> Till 1/11
> They more than anything else convinced me that I was never going
> to resolve the problem of biblical discrepancies, because the truth is that
> the Bible is riddled with discrepancies.
>
> Matthew 1/12
> Most scholars seemed to have departed from Bible inerrancy in the 1940s and
> 1950s. Indeed, the scholarship was not very good concerning infallibility at
> that time based on what I can read from that period. Yet, that situation
> has changed dramatically in the last 40 years and in the last 30 years.
>
> It has even improved a lot in the last 10 years and continues to improve to
> this day. As a believer in Bible infallibility, the scholarship in
> understanding some of the more difficult passages is more than a little
> exciting! I suspect that there will always be some difficult passages, as 2
> Pet 3:16 tells us:
> 16 He [i.e. Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them
> of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to
> understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other
> Scriptures, to their own destruction.
> (NIV)
Ah, another ad hominem attack from a Bible author. "Peter" thinks that
whoever disagrees with the "orthodox" (at the time) interpretation of
Paul's numerous run on sentences, poor grammar, and vagarities, etc is
ignorant and unstable. BTW, why aren't we told how to "properly
understand" the things which the "Holy Spirit" inspired "Paul" to write?
Where's the authoritative analysis given by the "Holy Spirit" elucidating
"Paul's" letters? It's so hilarious how these Bible authors support
each other. "Peter" said "Paul's letters" (whichever were written at that
time) were "Scripture" and "Jesus" said that the "Holy Spirit" would lead
the disciples into "all truth," and since "Peter" was a disciple, we
should believe what "Peter" said about "Paul." And, since "Jesus" said
that "Moses" was from God, and "James" said that "Jesus" was from God, we
should all believe! Cough. If I penned or got people to pen a bunch of
books and titled them with "Mike" and "Joe" and "Hank" and the like and
we all supported each other and said "Yes, Joe's writings are from God
almighty; those who disagree will be tormented forever!," what would you
think? I'm going to ask you to be honest with me again Matthew; if these
cultic, "in house," "we've got the truth and you don't," "you're deceived
by an evil entity and if you think what we say is foolish, well, your
wisdom is foolishness to God," etc, you'd say all of these claims were
clear signs of cultic mind control, would you not?
However, as obstacles have fallen down to true belief, it seems like Till
> and others have ignored it. While admittedly some of the reconciliations may
> eventually prove incorrect, a proper understanding of the Bible wipe out 95%
> of the supposed contradictions, leaving another 5% open for consideration.
"a proper understanding?" Or do you mean "any understanding that might
dispell a contradiction?"
Mike
====================================================================
For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.