I have a problem with apologetics and apologists. I generally find the answers to a lot of alleged Bible discrepancies unconvincing. Take Matt 2:23 for example " and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene." Now the Bible says no such thing, various explanations are given such as Nester in Hebrew has the same consonants as Nazarene and Isaiah 11:1 provides the answer, (Look it up and see if you buy that theory). The other explanation is that the Prophets said this so it wouldn't be written. But why would Matthew mention an unverifiable statement there is no point to it. Now for some irrational reason I give the explanation about a 2% chance of being true. But I also have the same problem with my next problem. Did the Centurian with a sick servant see Jesus himself? Matt 8:5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.” or did he send elders of the Jews to see Jesus? " Luke 7:1-4 When Jesus had finished saying all this to the people who were listening, he entered Capernaum. 2 There a centurion’s servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. 3 The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. " An explanation that the Centurian sent the Jews to ask for help and then decided to make sure and go himself again doesn't ring true to me. again it seems like a 2% pass rate and the chances to me seem to be about 4/10000 (0.04%) of them both being true. And then we add Mk 2:23-26. "23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” 25 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” So we learn that this happened in the days of Abiathar, but what do we read where this episode is referenced in the O.T. (1 Sam 21:1-5) "David went to Nob, to Ahimelek the priest. Ahimelek trembled when he met him, and asked, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?”2 David answered Ahimelek the priest, “The king sent me on a mission and said to me, ‘No one is to know anything about the mission I am sending you on.’ As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain place. 3 Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find.”4 But the priest answered David, “I don’t have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here—provided the men have kept themselves from women.” So now the high priest has gone from being Abiathar to Ahimelek. The explanation that Luke said in the days of Abiathar even though it was Ahimelek involved was because Abiathar was the better known and the context of the era involved better understood, again doesn't impress me. We always say something happened in the time of Edward the Elder and not Alfred the Great (his father).The odds to me are now vanishingly small that the chances of all these three things are true. Let alone in numerous other examples. This is one of the reason I can't accept Christianity and especially the inerrancy of the Bible
I find that most American apologetics is answering questions that no one is asking. So I don't find most of the literature helpful either. Inerrancy is a meaningless dogma concocted by the fundamentalists. The way most teach the concept, it is immediately undermined by the qualification that it only applies to the original autographs, which no one claims to have. So it basically becomes a measuring stick or a codeword to help them gauge whether you use the same talking points they do.
Oddly, just about every Roman Catholic that I've conversed with on the subject has said that they believe the Bible is inerrant (or infallible... they use the terms interchangeably). Do you suppose the RCs are fundamentalists?
Probably not and if they are they are possibly misrepresenting the RC view. Cardinal Cajetan in his disputations with Luther talking about these issues, quoted to Luther' Matt 27:9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, This of course is not true, it is quoted in Zechariah 11:13 The leading RC theologian of 500 years ago was acknowledging textual "difficulties". BUT I'm not trying to discuss the general topic of inerrancy of scripture, but instead what (if anything) is wrong with my reasoning about the three textual issues I brought up, four if you count the thirty pieces of silver issue? I realise that giving them a 2% true value is arbitrary, but it is an honest assessment. Can you see why some find it hard to believe the bible?
American Roman Catholics are able to parrot a lot of nonsense they've heard somewhere. I went to the Diocese of Columbus Catholic Museum a while back and they had on display an old Bible which the old lady observing me walk through the collection proudly told me had "all 43 books, even the ones the Protestants took out." And I was appalled that they were letting this ignorant person give tours. Let's be honest, American Catholics are typically not conversant with a Bible. I don't care what they say about it.
There seems to be an attempt here, to gently push this thread towards Roman Catholics and what they think about Biblical inerrancy and away from "textual problems" and why some non believers have trouble believing the Bible. There has been no discussion on the issues I have brought up. Lets say for arguments sake, a non believer gives the four concerning examples a 75% chance of being true, already the chances of all four being true is less than one third. Can you forgive or understand the non believer for failing to believe the Bible. What do you Christians think should be done about this situation (apart from mentioning RCs)?
I think the nonbeliever can still regard the Bible as a collection of historically accurate documents, the provenance of which exceeds that of Homer's _Iliad_ and of nearly all other documents of antiquity. And if the Bible is historically accurate, then it is rather clear evidence for the existence of God; it contains hundreds of prophecies which later came to pass, and it records the historical events of Jesus' amazing life, his ignominious death (which he foretold), and his resurrection from the tomb. Many people have come to believe in God and in Jesus the Savior without believing that the Bible is inerrant or divinely inspired.
“Apologetics” as typically understood in evangelicalism is a relic of an outdated mindset. No modern, secular reader expects an ancient text to get all the details right, or would reject its utility if it failed such an unreasonable test. Passing such a test is not the reason why anyone would take the time to read and study, for example, the works of Plato, Buddha, or Shakespeare. From that standpoint, “inerrancy” is an answer to a question no one is asking (except evangelicals themselves). The pertinent question is rather what it is about the accounts of Jesus that make them religiously compelling (‘religious’ in the sense of providing a basis for an all-encompassing mental and practical framework), rather than just ‘good stories’. Shorn of subsequent anachronistic (and anti-Semitic) accretions, just what was Jesus’ teaching, what was he trying to achieve, why did it lead to his death, and what does the example of his life have to say to us today? Those are the questions that Christians need to be able to convincingly answer if Christianity is to be/remain a credible alternative to the other available religious (and non-religious) paths available in the modern world.
Archaeological discoveries and other writings provide enough independent corroboration of the places, people, and events to provide high confidence in historicity of most of the Bible's books. This is most pronounced in the case of the New Testament books, of course, since they are the most recent. If you'd like more info on this subject, I'm sure a number of books have been written about the evidences for the Bible books' reliability. One such book that I've read is Why I Believe by D. James Kennedy, but it is somewhat dated and there probably are more recent books with additional facts and data.
Was D. James Kennedy an archaeologist? Did he find evidence in the Sinai for the biblical exodus (for example) that trained specialists have somehow missed for decades? Have coral reefs been found whose rings are missing a day from when the sun allegedly ‘stood still’? Come on…
Oh, you're going to pick out two details from the Bible that you personally are not aware of having been corroborated, and from those two data points you extrapolate and conclude that nothing in the Bible is historical? Am I getting that right? Kennedy was only a Presbyterian minister, but at least he knew how to read and do research. You should try it sometime. It certainly is a strange "coincidence" that before today you hadn't posted anything since April Fool's Day. I've been mostly inactive on this forum also. But oddly, as soon as I came back and made a handful of posts, you hustle back and pick a fight. Are you still stalking me?
I can see why you would feel under no obligation to accept 'Christianity', (as a system of religious praxis and sacramentalism), and also struggle to believe the concept of 'biblical inerrancy' to be truth, (if it means believing there are no logical inconsistencies to be found in the bible), which there clearly are, but some believe and claim that they do not exist, but I can't understand the reasoning you might have for not accepting Christ himself, in spirit and in truth. He is alive today you know. .
It’s worth noting that D. James Kennedy was a rather controversial figure during his lifetime. He frequently used his pulpit and his ‘ministry’ - since designated as a hate group by the SPLC - to promote extremist partisan positions. No one interested in surveying serious scholarship would turn to him as a credible source.
Yeah, the SPLC has designated such groups as the Family Research Council, Tea Party of KY, Freedom Coalition, and various Christian ministries who teach that homosexual behavior is sinful. We can't have that, can we! On a scale of 0-100, I have long held a less-than-zero opinion of SPLC's worth to society.
That may be. However, the issue is that Kennedy’s partisan affiliations were quite well known during his lifetime. Kennedy was a polemicist whose many statements pertaining to science and history - fields in which Kennedy himself had no professional training - were often called into question by trained scholars (some of whom were evangelical Christians themselves). It is thus problematic at best to assume that Kennedy as a public figure was either neutral or reliable, and I doubt that anything he wrote would even address, let alone answer, the substance of the various problems raised by @AnglicanAgnostic. On the exegetical side, citing the work of actual biblical scholars like N.T. Wright or Christopher Seitz - both of whom are also Anglican and conservative - would have been a more appropriate choice for the task. On the theological side, Anglicanism is not committed to plenary verbal inspiration, and the best exposition I have seen on that subject (from an Anglican perspective) is that of Francis Hall. In short, the issues raised by @AnglicanAgnostic are not a problem for Anglicans because for Anglicans the important thing is the content of the Church’s teaching, not minor details regarding how that teaching was framed in the scriptures. It is the properly religious aspect of the biblical stories that matters.