Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

# Bible inerrancy, reasonable?

 Posts: 139 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/9/2014 8:39:13 AMPosted: 3 years agoNot a chance, to believe the bible is inerrant is akin to believing George Washington was not the 1st president, yes there is always a possibility but its so highly unlikely that its unreasonable. Let me explain, what happens is that an atheist will present claimed contradictions for the bible. The Christian will usually come up with a possible explanation. The problem lies statistically in that these are only possible, not certain explanations. Now since we are talking about history they cannot be certain, this just is not possible in the realm of history. Anybody who believes it is has taken themselves out of the conversation as not informed enough on the topic of history.Now lets see why statistically its impossible. To determine how likely all scenarios are to be true, we can simply take a the likelihood of each one and muliply them together to get the chance all are true. So where X equals the probability a potential error is resolved our formula looks like like this:X1 x X2 x X3.... = probability all are resolved.Now lets say the average probability that any given error is resolved is 90%. So to make our math easy we make all X's .90 and we can now just use this as our formula X^Y power, where Y stands for the number of potential errors. It takes a mere 7 errors before out chances are 47.5% that the bible is inerrant, so we now know that it is less likely, so we shouldn't believe it if we have 7. The problem is we don't have just 7 we have over 20, which now puts us at 12.5% chance the bible is inerrant, but alas we dont' even have just 20, but we have at least 50 of these problems, which puts us at 0.5% chance the bible is inerrant. yet in reality there are hundreds if not thousands of these errors, which means that the Christian who maintains biblical inerrancy is maintaining an irrational position that has less then a .00001% chance of being true.Now in reality the average percentage I have given of 90% chance for each error being resolved is quite generous. Lets look at just a few of these errors. In Matthew Judas hangs himself, while in Acts he falls headlong ripping his bowels out. Now there have been attempts to say that he hung himself and then fell and his bowels were ripped out that way. Yet, how likely is it that the author of Acts, who is the one historian among gospel writers(also authored Paul), would leave out a crucial detail such as he hung himself. This is important because Acts and Matthew were not written to be combined and its possible a author claiming to be writing a complete account could forget this detail, but not likely, therefore putting the true odds below 50%. Yet, we have the problem of Matthew claims Judas threw the reward into the temple and the priests bought the field of blood with it. Acts on the other hand claims that Judas bought the field of blood with the reward. There is an attempt to reconcile this by saying that the priests bought the field in Judas' name, again for the same reason possible but not likely. So again well below 50%. Another example is that the bible claims Moses and Aaron are 5th generation descendants of Jacob, while Joshua their contemporary is a 13th generation descendant. The only rationalization I have heard for this is generation can be of different lengths, but for this much of a discrepancy the generation between Jacob and Moses (and Aaron) must have all been on the short end, the one between Jacob and Joshua must have all been on the long end. Again strictly possible, but not likely, so odds far below 50%. We also have the the error with Matthew claiming Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, who died in 4 BCE. Yet, Luke claims jesus was born during the governorship of Quirinius which was 6 CE. Since Matthew has Herod kill all the 2 year olds or under we can assume that Jesus was born more then 10 years apart in these stories. Now its possible as some christians postulate that Quirinius had a earlier governorship, but not likely since through historians of the time like Tactus and Josephus, we have a very good record of who was governor of syria: Sentius Saturninus from 9-6 BCE and Quintilus Varus from 6 to 4 BCE and we also know what Quirinius was up to at that time: He was in Asia Minor between 12 and 6 BCE, where he fought the war against the Homonadenses. He was the governor of Pamphylia-Galatia between 6 to 1 BCE. So again not very likely. So again we can safely say these odds are below 50% So with these it would take a mere 4 at 50% odds for the christian only to have a 6.25 chance of being right and yet there are many many many more. This is simply the death blow to bible inerrancy.
 Posts: 2,094 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/9/2014 9:08:43 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/9/2014 8:39:13 AM, bebil10 wrote:Not a chance, to believe the bible is inerrant is akin to believing George Washington was not the 1st president, yes there is always a possibility but its so highly unlikely that its unreasonable. Let me explain, what happens is that an atheist will present claimed contradictions for the bible. The Christian will usually come up with a possible explanation. The problem lies statistically in that these are only possible, not certain explanations. Now since we are talking about history they cannot be certain, this just is not possible in the realm of history. Anybody who believes it is has taken themselves out of the conversation as not informed enough on the topic of history.Now lets see why statistically its impossible. To determine how likely all scenarios are to be true, we can simply take a the likelihood of each one and muliply them together to get the chance all are true. So where X equals the probability a potential error is resolved our formula looks like like this:X1 x X2 x X3.... = probability all are resolved.Now lets say the average probability that any given error is resolved is 90%. So to make our math easy we make all X's .90 and we can now just use this as our formula X^Y power, where Y stands for the number of potential errors. It takes a mere 7 errors before out chances are 47.5% that the bible is inerrant, so we now know that it is less likely, so we shouldn't believe it if we have 7. The problem is we don't have just 7 we have over 20, which now puts us at 12.5% chance the bible is inerrant, but alas we dont' even have just 20, but we have at least 50 of these problems, which puts us at 0.5% chance the bible is inerrant. yet in reality there are hundreds if not thousands of these errors, which means that the Christian who maintains biblical inerrancy is maintaining an irrational position that has less then a .00001% chance of being true.Now in reality the average percentage I have given of 90% chance for each error being resolved is quite generous. Lets look at just a few of these errors. In Matthew Judas hangs himself, while in Acts he falls headlong ripping his bowels out. Now there have been attempts to say that he hung himself and then fell and his bowels were ripped out that way. Yet, how likely is it that the author of Acts, who is the one historian among gospel writers(also authored Paul), would leave out a crucial detail such as he hung himself. This is important because Acts and Matthew were not written to be combined and its possible a author claiming to be writing a complete account could forget this detail, but not likely, therefore putting the true odds below 50%. Yet, we have the problem of Matthew claims Judas threw the reward into the temple and the priests bought the field of blood with it. Acts on the other hand claims that Judas bought the field of blood with the reward. There is an attempt to reconcile this by saying that the priests bought the field in Judas' name, again for the same reason possible but not likely. So again well below 50%. Another example is that the bible claims Moses and Aaron are 5th generation descendants of Jacob, while Joshua their contemporary is a 13th generation descendant. The only rationalization I have heard for this is generation can be of different lengths, but for this much of a discrepancy the generation between Jacob and Moses (and Aaron) must have all been on the short end, the one between Jacob and Joshua must have all been on the long end. Again strictly possible, but not likely, so odds far below 50%. We also have the the error with Matthew claiming Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, who died in 4 BCE. Yet, Luke claims jesus was born during the governorship of Quirinius which was 6 CE. Since Matthew has Herod kill all the 2 year olds or under we can assume that Jesus was born more then 10 years apart in these stories. Now its possible as some christians postulate that Quirinius had a earlier governorship, but not likely since through historians of the time like Tactus and Josephus, we have a very good record of who was governor of syria: Sentius Saturninus from 9-6 BCE and Quintilus Varus from 6 to 4 BCE and we also know what Quirinius was up to at that time: He was in Asia Minor between 12 and 6 BCE, where he fought the war against the Homonadenses. He was the governor of Pamphylia-Galatia between 6 to 1 BCE. So again not very likely. So again we can safely say these odds are below 50% So with these it would take a mere 4 at 50% odds for the christian only to have a 6.25 chance of being right and yet there are many many many more. This is simply the death blow to bible inerrancy.Groan. You lost me with the math.A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
 Posts: 139 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/9/2014 10:00:10 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/9/2014 9:08:43 AM, jodybirdy wrote:At 11/9/2014 8:39:13 AM, bebil10 wrote:Not a chance, to believe the bible is inerrant is akin to believing George Washington was not the 1st president, yes there is always a possibility but its so highly unlikely that its unreasonable. Let me explain, what happens is that an atheist will present claimed contradictions for the bible. The Christian will usually come up with a possible explanation. The problem lies statistically in that these are only possible, not certain explanations. Now since we are talking about history they cannot be certain, this just is not possible in the realm of history. Anybody who believes it is has taken themselves out of the conversation as not informed enough on the topic of history.Now lets see why statistically its impossible. To determine how likely all scenarios are to be true, we can simply take a the likelihood of each one and muliply them together to get the chance all are true. So where X equals the probability a potential error is resolved our formula looks like like this:X1 x X2 x X3.... = probability all are resolved.Now lets say the average probability that any given error is resolved is 90%. So to make our math easy we make all X's .90 and we can now just use this as our formula X^Y power, where Y stands for the number of potential errors. It takes a mere 7 errors before out chances are 47.5% that the bible is inerrant, so we now know that it is less likely, so we shouldn't believe it if we have 7. The problem is we don't have just 7 we have over 20, which now puts us at 12.5% chance the bible is inerrant, but alas we dont' even have just 20, but we have at least 50 of these problems, which puts us at 0.5% chance the bible is inerrant. yet in reality there are hundreds if not thousands of these errors, which means that the Christian who maintains biblical inerrancy is maintaining an irrational position that has less then a .00001% chance of being true.Now in reality the average percentage I have given of 90% chance for each error being resolved is quite generous. Lets look at just a few of these errors. In Matthew Judas hangs himself, while in Acts he falls headlong ripping his bowels out. Now there have been attempts to say that he hung himself and then fell and his bowels were ripped out that way. Yet, how likely is it that the author of Acts, who is the one historian among gospel writers(also authored Paul), would leave out a crucial detail such as he hung himself. This is important because Acts and Matthew were not written to be combined and its possible a author claiming to be writing a complete account could forget this detail, but not likely, therefore putting the true odds below 50%. Yet, we have the problem of Matthew claims Judas threw the reward into the temple and the priests bought the field of blood with it. Acts on the other hand claims that Judas bought the field of blood with the reward. There is an attempt to reconcile this by saying that the priests bought the field in Judas' name, again for the same reason possible but not likely. So again well below 50%. Another example is that the bible claims Moses and Aaron are 5th generation descendants of Jacob, while Joshua their contemporary is a 13th generation descendant. The only rationalization I have heard for this is generation can be of different lengths, but for this much of a discrepancy the generation between Jacob and Moses (and Aaron) must have all been on the short end, the one between Jacob and Joshua must have all been on the long end. Again strictly possible, but not likely, so odds far below 50%. We also have the the error with Matthew claiming Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, who died in 4 BCE. Yet, Luke claims jesus was born during the governorship of Quirinius which was 6 CE. Since Matthew has Herod kill all the 2 year olds or under we can assume that Jesus was born more then 10 years apart in these stories. Now its possible as some christians postulate that Quirinius had a earlier governorship, but not likely since through historians of the time like Tactus and Josephus, we have a very good record of who was governor of syria: Sentius Saturninus from 9-6 BCE and Quintilus Varus from 6 to 4 BCE and we also know what Quirinius was up to at that time: He was in Asia Minor between 12 and 6 BCE, where he fought the war against the Homonadenses. He was the governor of Pamphylia-Galatia between 6 to 1 BCE. So again not very likely. So again we can safely say these odds are below 50% So with these it would take a mere 4 at 50% odds for the christian only to have a 6.25 chance of being right and yet there are many many many more. This is simply the death blow to bible inerrancy.Groan. You lost me with the math.The math wouldn't be necessary if it weren't for so many desperate Christians trying to pull something out of their arse every time a bible contradiction is brought up.
© 2018 Debate.org. All rights reserved.