If Richard Dawkins Is Right

Where are you getting your alleged contradictions? Have you investigated any of them yourself, or are you happy to ignorantly parrot the ramblings of unbelievers?

Good responses re: Jesus on the way to Golgatha and the quote about the light of the world. It appears that the skeptics will accept nothing other than four Gospels that are exactly alike, word for word. They rigidly refuse to concede that the author's individual perspectives brought unique aspects to their accounts. The Gospels are complimentary, not contradictory.

So TBP when you say Scholars who doubt that the bible is accurate are objective, this is simply not true- when they have to invent a scenario to claim Jesus never said what he said in order to uphold their hypothesis, then clearly they are not objective and are creating facts to make the puzzle pieces of their hypothesis fit

Good point - the skeptics have to create a scenario that fits with their rejection of the possibility of predictive prophecy, so of course the "prophecy" must have been written after the fact!

[[Where are you getting your alleged contradictions?]]

Very likely from websites which list 101 contradictions I nthe bible (which incidently are completely refuted on websites which point out that they aren’t actually contradictions, but the skeptics don’t wish for truth, they simply wish for claims that fit the agenda

There are sites popular with those who attack the infallibility of God’s word such as Skeptics’ Annotated Bible Refuted, and I see the same supposed contradictions come up over and over and over again- however, there are also sites devoted to debunking all these so called contradictions with actual careful examinations of God’s word- and almost without fail, every single supposed contradiction is refuted

Sites like the following tackle a great many of the m ore popular claims of contradictions by those who don’t believe that God’s word is infallible

http://www.british-israel.ca/Contradictions.htm

another popular supposed contradiction often cited by anti-Christians is that Jesus carried His own cross and wasn’t helped

[[49. Jesus did (John 19:17) or did not (Matthew 27:31-32) bear his own cross?

(Category: misread the text or the texts are compatible with a little thought)

John 19:17 states that he went out carrying his own cross to the place of the skull. Matthew 27:31,32 tells us that he was led out to be crucified and that it was only as they were going out to Golgotha that Simon was forced to carry the cross.

Mark 15:20,21 agrees with Matthew and gives us the additional information that Jesus started out from inside the palace (Praetorium). As Simon was on his way in from the country, it is clear that he was passing by in the street. This implies that Jesus carried his cross for some distance, from the palace into the street. Weak from his floggings and torture, it is likely that he either collapsed under the weight of the cross or was going very slowly. In any case, the soldiers forced Simon to carry the cross for him. Luke 23:26 is in agreement, stating that Simon was seized as they led Jesus away.

Thus the contradiction vanishes. Jesus started out carrying the cross and Simon took over at some point during the journey.]]

But like another site that refutes all the supposed contradictions of the bible states, no amount of evidence or correction will cause the skeptic to admit they were mistaken

[[slanting of the story to a particular audience...transcription errors that affect meaning]]

you know, it’s easy for you to make these claims without providing any evidence that this is actually what happened- IF you were to actually study how careful the scribes were in copying texts, you would know that the bible is NOT full of errors like you claim them to be- These scribes were so careful that whenever they discovered a copying error they began the whole passage over and didn’t just use white out to cover htem istake- After they wrote the word God, they would throw the quill away and start with a new one

There was such a strict disciplined process for copying that not many people had the patience and dedication and skill to be a scribe

You and others like you make it seem like the copies were just so riddled with copying errors that it can’t ever be gtrusted- and nothing could be further from the truth

Here’s a link going over just some of how seriously scribes took their work- and it is apparent that the claim that the bible is full of copying errors is just an ignorant accusation

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13356-scribes

I would encourage you to do some actual unbiased objective research into just how seriously the scribes took their work- You owe it to them to find out the actual truth since you’ve insulted their intelligence and questioned their integrity and or copying skills- Had you been so careful and taken the efforts that these scribes did to make sure there were no mistakes, I don’t think you’d appreciate that years later people called into question your skills when the evidence actually supports that you did a good job

sorry that hsoudl have read that when the word ‘God’ was transcribed/copied, the pen must be newly dipped in ink- not thrown out-

By comparing texts, you see the differences. (And yes, a number of them are simple transcription errors, as if you wrote a small h for a small n.) Not everyone has the best handwriting.

And there are insertions and deletions found by comparing the actual texts too.

like I said, you obviously don't know much about the scribes and how seriously they took their jobs- it behooves you to research their work to discover for yourself that they did not write small h's for n's, nor did they delete or insert anything- They were strictly forbidden from adding or deleting anything and even from commenting on what they were transcribing If you want to make the case that later bible translators made minor mistakes In translating greek and Hebrew etc when putting together the various books of the bible- then that we can agree on however, These came much later and most of those mistakes are so minor as to matter very little to the actual contexts of the word, and those mistakes do nothing to undermine the infallibility of the word of God. I listed a link to a site which refutes many of the skeptic's assertions that the bible is 'riddled with errors'- the fact is that very few errors actually occurred, The earliest copies of the written word were actual word for word copies- - they were done by highly skilled and highly dedicated copiers who devoted their lives to making sure they made no errors

Again, not reconcilable.

Actually, not at all. Looking without the lens of “sola scriptura”, you find lots of thigns that contradict other details. Some are small, some are not as small.