We can understand different accounts for the same event because that is human, which takes away from being God inspired in terms of no errors or being consistent. There are plenty of other errors in the bible due to human mistakes, such as Matthew misinterpreting two accounts of the same colt in the Old Testament and has Jesus riding into town on two vs. the other writers getting the correct interpretation and has Jesus riding into town on one. There are however other contradictions that just that, where there is no misinterpretation going on but rather one writer thinks something that contradicts what another writer thinks. Again this is an expectation if the bible is purely the work of man. This doesn't take into the account the many errors, such as the earth standing on pillars, being flat and circular with a dome overhead with gates that God opens and closes to let the rain and snow in. The bible may be inspired, but not the way believers would like. Even if there is a truth concerning God and Jesus, the writers could have simply misrepresented that truth if we were trying to reconcile the many problems with the bible itself as well as nonsensical concepts.
Thanks for your well thought comment! I think it in the end boils down to how you define inerrancy, if you hold to that doctrine. But also really what you include in what has to be correct. For example, I don't think many would include the use of that times view of the world as having a firmament as a proof of the Bible not being inerrant, since that really isn't the revelation but the culture in which the revelation was communicated.
@@DavidFredinSilverkors-v7e While I understand that leaving things out that are from that times view and perspective helps strengthen the inerrant position, it is sort like saying if we ignore the errors from anything it becomes more correct or heading towards inerrantcy. It seems to me if these types of errors are introduced, one has to ponder what other errors could have been introduced, which would also include revelations. The way Christians often mean inerrant is that the bible is completely without error in order to maintain the authority of God that is supposedly behind it.
@@DavidFredinSilverkors-v7e Yes. I think many people don't even know what a contradiction really is, and think any apparent discrepancy is one. But apparent discrepencies can be resolved by looking carefully at the text. The only real contradictions can be put down to scribal transposition errors in the OT, although there is a problematic one about where some king died and was buried. I can't remember which king though.
![[Full Episode] The Restaurant War Thailand ศึกพ่อค้าซ่าแม่ค้าแซ่บ Episode 2 | 29 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r3lfLNH6Ke4/mqdefault.jpg)
![ผัวเถื่อน - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P08ORRVDGl8/mqdefault.jpg)
repLIES you mean?
No contradictions.
We can understand different accounts for the same event because that is human, which takes away from being God inspired in terms of no errors or being consistent. There are plenty of other errors in the bible due to human mistakes, such as Matthew misinterpreting two accounts of the same colt in the Old Testament and has Jesus riding into town on two vs. the other writers getting the correct interpretation and has Jesus riding into town on one. There are however other contradictions that just that, where there is no misinterpretation going on but rather one writer thinks something that contradicts what another writer thinks. Again this is an expectation if the bible is purely the work of man. This doesn't take into the account the many errors, such as the earth standing on pillars, being flat and circular with a dome overhead with gates that God opens and closes to let the rain and snow in. The bible may be inspired, but not the way believers would like. Even if there is a truth concerning God and Jesus, the writers could have simply misrepresented that truth if we were trying to reconcile the many problems with the bible itself as well as nonsensical concepts.
Thanks for your well thought comment! I think it in the end boils down to how you define inerrancy, if you hold to that doctrine. But also really what you include in what has to be correct. For example, I don't think many would include the use of that times view of the world as having a firmament as a proof of the Bible not being inerrant, since that really isn't the revelation but the culture in which the revelation was communicated.
@@DavidFredinSilverkors-v7e While I understand that leaving things out that are from that times view and perspective helps strengthen the inerrant position, it is sort like saying if we ignore the errors from anything it becomes more correct or heading towards inerrantcy.
It seems to me if these types of errors are introduced, one has to ponder what other errors could have been introduced, which would also include revelations.
The way Christians often mean inerrant is that the bible is completely without error in order to maintain the authority of God that is supposedly behind it.
There's no contradictions in the passages you cited.
I agree, and that's my point really. That sometimes people accuse the Bible of contradictions when that really isn't the case.
@@DavidFredinSilverkors-v7e Yes. I think many people don't even know what a contradiction really is, and think any apparent discrepancy is one. But apparent discrepencies can be resolved by looking carefully at the text. The only real contradictions can be put down to scribal transposition errors in the OT, although there is a problematic one about where some king died and was buried. I can't remember which king though.