Rev said:
I read the thread...and I know who you were replying to. But I don't understand what laws against food containing salmonella has to do with whether or not eating pork is a sin.
You didn't follow the conversation very well then. Geekgrrl was told that the REASON for God's unclean meat laws was to keep people from getting trichonella. I said if that were the case, then there should also be laws against eating chicken to keep people from getting salmonella. This is basic stuff, comparing one hypothetical scenario to another. You seem smart, so I can't believe you gave an honest effort to follow along and yet you STILL didn't understand my point.
Rev said:
In the case of the Galatians, the Law had never applied to them. They were Gentiles.
Oh yea I forgot. The Jews are God's chosen people, so He just made the Law for them to live by and left everyone else to their own vices. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. :roll:
The Galations argument is turning into differences of interpretation and opinion. I'm not going to nit-pick and try to argue what
Paul meant by this or that anymore because it's pointless. I feel as though you've taken some verses out of context (I love how you only used Galations 5:18 while ignoring the main point in 22-23), and you probably feel as though I've done the same thing (Abraham and the covenant, et. al). So it may not be a sin to eat pork, but disproving either point of view using the Bible doesn't seem possible, because people read the Bible differently and develop different opinions about what it means. Which often results in trying to fit a square peg (the Bible) into a round hole (a pre-concieved belief).
Now I agree this shouldn't include grammar, translation, and interpretation errors. Those aren't the Bible's mistakes, but mistakes by its users. But I don't agree that actual errors and specific contradictions are tolerable and that we can still call it "inerrant" in the face of such errors.
Could you refer to the contradictions in question?
You have got to be kidding. Didn't you say you've been following the conversation? No offense, after the salmonella thing I had my doubts, but now I'm convinced it was a blatent lie. You haven't been following jack.
For the third time now....
Specific contradiction #1:
Here we have Luke saying that Shelah was the son of Cainan:
"the `son' of Serug, the `son' of Reu, the `son' of Peleg, the `son' of Eber, the `son' of Shelah, the `son' of Cainan, the `son' of Arphaxad, the `son' of Shem, the `son' of Noah, the `son' of Lamech," - Luke 3:35-36
Here we have the Chronicles saying that Shelah was the son of Arphaxad, not Cainan:
"And Arphaxad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber." - 1 Chronicles 1:18
Here we also have Genesis saying that Shelah was the son of Arphaxad, not Cainan:
"And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah" - Genesis 11:12
Sebastiandreams said there are plenty of hypothetical scenarios that could explain this. I don't believe there are any, so I'm curious to see how it can be explained without redefining the laws of physics. Please explain how a person can exist in a family tree and not exist in a family tree at the same time. Please explain how Shelah is the son of Cainan and the son of Arphaxad at the same time. Please explain how Arphaxad is Shelah's father and grandfather at the same time.
Specific contradiction #2:
This is a comparison of the lineage accounts between Kings and Chronicles, starting with Kings. First we start with Azariah the king of Judah:
"All the people of Judah took Azariah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king in the place of his father Amaziah." - 2 Kings 14:21
Next, Azariah's son Jotham became the King of Judah:
"And Azariah slept with his fathers, and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David, and Jotham his son became king in his place." - 2 Kings 15:7
Sometime after that, Uzziah became the king of Judah:
"Shallum son of Jabesh became king in the thirty-ninth year of Uzziah king of Judah, and he reigned one month in Samaria." - 2 Kings 15:13
Just like Azariah, Uzziah had a son named Jotham who became king of Judah:
"In the second year of Pekah the son of Remaliah king of Israel, Jotham the son of Uzziah king of Judah became king." - 2 Kings 15:32
And Jotham son of Uzziah is the one who carries the lineage through Ahaz, Hezekiah, etc:
"And Jotham slept with his fathers, and he was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father; and Ahaz his son became king in his place." - 2 Kings 15:38
"So Ahaz slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and his son Hezekiah reigned in his place." - 2 Kings 16:20.
But according to the the Chronicles, the father of Ahaz was Jotham son of Azariah, not son of Uzziah:
"Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son, Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son," - 1 Chronicles 3:12-13
Chronicles says one thing, but Kings says another. Perhaps Uzziah and Azariah were the same person? Nope. Both names are used independently within five verses of each other (2 Kings 15:8, 13), as well as throughout the two chapters. Every Bible translation I know makes a distinction between both names. They don't even have the same number of syllables. They are obviously not the same person. Two different family trees in Kings must be overlapped in order to trace the lineage from Azariah through Jotham to Ahaz in Chronicles. How do you explain that?
Rev said:
And what is the purpose of the Bible? To be a science book? No, so scientific inaccuracies may be excused. History book? No, so historical inaccuracies may be excused. It's purpose is to reveal God and his plan for us. THAT it does without error. So yes, the Bible is inerrant.
I couldn't disagree more with the bolded statements. God does not lie, and if the Bible is truly inspired by God then its words would not lie either. Historical and scientific inaccuraces should NOT be excused, they should be regarded as further evidence that some things in Bible were not inspired by God.
I agree with your main point above, that the Bible is not a science or history book. It's main purpose is to reveal the will of God to us.
But in learning the will of God, we have to assume the authors were truly writing what God intended. Now if there are historical inaccuracies, such as the lineage contradictons above, then it's reasonable to conclude that God did NOT dictate every word in the Bible. He allowed SOME mistakes to happen.
These mistakes call the Bible's credibility as a whole into question. If God allowed historical and/or scientific mistakes in the Bible, then what other kinds of mistakes did He allow?
Stupid man-made laws that support racism, sexism, and slavery? Yep. Stupid man-made laws like don't eat pig and don't wear linen and wool in the same garment? Yep. Stupid man-made concepts like having a specific race of humans as "God's chosen people"? Yep.
To say the Bible is inerrant is to say that God supports (or at least supported) racism, sexism, and slavery. It is to say that God lied (or at least made mistakes) about historical events like who was who'se father. To say that the Bible inerrantly reveals the will of God, in spite of historical or scientific inaccuracies, is to make a HUGE assumption about God's approach on selectively dictating the Bible while allowing certain falsehoods to remain.
You might say the historical or scientific inaccuracies are irrelavent, because they aren't related to the Bible's true message. But they ARE relavent, because they proove the possibility that some or all of the Bible's other teachings are also fabricated mistakes.