Replies

Your alleged problem concerning Joseph's fathers resolves easily, as a natural consequence of the law of Moses and typical genealogical practice in Israel at the time:

This is a logical fallacy. You're arguing against the weaker point while ignoring the bigger and more glaring issue.

The bigger point is, that if every word in the Bible has a single source, meaning God, there shouldn't be any discrepancy in the stories at all. God knows all and is perfect. Therefore, His word should be perfect always.

Therefore, I can conclude that the Bible is not inerrant because there are flaws introduced by men.

Therefore, I can conclude that the Bible is not inerrant because there are flaws introduced by men.

But be sure to let your best FRiends know that the FR Religion Forum is now fixed and is much better able to serve everyone's religious posting needs. And all are welcome to resume their regular financial support of FR. Thanks.

SR: Your alleged problem concerning Joseph's fathers resolves easily, as a natural consequence of the law of Moses and typical genealogical practice in Israel at the time:

SP: This is a logical fallacy. You're arguing against the weaker point while ignoring the bigger and more glaring issue.

The bigger point is, that if every word in the Bible has a single source, meaning God, there shouldn't be any discrepancy in the stories at all. God knows all and is perfect. Therefore, His word should be perfect always.

Therefore, I can conclude that the Bible is not inerrant because there are flaws introduced by men.

No, that conclusion does not follow from the preceding information. For one thing, you seem to have entirely dismissed the consensus definition of inerrancy and replaced it with a standard you have crafted entirely on your own. To disprove what we believe inerrancy is, you have to work with our definition. Otherwise, you are only preaching to yourself. Of course, you are free to do that, but don't expect us to be much interested in it.

It's like my dad used to say: You can talk to yourself, and that's OK. You can even argue with yourself, and you're still alright. But when you start losing those arguments, that's when you know you are in real trouble. :)

Anyway, sorry, no, no fallacy in the two-genealogies solution for Joseph. Your so-called "bigger issue" looks to me like a "look over here" tactic. We addressed your supposed contradiction by showing the text was both accurate and self-consistent across both Gospels. Since that is the basis of your "larger issue," you failed to show in this case the discrepancy required to prove the bigger issue. If you wish to make your conclusion, you have to succeed in making the supporting premises work, and you have not done that. There is therefore no reason for us to proceed to consideration of your conclusion.

BTW, as an attorney, I don't look for testimony from multiple eyewitnesses to match up perfectly to a casual reading. In fact, if a good attorney sees that sort of "perfection," it is a red flag they are dealing with false testimony. In real testimony, people color it with their own perspective of the event, their own vocabulary, and their own view of the world. Getting and reconciling testimony from multiple sources gives the event a three-dimensional reality that is virtually impossible to fake. In such a context, most "discrepancies" are normally this kind of natural variance between individuals, not true discrepancies of fact. Each is true, but reporting things in a slightly different breakdown of the sequence. But taken as a whole, it is still the same sequence, and the right kind of so-called "discrepancies" actually help prove the truth of it..

So the burden is on you to show to a certainty that no means of reconciling the multiple inputs is possible under any construction. You have not met that burden, nor even moved the needle from the zero mark.

Peace,

SR

You're arguing against the weaker point while ignoring the bigger and more glaring issue.