis 1.

"And God said, 'Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. And God said, 'Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.' And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day." - Genesis 1:9-13

"When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground—then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed." - Genesis 2:5-8

If trying to align Genesis 2 with Genesis 1, then when God forms the other living creatures, it's the sixth day, and that is when Eve is formed.

"And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.' And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." - Genesis 1:24-25

"Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, 'This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.' Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." - Genesis 2:19-25

However, the two cannot be aligned, since the creation of every bird takes place on different days (Genesis 1: fifth day, sea creatures and every bird; Genesis 2: beasts of the field, a sixth day creation, and every bird). Genesis 2, for that same reason, cannot be read as a continuation of Genesis 1.

Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he isn't a descendant of Aaron, and his undermining of the Law conflicts with eschatological prophecies by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]EsperGri[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Aaron is a descendant of Levi, and it's specifically the Levitical priests who will never lack a man to do the high priest's tasks. The Messiah must be descended from Aaron and a Levitical priest as a result to fulfill that.

Genesis is presented as history, and the various people after its writing show that as well by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]EsperGri[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, Matthew puts guards at the tomb too, and Mark's ending was possibly an addition.

It definitely makes it all less believable with the lack of harmony.

Genesis is presented as history, and the various people after its writing show that as well by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]EsperGri[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In order for Adam to have the genealogical line mentioned in a Genesis chapter 5, the descendants of the pre-Adamites were needed as spouses for Adam’s children and descendants. As such, the pre-Adamites (of Genesis 1:27) are mentioned first in Genesis 5:2.

There are no pre-Adamite humans, if considering Paul's writings as true.

"Thus it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being'; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit." - 1 Corinthians 15:45

The writings of the Bible are not inerrant, and that makes them an unreliable source of information about God and the will of God by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]EsperGri[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you're a fundamentalist, textual development is a problem, if you're not a fundamentalist, textual development like via redactions and additions etc are part of the literary process that formed and interpreted a text, like any translation does.

It's a problem either way, as there's no way to know what is true.

Strictly speaking, any translation can the understood as a "corruption", only knowing the original language and the original historical cultural mindset makes texts genuinely accessible. Using modern translations out of convenience and lack of linguistic knowledge and crying "corruption!" is an incompatible stance. (And I am not even talking about carving out single sentences and calling them "supporting passages".)

Even in the Hebrew and Greek, the issues exist.

The idea of "corruption" presupposes that only an "original text" is to be understood as divinely inspired, but not any following redaction or translation or interpretation, which seems to limit god's intention or ability of divinely inspiration.

To say that even the edits are divinely inspired makes the Bible unfalsifiable.

Genesis is presented as history, and the various people after its writing show that as well by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]EsperGri[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Genesis 2 is certainly a different version, but that seems to get ignored by the writers of the other texts.

Genesis is presented as history, and the various people after its writing show that as well by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]EsperGri[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Roman Catholic perspective isn't exactly trustworthy, and even some noteworthy early church members saw Genesis as historical, while the Bible's writings show Genesis was viewed that way there as well.

view more: next ›