New Testament Biblical Errancy

[Bovril]

For the orthodox Christian the Bible -and especially the New Testament- is the word of God. Different sects attribute to it different degrees of inspiration or infalibility, but they are all agreed that when it comes to points of Theology and the major issues, the Bible is correct in every detail. In this thread I'd like to discuss how orthodox Christians can reconcile that belief with such passages as these:


Prophecy:
John 10:16 "... and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." Yet the number of different sects is huge and still expanding.

Jesus says he shall return during the lifetime of at least some of the disciples: (Mark 13:30, Matthew 10:23, 16:28, 24:34, Luke 21:32, etc.)


Theological contradiction:

Are we saved through our works on earth?
* Ephesians 2:8,9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith . . . not of works."
* Romans 3:20,28 "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight."
* Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ."
vs.
* James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
* Matthew 19:16-21 "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he [Jesus] said unto him . . . keep the commandments. . . . The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven."

The common defense here is that "we are saved by faith and works." But Paul said "not of works."

How peaceful was Jesus?
* John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you."
* Acts 10:36 "The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ."
* Luke 2:14 " . . . on earth peace, good will toward men."
vs.
* Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."
* Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, . . . he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

On good deeds:
Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)
vs.
Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)

And these are just some of the most explicit theological errors/discrepancies that occur in the New Testament. Those who believe in the factual inerancy of the entire text have to deal with a whole raft of other problems ranging from the value of pi, to the Geneology of Christ to references in the NT to OT passages which don't exist, disagreements between the Testaments and so on and so forth.
If you think such discrepencies can be reconciled, how?
If you think they can't, why do people believe in Biblical inerrancy?


Sources:
Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist by Dan Barker
Dennis McKinsey's Biblical Errancy
A List of Biblical Contradictions by Jim Merrit

[drugpimp]

Ok heres my thoughts, but please dont take this as "gospel" :happy

John 10:16 "... and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." Yet the number of different sects is huge and still expanding.

Is there a time frame discussed in earlier passages? If not then one can say that there is still time for this to come true.

Jesus says he shall return during the lifetime of at least some of the disciples: (Mark 13:30, Matthew 10:23, 16:28, 24:34, Luke 21:32, etc.)

Did he not return after his death? I dont have a bible with me, so maybe these quotes are in direct refernce to the "end of the world".

Are we saved through our works on earth?
* Ephesians 2:8,9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith . . . not of works."
* Romans 3:20,28 "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight."
* Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ."
vs.
* James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
* Matthew 19:16-21 "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he [Jesus] said unto him . . . keep the commandments. . . . The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven."

I could be wrong but when I read this brief snippits, I dont see much contradiction. Knowing human nature its easy to see some people lacking "faith" but helping people. And its also easy to see people who have "faith" but dont get off thier arse to help. To me it would require both a faith in God and the actions to back it up.

How peaceful was Jesus?
* John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you."
* Acts 10:36 "The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ."
* Luke 2:14 " . . . on earth peace, good will toward men."
vs.
* Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."
* Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, . . . he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Once again I dont see a contradiction. I dont take him literaly. Look at what he has done since his death? Christians (the son) and Jews (the father) are at odds with eath other. Now I dont believe that Jesus preached actual violence but he know that his teachings would create a rift, and that fathers and sons could turn against each other when it comes to matters of faith.

On good deeds:
Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)
vs.
Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)

This is one I wished more folks who claim to be christian would heed. To me the first verse is simply lead by example. Let people see how a good christian acts, the second verse is in response to all those "christians" who bath in thier own holiness. In other words give the world an example to follow by, just dont gloat about it.

I could be wrong and this is something I just came up with in the 5 minutes I have read this. Maybe someone has better explinations than I.

[Computer Ed]

If you pull any verse from the Bible and thus remove it from context you can find contradictions. The path of salavation is CLEAR, Repent, be Baptize in the name of Jesus and recieve the Holy Spirit.

Faith ias the beginning not the end, works our the fruit of faith. If you say you have faith and no works then your faith is useless. Works without faith are empty.

[drugpimp]

Originally posted by Computer Ed@May 28 2005, 05:29 PM
If you pull any verse from the Bible and thus remove it from context you can find contradictions. The path of salavation is CLEAR, Repent, be Baptize in the name of Jesus and recieve the Holy Spirit.

Faith ias the beginning not the end, works our the fruit of faith. If you say you have faith and no works then your faith is useless. Works without faith are empty.

The out of context line is valid, but after that you gave us all a sermon, no one really needed. Please refute what he said, but the quotes back in context but dont do this. Its hard enough to have a rational talk about religion without harsh words. Save this rhetoric for the pulpit and keep it focused.

[Bovril]

Is there a time frame discussed in earlier passages? If not then one can say that there is still time for this to come true.

No, fair point. Though there is a causal relationship implied between the hearing of Christ's word and the formation of a single 'flock'. We can't claim evangelical Christians don't ever hear Christ's word!

Did he not return after his death? I dont have a bible with me, so maybe these quotes are in direct refernce to the "end of the world".

These quotes deal with a second return, yes. You'll notice some of them are in the epistles.

I could be wrong but when I read this brief snippits, I dont see much contradiction. Knowing human nature its easy to see some people lacking "faith" but helping people. And its also easy to see people who have "faith" but dont get off thier arse to help. To me it would require both a faith in God and the actions to back it up.

I think you missunderstand the contradiction I'm trying to highlinght here. The question is how does one achieve salvation. There are two possibilities expressed in the texts. One is through works, the other is through faith. Paul says 'not through works, which is a flat out contradiction of Matthew 19 in which Jesus outlines the works ('good thing' in the man's question) that must be done in order to achieve salvation. They can't both be right.

Once again I dont see a contradiction. I dont take him literaly. Look at what he has done since his death? Christians (the son) and Jews (the father) are at odds with eath other. Now I dont believe that Jesus preached actual violence but he know that his teachings would create a rift, and that fathers and sons could turn against each other when it comes to matters of faith.

John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you." and then Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace" both quotes repeat their contradictory messages twice. Perhaps you think Jesus meant something different by 'peace' each time. An argument from context would be useful here.

This is one I wished more folks who claim to be christian would heed. To me the first verse is simply lead by example. Let people see how a good christian acts, the second verse is in response to all those "christians" who bath in thier own holiness. In other words give the world an example to follow by, just dont gloat about it.

In the one we have Jesus telling people to let others see their good works, and in the other we have him saying to give alms secretly. The only way to reconcile these is to claim that giving alms is not a good deed, but I don't think anyone is prepared to do that.

[drugpimp]

I think you missunderstand the contradiction I'm trying to highlinght here. The question is how does one achieve salvation. There are two possibilities expressed in the texts. One is through works, the other is through faith. Paul says 'not through works, which is a flat out contradiction of Matthew 19 in which Jesus outlines the works ('good thing' in the man's question) that must be done in order to achieve salvation. They can't both be right.

I dont have the absolute answer, but if Paul would have said "...not through works alone." we would not have a contradiction, would we? How much time and translastion could have altered the original texts is not known, that could be one explination.

John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you." and then Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace" both quotes repeat their contradictory messages twice. Perhaps you think Jesus meant something different by 'peace' each time. An argument from context would be useful here.

One is personal peace, of the soul. The other appears to refer to peace in the world, which we can cleary see that Jesus has had his part in helping disrupt the status quo. Now I dont hold Jesus personally responsible for the wicked ways of the world, it could be he for saw the furture events his teaching would create and warned us. So for these to quotes they both work for me. Jesus wishes us peace which is true, but he later warns that he will not bring peace, which he hasnt, the world still can suck hind tit sometimes.

In the one we have Jesus telling people to let others see their good works, and in the other we have him saying to give alms secretly. The only way to reconcile these is to claim that giving alms is not a good deed, but I don't think anyone is prepared to do that.

I dont know the context of these quotes, but like I said earlier one could mean to be an example for others to follow, while the latter can mean dont brag about what you do.

[Bovril]

If those were not convincing by themselves, here's some more for us to ruminate over:

According to Mark, chapter 8, verse 12, Jesus says: "In truth, no sign shall be given (by me) to this generation (which refers to the generation of Jews who rejected his claims)." John chapter 12 verse 37 (cf. Acts chapter 2 verse 22) says, in evident contradiction, that Jesus gave "many signs" to this same disbelieving generation of Jews.

Mark, chapter 6, verse 5 says that Jesus "could do no miracle" on at least one occasion. The word is could (not would) which means it was not possible for Jesus to perform a miracle at that time. But Mark, chapter 10, verse 27 says just the opposite, that "with God all things are possible." Hence, Jesus is eliminated as a god.

Who's to judge the sinner? According to Jesus in John, chapter 5, verse 22: "For the Father judges no man but has committed all judgment to the Son" (meaning Jesus himself). But, then Jesus contradicts himself; "I judge no man" (John 8:15) and "I did not come to judge the world (John 12:47)." So who did? Listen to Jesus this time: "You (disciples) shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19:28). Unfortunately, this contradicts Jesus' original warning to them: "Not to judge, lest you be judged (Matthew 7:1)."

"Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:8). Yet, Jesus asserted the contrary; that he "did not come to bring peace on earth, but a sword" in Matthew, chapter 10, verse 34. Note: The conflation of the concetps of name and idenity in Ancient Judaism is important for an understanding of this text.

Romans, chapter 10, verse 13: "For whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." But Matthew, chapter 7, verse 21 says "Not everybody who says to me (Jesus), Lord, Lord, shall enter the Kingdom."

Note: Again, I'm only using examples of theological discrepencies. Its even easier with factual ones.

To broaden the debate out a bit: Even if the Bible is internally consistant what evidence is there that it is the infallible (in any sense) word of God? Is there even any claim within the Bible that the whole thing is inerrant? Can one be a good Christian and not believe in Biblical inerrancy?

[Ummon]

Daibai asked Baso: "What is the Buddha?"
Baso answered: "This mind is the Buddha"

A monk asked Baso: "What is the Buddha?"
Baso answered: "This mind is not the Buddha"

Baso answers two entirely opposite answers, but yet both are true. How can this possibly happen? Maybe Baso is mad and Zen buddhism is a discipline for fools. Or maybe contradiction sometimes is just the sign that you haven't broken your little shell and watched things from above.

I think this applies to the bible too.

Besides note: there are 4 evangelists, and the word of god is supposed to be given through them. The taste of the cork remains in the wine.

The things above are minutias, infact. Be honest. Strive to imitate your religious examples (christ in this case). Listen to the reasons of others. Do the most good you can. Abide to the forms of your faith with respect for those who have formulated them, and accept the risk of being free when you can't follow those rules.

God if he exists looks into your soul and sees what's there. I doubt he will rise a case over details. And if he does, well we're ******, but at least we'll have tried to do our best.

[Bovril]

You seem to imply that the apparantly contradictory statements are reconcilable on closer (or more distant to extend your analogy) examination. If this is the case, then it is this level of understanding I would like to have explained to me, and is one of the reasons I started the thread. However, I think most orthodox Christians wont agree with you that there are even superficial contradicitions in the texts.

[Ummon]

People never agree with each other, I don't think anyone should worry about it.

The level of understanding I was talking about is not explainable. If it were explainable, you could put it into written words without making use of contradictions. The knowledge you ask for is inside you, you just have to look for it with open eyes.

If you fear to break the commandments, you have already lost their true meaning. They were intended for you, and not you for them.

[HawkeyE]

If you're going to nitpick over key words in an idea, then learn Ancient Greek and read the Bible in its most orignial form available. I haven't read the bible yet since I want to wait until I've learned Ancient Greek in college.

If you just want to use the New King James Version, then don't single out keywords as contradictions, especially with little context.

Also, in regard to the whole since you're Orthodox you must believe every single word in the Bible text verbatim:

Originally posted by Wikipedia
Eastern Orthodoxy is "Christocentric", viewing Christ Jesus as the head of the Church, and the Church as his body; with authority derived directly from this relationship. Eastern Orthodoxy has an extensive oral tradition that predates the actual texts of the New Testament, hence, it does not consider itself to be "bibliocentric"; which is the case with most forms of Protestantism. This, however, does not in any way diminish their respect and devotion toward Scriptures, but rather puts it into perspective as the texts accepted by the Church as most important.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church

Also, why are you only capitalising the word Christian? Orthodox is also a part of the name, and therefore a proper noun to be capitalised.

[Bovril]

Orthodox with a capital 'O' means what you said, but with a small 'o' it means:
1. Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.
2. Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds.

I needed to use a word for christians that believe in the inerrancy of the Bible at least in theological matter, as opposed to liberal Christians who don't necessarily think the Bible is right or consistant on every issue. This is a common distinction.


I do think it is possible to have this discusion without learning Greek since many of the quotes are isssues of the broad sense of two passages conlicting rather than issues of semantics or specific tranlation.

[HawkeyE]

Ah ok, I thought you were speaking of the Orthodox Church. I haven't seen to many people use the term orthodoxy in the general Christian sense, sorry .

[Computer Ed]

Originally posted by drugpimp+May 28 2005, 04:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (drugpimp @ May 28 2005, 04:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Computer Ed@May 28 2005, 05:29 PM
If you pull any verse from the Bible and thus remove it from context you can find contradictions. The path of salavation is CLEAR, Repent, be Baptize in the name of Jesus and recieve the Holy Spirit.

Faith ias the beginning not the end, works our the fruit of faith. If you say you have faith and no works then your faith is useless. Works without faith are empty.

The out of context line is valid, but after that you gave us all a sermon, no one really needed. Please refute what he said, but the quotes back in context but dont do this. Its hard enough to have a rational talk about religion without harsh words. Save this rhetoric for the pulpit and keep it focused. [/b][/quote]
Man, I answer a question for someone and people get upset. For the record the original poster put some questions on if we are saved bay faith or works. To make the point valid that niether is the case it was important to explain what the actualy salvation critera is. This was no a sermon but rather and establishment of point.

I did in fact refute what he said directly since I showed his premise for the thought was invalid.

I would suugest you learn how to hold an intellectual disscussion beofre tellin g others how pointeless their points are.

[Bovril]

Originally posted by Computer Ed@May 28 2005, 04:29 PM
If you pull any verse from the Bible and thus remove it from context you can find contradictions. The path of salavation is CLEAR, Repent, be Baptize in the name of Jesus and recieve the Holy Spirit.

Faith ias the beginning not the end, works our the fruit of faith. If you say you have faith and no works then your faith is useless. Works without faith are empty.

Is what you are saying that when there are apparant contradictions between passages (such as when paul says you wont be saved through works, ad elsewhere it says you shall) we should synthesise the passages to try and iron out the contradictions?
In this case you seem to be claiming that Paul meant not through works that are not born of faith shall you be saved. But isn;t this just putting the passage in a false context to satisfy its contradiction to the passages that say you will be saved by works. If this was what Paul meant, why did he not say so. I&#39;m not aware of any passages in the Bible that explain the point you&#39;ve just made. If the work was divinely inspired, shouldn&#39;t it be clear from reading it (and I have read the New Testament several times) what the message is? Frankly, the Bible just leaves me more confused the better I get to know it.

[Computer Ed]

Sorry to hear it confuses you, the more I read it the more clear it becomes. I am amazed that I can look now and see where a passage that before confounded me and made no sense now makes perfect sense.

[Fuji]

You all should read about the priory of sion!!