The End of the Infallible/inerrant bible arguement...

Over the past several years I've heard time and time again that the bible is the inerrant/infallible word of God...

To the fundamentalist Christian this may be true according to what they've been taught... but IF one chooses to actually read the bible, said person will find that is not even close to the truth.

This thread is not an attempt to insult or degrade Christian beliefs, its only to show the reality of the matter...

I've been in many arguments about this, and I say argument because most times these discussions are not debates as I would prefer... these discussions turn into a war of words with one side choosing to insult and slander the other

SO after years of getting insulted and harassed by these so called "Christians" trying to prove their infallible book, I've decided to put the final nail in the coffin and lay this ridiculous argument to rest once and for all

Im tired of the stupidity of this argument, but let me say...

I do believe in the message that Jesus gave us with all my heart, I do not take issue with his words... Only the preachers out there that lie to their flock by telling them the bible is infallible

I will start with Mark 14...

This is the story of the crucifixion... and the earliest book we have about Jesus...

One must read key passages to find the truth of this matter....

14 After two days was the feast of the Passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.

2 But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the people.

You are welcome to read the rest of the chapter for context HERE

We can clearly read that Jesus was arrested... and taken to prison that night...

In the next chapter we see that Jesus was executed on the day after the Passover feast...

15 And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.

the time of this death according to Mark was approximately nine in the morning...

33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Now lets take a look at the account according to John's Gospel...

In John Chapter 19 we can see that Jesus was executed the day before the Passover feast...

13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

And we can clearly read that Jesus was taken down from the cross and laid to rest Just before sundown on the day of the "preparation of the Passover"...

One must also understand how they told time back then... The day ended at sundown... and started at Sunrise

42 There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

Jesus WAS NOT executed twice... Period

He DID NOT die twice... Period

the fact is John changed the date of his death to suit his belief that Jesus was "the Passover lamb" but in reality... Marks gospel was likely the actual date of his execution

The day AFTER the Passover meal...

This is a clear mistake in the gospel... and an obvious contradiction...

Whether it was made deliberately or not is up for debate, but there CAN NOT be any debate on the inerrancy of the bible...

The bible is full of contradictions and errors... all one has to do is read the book to find these issues...

Now... IF you... the reader still chooses to believe the bible has no errors... even those the facts above speak for themselves...

You also choose to be willfully ignorant...

the choice from here is yours

www.jesuschrist.com... -not-friday/

This thread is not an end to anything. it is a continuation of you showing your lack of faith and putting your understanding of the word ahead of the message.

a reply to: Akragon

You will find a lot of Christians who don't believe the bible is infallible. The problem is when they take very hostile and abrasive stances with nothing backing them but their bible and won't budge or consider that maybe that one verse, buried in history, outdated, and quite contrary to the message of their Jesus, could possibly be one of the examples of something that was placed there by a human mind and not inspired by their god.

There is no reason given to me by a Christian to make me understand why they believe the entire bible is inspired by their god. Some of it, sure but all of it? Even the parts that don't even make sense to include that sound just like some bitter politician spouting off or somebody trying to make a point? I don't understand. Not even the bible itself says it is infallible as the writers had no clue there would someday be a compendium of notes put together that included their writings.

a reply to: Akragon
I'm not in the business of defending literal Biblical inerrancy, but I want to take issue with your specific example.
First, on the question of "Was it Passover or not", I think you are taking the choice the wrong way round.
I was convinced long ago by Bishop Westcott's arguments that John had to be right. The key point is that the Passover Sabbath actually began , by definition, at sunset before the Passover meal started. The Passover Sabbath being distinct from the ordinary weekly Sabbath. Therefore if the Last Supper was a Passover meal, then EVERYTHING that happened afterwards was a breach of Sabbath- Judas (supposedly) going out to shop, the arrest, the crucifixion.
The Last Supper had to be held twenty-four hours before the official Passover meal. That was the only way that Jesus could be arrested, tried, crucified and buried before the Passover Sabbath started.

Westcott also has an answer for the time discrepancy. The Synoptic gospels were counting hours the Jewish way, from dawn. John was not. He was following a Roman civil day which counted the hours from midnight and midday, as we do. Then his "ninth hour" would be what the Synoptics would call "third hour". This assumption also makes more sense of the other time references in John. When the disciples joined Jesus at "the tenth hour" and stayed with him "for the rest of the day" (John ch1 v39), that makes more sense for "from ten o'clock in the morning" than for ""from four o'clock in the afternoon".

a reply to: Akragon

Jesus WAS NOT executed twice... Period

He DID NOT die twice... Period

the fact is John changed the date of his death to suit his belief that Jesus was "the Passover lamb" but in reality... Marks gospel was likely the actual date of his execution

Both accounts are correct. The Pharisees had not intercalated their calendar that year, so they celebrated the feasts, four days ahead of schedule. This meant that Jesus was arrested on 10 Abib (selection of the lamb), when they thought it was Passover day, then He was executed 4 days later on 14 Abib, when the Pharisees thought that Passover week had finished. The Jews have a habit of forgetting how to properly observe their feasts

I draw this conclusion from the syllable meter that is found in the very gospel texts that you follow. The same pattern is also found in Genesis 7&8, relating to the amount of time that Noah spent in the Ark according to the biblical calendar.

Yes "the bible" is very errant(especially the interpretations) however this is not one of the errors.John's witness is not "fudged" to fit an agenda it is the debunkers that have fudged it by NOT using common reason.The "last supper "was not a passover" everything that happened was not something they could do ON the passover and the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming and simple and all of this can be easily verified.The debunkers and those that believe them are just as "errant" as those that believe their "bible" is inerrant in their beliefs.

a reply to: Akragon

I used to believe that the Bible as we have it today was error free and infallible. After much studying on the subject, I have taken the position that the original autographs, which no longer exist, were indeed error free and God inspired. The following copies, or manu.codices of said autographs however were not error free because they were written by men, and the modern day Bibles that are a product of those manuscripts do contain some errors. Having said that, the errors are of little consequence, and are mainly just minor disagreements on translation of some words and some grammatical issues, not having anything to do with the doctrine(s) of orthodox Christianity. One point that I would make is that the "9th hour" you mention in Mark is 3:00pm, because the day started at 6:00am, at least for time keeping purposes, in 1st century Judea. You are looking at it from a modern method of keeping time, where the 9th hour is 9am, because we start at midnight.

a reply to: OptimusSubprime

I have taken the position that the original autographs, which no longer exist, were indeed error free and God inspired.

it is my understanding that even though we do not have any original copies of the books In the NT, the copies of copies of copies we do have are fragments and are almost all different...

the differences range from small grammatical errors to complete discrepancies...

not to mention the various additions to the texts that have been made over the years

thanks for your reply

Show me a bible written by the hand of God ... and you'll have my undivided attention.

Show me a book written by the hand of man ... and ... meh, don't forget to hand me a grain of salt.

These things said, it's not such a bad thing being familiar with the Bible (or other respected religious texts). Taking it literally, or failing to take it literally, is the root cause of much conflict. That's why one should already know themselves before undertaking the endeavor. So, how old is an individual before they really come to know themselves?

a reply to: Akragon

All objects viewed from a distance create a shadow. The Bible is not the thing it represents. It is the shadow cast by the true Word. A good analogy of this would be DNA. DNA is the shadow of a larger mechanism that engages letters of programming into a catalyst to form a material body. Simply looking at the shadow of the body cannot nearly tell you about the body itself. You will only see an outline, which is what the Bible in our physical world is. It is an image, just like you.

You are arguing about the details of the shadow and ignoring the silhouette it casts. Primarily, you are doing this from a platform of ignorance and fealty perspective. Aside from this, it is possible to see that the Word we see as a shadow is more than we can explain logically. There is a great deal of content that can be seen by examining what is hidden in symbolism. Until you develop those eyes, the outer shadow will only be that to you. Look at what is not seen. The hint throughout the Bible is to look at what you do not see, which is symbolism.

a reply to: Akragon

I wanted to add more information to support my last post. As I said, the Pharisees had not intercalated their calendar the year of Jesus death, so when they arrested Jesus on true-10 Abib, they were already observing the Passover, as they thought it was 14 Abib. So Jesus was arrested on time, in accordance with the Prophetic Calendar, when the Lamb was to be selected and prepared for sacrifice.

Now look at John 19:31 & 42

John 19:31 The Jews, therefore, that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath, since it was the preparation, (for that sabbath day was a great one,) asked of Pilate that their legs may be broken, and they taken away.

42 there, therefore, because of the preparation of the Jews, because the tomb was nigh, they laid Jesus.

These two verses speak of the 'preparation'. Contrary to popular belief, there is NO specific "day of preparation". Any period of time just before a Sabbath or Holy Day was a period of preparation. Since the Pharisees had already observed their Passover Day, four days earlier, when Jesus was arrested, we know that John was not refering to the Preparation of the lamb. But, remember that Passover was a week long celebration, also called the Feast of Unlevened Bread. So by that, we know that the Pharisees were preparing for the 4th day of Unlevened Bread. The entire week was considered a High Holy Feast.

When John wrote chapter 19, he was employing double entendre. First, he was showing that the trial before Pilate was the Preparation of Jesus as the true Passover Lamb of God. Secondly, he was sarcastically showing how the Pharisees had screwed up the Holy Calendar. We can see this sarcasm in John 19:42, when he says, "the preparation of the Jews" or "the Jews' preparation". The word 'day' is not in the original text. Therefore, John is saying that Jesus was laid in the unused tomb because of the Pharisees' calendar errors, not because they were following God's calendar.

Mark 14 shows the false Passover of the Pharisees, whereas John 19 shows the true fulfillment of the OT prophecy on the true Passover Day, despite the error/interference of the Pharisees.

I would agree that the Bible is not the infallible word of God, but I do not feel that this detracts from the overall religion. For instance, the divinity of Jesus could still be accurate even if certain statements made in the Bible are inaccurate. Some things in the Bible can be somewhat verified in modern times, just little details here and there, matching them up with what we have discovered about the peoples in general. My point is that if there were some things in the Bible that were not accurate, this need not mean the entire thing is inaccurate.

Given what you've written in your thread I think you understand this point quite well. But there are those who think that if the Bible is wrong once, it can never be right about anything. I think some place too much emphasis on the unimportant details. I think of it like this: the Bible is a large collection of writings from various authors, written at various times in the past. I think it is a miracle in itself that some of these books were even preserved, lol. It must be understood that the Bible was composed by a committee. Anything composed by a committee is going to be a little jacked up. Take a camel for instance, which is said to be a horse designed by a committee. I believe it. I wouldn't expect everything included to be accurate, or to describe the teachings of early Christianity to a T.

The NT books describing the life of Jesus and his teachings do concur with one another on almost all the major or important points. But because they do not concur on all details it could be said that the Bible is not infallible. But there is also the possibility that the original writings did agree on all details, but that changes over time by scribes resulted in some details being inaccurate. I would think that such an explanation is the only argument that could be made for the Bible being the infallible word of God. The argument would be that any disagreements are the result of written errors. But this would still mean the Bible is fallible at this point in time, even if at a point in the past it was not. But then again, the Bible has not existed for that long. It's just a collection. So some of the books might be the true word of God. But it is not possible to know.

Many Christians believe that God may have influenced these people to include the "correct" books or whatever, but I do not think this is the case. I think far too much emphasis is placed on the Bible and religious dogma, which is not important. For a Christian, what should be truly important are the teachings of Jesus. Don't focus on semantics or the small details, rather on the overall message regarding how to live your life. His message was one of peace, love, and forgiveness. What I find a bit stunning is the fact that much of the NT does not focus on things Jesus said or did. I would put more emphasis on those things, because he was the only one who truly knew what he was talking about it seems like. I think if people focused on living their lives with His teachings then the world would be a much better place.

Whether Christianity is the "correct" religion or not, I still put it above the other two related religions precisely because the teachings of Jesus align with how I feel people should live their lives from a moral point of view. Help those in need, even if they are your enemy. Don't harm others, etc...I've gotten way off track here, so to go back to your point I must agree. It seems that while certain books of the Bible could be the true word of God, the collective Bible is not.

What evidence does anyone have of John using a different calendar... him being an observant jew

Lets also consider "The gospel of John" likely wasn't written by John...

originally posted by: Akragon
What evidence does anyone have of John using a different calendar... him being an observant jew

The evidence that John was counting his hours from midnight, following the Roman civil day, lies in the fact that ONLY that assumption makes sense of the four different time references in John's gospel.
Taking them in the same order that Westcott does;

In ch1 v39, two of the disciples of John visit the place where Jesus stays, "at about the tenth hour", and stay with him for the rest of the day. But the idea of staying with him "that day" is slightly absurd if the tenth hour is nearly sunset and the day is almost over. It is much more appropriate if the tenth hour is ten o'clock in the morning.

In ch4 v6, Jesus is talking to the woman at the well at "about the sixth hour".
This would be noon, on the Jewish system of counting, and about sunset if the hours were being counted from midnight and midday.
Sunset would have been the normal time for women to fetch water.
Admittedly some preachers like to make a big deal out of the idea that she was so full of shame that she was deliberately avoiding all the other women.
But other people were obviously around, because the disciples were surprised that nobody else had been intervening in the conversation.
The more natural explanation is that this was sunset, the disciples were buying food at the end of a day's journey, and the woman was fetching water at the same time as everybody else.

In ch4 v52, Jesus speaks to a nobleman, and his son begins to heal, "at the seventh hour".
The sequel makes much more sense if this means seven o'clock in the evening. The man travelled back home the next day, and was met by his servants, who told him that his son began to improve "yesterday".
On the Jewish method, the servants are using the odd word "yesterday" to describe one o'clock in the afternoon of what we would call the same day.

Finally, in ch19 v14, it makes good sense that after being brought to Pilate early in the morning, Jesus should be displayed to the mob at about dawn ("the sixth hour"), leaving plenty of time to be crucfied at noon (the Marcan "sixth hour") and die at about three o'clock in the afternoon (the Marcan "ninth hour").

Westcott is also able to quote accounts of martyrdom which are evidently using the same "counting from midnight" system.
These come from Smyrna, so it looks like a practice of that same province of Asia Minor that is associated with John.
(For that matter, you yourself, in the OP, assume that Mark is using the non-Jewish "counting from midnight" system. You identify "ninth hour" with "nine o'clock in the morning". So even on your own theory, at least one of the gospels was using it)

Lets also consider "The gospel of John" likely wasn't written by John...

How on earth does this thought affect the question one way or the other?
And if it doesn't affect the question, why did you put it in?
If anything, it undermines your other point, because it leaves you without any evidence that he was an observant Jew.

originally posted by: Akragon
What evidence does anyone have of John using a different calendar... him being an observant jew

Lets also consider "The gospel of John" likely wasn't written by John...

There were various different versions of the Jewish calendar circulating in Jesus' day. There was the 364 day calendar of the Essenes, the 355 day post-Babylonian lunisolar, and the 360 day calendar that was most likely used by the Pharisees. None of these calendars are the original Paleo-Hebrew practice implemented in Moses' day, and existing as far back as the flood. The syllable meter uses a 365 to 366 day solar calendar that is intercalated each year at the vernal equinox. That is the calendar that the prophecies follow. Just look at the constant mistranslation of 'rosh khodesh' in the OT. A lunisolar calendar could not add up when measured against the priestly shifts.

Can you provide evidence that indicates that John did not write the Gospel of John?

a reply to: DISRAELI

How on earth does this thought affect the question one way or the other?
And if it doesn't affect the question, why did you put it in?
If anything, it undermines your other point, because it leaves you without any evidence that he was an observant Jew.

Well... IF said gospel was actually written by members of some Johannine community... I would assume they were likely jewish more or less...or at least came from jewish roots... still used that scripture... etc etc

I don't see why they would use roman time in any case...but anything is possible I suppose

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Can you provide evidence that indicates that John did not write the Gospel of John?

A quick search on "the Authorship of the gospel of John" will give you lots to read...

Plus none of the gospels have autographs, they're all assumed authors...

If the Bible is inerrant how come there are so many divisions within Christianity??

Think about that the next time you fly in a plane.. ..Where all its complexities are dictated by "inerrant" international standards in aviation safety...

...Because the Bible is flawed that's why it cannot reproduce the same standards possible in the secular realm.

Our critical thinking have vastly improved in the last centuries and we hold on to beliefs that belonged to a time when critical thinking is poor.

It is NOT entirely our human nature to be chaotic, else, modern engineering marvels would be impossible!!

Christianity is divided because the Bible is a very poor instruction manual with plenty of conflicting ideas! Only a tiny % of it is good.



I don't speak based on my theological expertise but real life results. Some teachings in the Bible hit it while many produce the opposite results. It's a mess!

a reply to: Akragon

To the fundamentalist Christian this may be true according to what they've been taught... but IF one chooses to actually read the bible, said person will find that is not even close to the truth.

What I find especially annoying is the idea that the Bible is true even when reduced to its smallest components, such as the practice among proponents of inerrancy of stringing together fragments of verses from all over the Bible into a single new super-verse, that then has to be believed because it is "the word".

a reply to: AlephBet

In my opinion, that concept was awesomely close.

You are missing one piece. What happens when you invert something? Paul did mention we look through the glass darkly. What if the lens being used for indoctrination is upside down?

Food for thought. :-)