> No I can't. That's why I am in this group (alt.christnet.bible); for the
> discussions. What I was referring to is the attitude that's projected that
> because one finds what appears to be an error, the Bible itself is not to be
> trusted. It seems to me that if it isn't the inspired Word of God, then
> it's just another Shakespeare, Kant, Goethe, or whatever.
Which is fine. However, you have to remember that these messages are being crossposted to six or seven other newsgroups, many of which fall outside of the alt.christnet.* hierarchy.
> BTW, so you understand my position: I believe the Bible, as theoriginal,
> God-breathed Word, is inerrant. I do not believe the versions we use today
> are. However, the versions, with the help of study aids, can reveal a vast
> amount of the "original" Word, perhaps as much as 95%.
I've read enough of your articles to understand your position. I disagree. I spent 17 years of my life as a Christian believing exactly what you state above. Then I decided to see if the Bible matched up to the faith I had put in it and found that it fails miserably. Faith is fine but is no substitute for reality.
> No, and I've complained about that too, as well as the Catholic bashing.
> But since it continues, and I can't stop it, it goes in the kill file, along
> with the preachers and the dogmaticians. :-)
Good attitude. I wish others held it. ;)
> Actually, I have a very <large> amount of respect for Dr. Bullinger's work
> in the scriptures. I certainly wouldn't call it a game. Personally,
> prophecy is not my forte, so I defer to him, since he knew so much. Time
> and space do not permit proper elaboration here, but I will say that from
> what I've seen of his work, I would agree with him on this matter. (I'm not
> referring to the specific verse in question, mind you. I haven't researched
> it.)
You have respect for it because it supports a position you'd very much like to hold, not because the Bible actually supports such a position. What you're doing above is nothing more than an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. Dr. Bullinger, no matter what his "expertise" still needs to rely solely on the evidence and as with all Bible apologists, he goes far beyond what the Bible says in his "explanations" of Bible contradictions. Now granted I have read very little by Bullinger, having spent much more time with mainstream apologists like Gleason Archer and Josh McDowell, but from what I've seen, the technique is the same, just a slightly different style.
> An interesting paper is available on the net. It's written by Thomas Paine,
> the writer of "Common Sense". He handles each and every prophecy
> fulfillment in Matthew and then shows how they are false. Funny thing
> though. The word says "Thus it was fulfilled.....". Personally, I'll take
> the Word's side over Mr. Paine's, even if his logic is flawless. :-)
Only because your theological position demands that you do so. Thomas Paine did a quite fine job showing that the writer of Matthew, whoever it was, simply went looking through the OT looking for passages that could be used to show prophecy, whether those passages actually did or not. It is obvious to any rational person that this is indeed what happened as some of the passages Matthew's writer used had already been fulfilled in the OT (thus causing some apologists to invent the "double application" dodge to avoid facing the truth about their so-called inerrant Bible), etc.
Paul, if the Bible truly demonstrated that it was inerrant and inspired, I think we'd all believe it. However, only a tiny minority of Christians actually accept it as such and do so, not because the Bible demands it, but because their faith, IMO, is too weak to accept the plain and obvious errors in the Bible. I'm not trying to insult you, quite the contrary I am trying to point out where the fundamentalist and evangelical sects of Christianity are really poor stewards of Biblical truth. By forcing adherents to accept every word of the Bible as absolute truth, they hide the important concepts, like "Love your neighbor as yourself".
Think about it
-Brian