God striking down?

stevejazzx

In religous studies when I was around 12 to 14 years old we learned of false prohets that God had struck down.
In the interim I have heard numerous stroies about God sriking down and supposedly killing sinners.
I've always been confused about the retribution of Jesus and God, especially if it leads to death for the sinner.
I am no authority on biblical text so was wondering if someone could tell me if there are examples of God killing anyone in the bible which are taken as fact?
My question then would be
"Is this a contradiction of the teaching of forgiveness".

Zombrex

stevejazzx wrote:

I am no authority on biblical text so was wondering if someone could tell me if there are examples of God killing anyone in the bible which are taken as fact?

Someone? Try everyone.

If one is a young earth creationists who takes Genesis literally you probably believe in the Biblical flood, where God wiped the slate clean because we are all sinning way to much and started again.

stevejazzx

Wicknight wrote:

Someone? Try everyone.

If one is a young earth creationists who takes Genesis literally you probably believe in the Biblical flood, where God wiped the slate clean because we are all sinning way to much and started again.

Yeah, you see this is the problem 'bible experts' keep caliming that many poplulary held beliefs are incorrect because certain ideas were supposedly just figuarative and taken out of context, and always the phrase 'you can't take it litreally ' comes into play.
I think it is easier for the sake of the question though that we find examples that are considered bona fide and that are relatively small like one or two prophets being struck down and discuss the merits of Gods action in that particular circumstance.
I imagine the answers I will get are that God works in mysterious ways and can contradict himself ad infinitum if he wants as he knows best.

bus77

Some of the stuff in the bible does be magnified to larger proportions. For example 'Nation' can somtimes be referring to a person.
So sometimes you could replace 'struck down' with; 'made very tired'

juddd

I have read some of genisis and the part about the great flood and noahs ark more or less say's that yes god was unhappy with the way adam and eve let god down and then all those sinners he looked down on and decided to wipe them out except fo0r noah and his ark, but after that god regreted doing what god did and tried to make amendsby vowing never to commit such an act again, im nt sure of the exact words but thats the general jist of it.

stevejazzx

juddd wrote:

I have read some of genisis and the part about the great flood and noahs ark more or less say's that yes god was unhappy with the way adam and eve let god down and then all those sinners he looked down on and decided to wipe them out except fo0r noah and his ark, but after that god regreted doing what god did and tried to make amendsby vowing never to commit such an act again, im nt sure of the exact words but thats the general jist of it.

You see this extract is the kinda thing that contradicts ideas of a all knowing all seeing god. If he was all knowing he would be infallable, able to see mistakes before they happen, God regretting something means he wasn't sure what he was doing initially so whose to say that anything he's supposedly done was right, maybe he made the heaven and earth on a whim.
What this shows is the bibles inconsistency. God forgives everyone except those he wants to strike down and regret later. Perhaps this is human error in the reporting of Gods power. If god is real perhaps the bible has recorded events in a fallable human way but then who can say what's real and what's not .

bus77

I notice Noah never said a word to anyone about it. Look's like he was a bit sick of people himself.

Asiaprod

stevejazzx wrote:

I am no authority on biblical text so was wondering if someone could tell me if there are examples of God killing anyone in the bible which are taken as fact?

I am not sure that there is anything in the Bible that can be taken as fact since it cannot be proved. The Bible requires one to exercise faith, quite a lot of it. If we for the sake of this question do away with the faith issue, there are hundreds of accounts of God striking down individuals, first born, cities, armies and in the end, the entire world, not to mention all the people struck down by his earthly representatives in his name. As to the second part of the question, "Is this a contradiction of the teaching of forgiveness," I would say definitely.

bus77

stevejazzx wrote:

In religous studies when I was around 12 to 14 years old we learned of false prohets that God had struck down.
In the interim I have heard numerous stroies about God sriking down and supposedly killing sinners.

My question then would be
"Is this a contradiction of the teaching of forgiveness".

hmm.... 24....

This is like saying, "President Palmer/Hogan drank tea in this episode
and Jack Bauer killed this scumbag fella in that episode. Is this not a contradiction in the ''run around and kill terrorists'' message of the show?"

stevejazzx wrote:

I've always been confused about the retribution of Jesus and God, especially if it leads to death for the sinner. I am no authority on biblical text so was wondering if someone could tell me if there are examples of God killing anyone in the bible which are taken as fact?

I'm no expert either. The general messege of the Bible is that we are all sinners, we all miss the mark of being perfect. God in the old testament does what he likes.

UU

Yes. From when I used to be Christian, that was always one concept of Christianity which bothered me deeply. I don't really believe in the Bible as non-fictional or realistic anymore, to be quite honest. Besides, anything that contradicts itself, annoys me so I'd prefer not to bother with it.

In saying that though, the Bible does hold spiritual teachings that are essentially quite valuable but the whole concept of God being portrayed as some mental masculine idol whole strikes down on people because they sin IMO is ridiculous. If he didn't want that then why bother to give us free will?

Well, let people believe in what they want. To me, I have more important things in my life than wondering about this and that in the Bible or Qur'an.

Pocari Sweat

As the bible was what a load of blokes wrote, it was made up of a load of auld stuff that was meant to sound impressive at the time, but now only knob eds take seriously, not wanting to insult anyone taking it true to its word.

Once you know it is a load of auld tripe, there are no arguments, but it does have some good discussion points and thats what it is all probably about.

If there was a god, obviously he would not go killing a load of people, that would be like a carpenter getting angry with a wooden thing he just made and smashing it up cos it was crap, and starting again, whilst swearing at it a lot.

A proper god would be cool and do things right without making cockups. And a proper god is probably what we have got, but the bible instead is a proper man made cock up and god is just having a chuckle sitting back watching a load of auld knob eds argue about it.

UU

Actually good point Pocari Sweat! But don't expect many people here to agree with you and expect hostility from Bible literalists and maybe stop caring what they think.

The Qur'an is the same. And I'm not trying to debunk Islam before anyone jumps on that bandwagon. It's just that I got a copy of it and I found it very annoying in that it completely contradicts itself worse than the Bible does. I was reading on women and one page it goes on about treating women well and protecting them and all, then the next page if she commits adultery, she is to be stoned to death! If it was really written by Allah (God), then methinks we are all screwed! Actually I think if the Bible turns out to be 100% valid and correct, then we are all screwed!

Talliesin

Pocari Sweat wrote:

As the bible was what a load of blokes wrote, it was made up of a load of auld stuff that was meant to sound impressive at the time, but now only knob eds take seriously, not wanting to insult anyone taking it true to its word.

Whether he wanted to insult anyone or not, I think we've had enough of this variety of religious debate. Pocari's gone. When normal moderation resumes after BrianCalgary's break, Brian may decide to unban him. I won't in the meantime, and I won't be surprised if Brian doesn't bother.

UU

What a shame! I sorta found what he had to say rather interesting. Perhaps, it would be better if he went to the Atheist forum to discuss his views? At least, I can't be banned for partially agreeing with his views!

Asiaprod

UU wrote:

Perhaps, it would be better if he went to the Atheist forum to discuss his views? At least, I can't be banned for partially agreeing with his views!

He did, he got a spell in purgatory for the effort, twice I believe. I don't think its the views UU, its the tone. IMO, it takes time to develop a non-confrontary approach. Arguments are good, they stimulate. Aggression only adds to the problems.

Talliesin

If he makes statements in the Atheism / Agnosticism forum in the same manner, I'll take that as a pattern and cat-ban him from all of religion / spirituality.

Let this be the last post on the matter here please (there are other places should you really want to discuss it further) and let's return to the topic of this thread.

Dades

Talliesin wrote:

If he makes statements in the Atheism / Agnosticism forum in the same manner, I'll take that as a pattern and cat-ban him from all of religion / spirituality.

He's still enjoying his second ban there too.

I did say I'd consider unbanning him if I got a PM with a good enough reason.
Interesting how he lasted so long here with his own brand of dissing peoples faith when he didn't last more than a week or two in A/A for the same thing.

Laserx

I think it's important to remember the context of the old testament; most of the stories were handed down by oral tradition, which was full of drama and bloodshed. As christians, we believe that the hebrew people were singled out by God and that he gradually revealed himself to them over the ages, culmimating in the great revelation which was Jesus. As a result of this fact the hebrews were were unique in their following of one god, as opposed the the many and varied gods of their neighbours. Even though the old testament is the revealed word of God, the people who handed down the stories were human, not angelic, so the stories are full of the human tradition of the time. We are lucky to live in an age where we are free to read the old testament with this in mind, and with open and questioning minds.

Don't give up questioning - remember faith is belief in the presence of doubt!

babyvaio

stevejazzx wrote:

You see this extract is the kinda thing that contradicts ideas of a all knowing all seeing god. If he was all knowing he would be infallable, able to see mistakes before they happen, God regretting something means he wasn't sure what he was doing initially so whose to say that anything he's supposedly done was right, maybe he made the heaven and earth on a whim.
What this shows is the bibles inconsistency. God forgives everyone except those he wants to strike down and regret later. Perhaps this is human error in the reporting of Gods power.

This is some weird stuff here. God of course knew that "people of Noah" wouldn't listen to him except a few. Noah preached to them for several hundred years, but majority wouldn't listen so finally he said a prayer to God saying that he was defeated, etc. God had known what Noah have asked and wiped out everybody except a few.
God does not regret anything. Regretting means making mistakes. He does not make mistakes. A mistake is a purely human attribute.

If god is real perhaps the bible has recorded events in a fallable human way but then who can say what's real and what's not .

The problem is that the original Bible as such does not exist any more, (somebody should correct me if I'm wrong, but by my knowledge i.e. English translation of the Bible first appeared in 15th century or so) if you find a contradiction in it, then it is from people (the Bible writers, etc.) and not from God. God made all things clear, but people - obviously - didn't record them properly.

It's a seriously good question - what's real and what's not.

BrianCalgary

babyvaio wrote:

The problem is that the original Bible as such does not exist any more, (somebody should correct me if I'm wrong, but by my knowledge i.e. English translation of the Bible first appeared in 15th century or so) if you find a contradiction in it, then it is from people (the Bible writers, etc.) and not from God. God made all things clear, but people - obviously - didn't record them properly.

The earliest copy of Hebrew scripture dated form the 10th century. The Dead Sea scrolls were found in the 1940's. They were written in the 2nd? century BC. The scrolls matched the aforementioned scripture form the 10th century. The King James version and all other English versions of the Old Testament are translated from these manuscripts. The Bible is the most reliable of any ancient document based on its accuracy and understanding that what we have is actually what the author wrote.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

The earliest copy of Hebrew scripture dated form the 10th century. The Dead Sea scrolls were found in the 1940's. They were written in the 2nd? century BC. The scrolls matched the aforementioned scripture form the 10th century. The King James version and all other English versions of the Old Testament are translated from these manuscripts. The Bible is the most reliable of any ancient document based on its accuracy and understanding that what we have is actually what the author wrote.

...disputed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

i think we've touched on something very interesting, if the bible was recorded by humans and humans are undoubtedly imperfect (in many ways), then the only logical conclusion is that the bible is full of inconsistencies and errors about god. Also how did humans 2 thousand years full of scientific ignorance explain a bad strom? I suppose they must of strongly believed that every weather movement, no matter how small, was orchestrated directly from god. So therefore not only were the bible writers imperfect as human s, they were also igonrant and superstitous.

bus77

stevejazzx wrote:

i think we've touched on something very interesting, if the bible was recorded by humans and humans are undoubtedly imperfect (in many ways), then the only logical conclusion is that the bible is full of inconsistencies and errors about god. Also how did humans 2 thousand years full of scientific ignorance explain a bad strom? I suppose they must of strongly believed that every weather movement, no matter how small, was orchestrated directly from god.

I'd go along with that.

stevejazzx wrote:

So therefore not only were the bible writers imperfect as human s, they were also igonrant and superstitous.

ohh noes..
The Bible writers weren't nessisarly writing about themselves or their own views.

stevejazzx

bus77 wrote:

I'd go along with that.

ohh noes..
The Bible writers weren't nessisarly writing about themselves or their own views.

when i say ignorant i mean scientifically (through no faut of their own)
With all the things we can now explain with science, they would've naturally attributed to god. Thye were superstitous in the belief that god was vengeful and could punish, and every death was treated like a punishment or gods will instead of a horrible accident or just fate.

bus77

stevejazzx wrote:

when i say ignorant i mean scientifically (through no faut of their own)
With all the things we can now explain with science, they would've naturally attributed to god. Thye were superstitous in the belief that god was vengeful and could punish, and every death was treated like a punishment or gods will instead of a horrible accident or just fate.

ahh yeah, I see where your coming from. Perhaps a reason for death where there is none

stevejazzx

bus77 wrote:

ahh yeah, I see where your coming from. Perhaps a reason for death where there is none

Exactly, if you believe in god you attribute eveything that happens to him, this is where the idea of free will comes in handy for religon for it allows god to stand back and say no 'I gave you free will' eveything that happens is your doing and in the end I will jugde'.
So what this leaves us with is another contradiction because religous people who believe in free will still pray to god to get him to intervene in wordly affairs, if he did, he would interfering with our free will; and we know from the bible that he has interfered in the past in many things, so did biblical peolpe not have free will?
If free will is something god gave us why didn't he begin the world like that? If faith is central to our love of god why were the people of biblical times able to experience god first hand only for future generations to agonise over his existence because he never appears at all.
Why did god allow himself and his idea and notion be recorded incorrectly(the people of the time were supersttious and primitive) in a text like the bible knowing that it would be passed down through generations and have enormous power.

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

Why did god allow himself and his idea and notion be recorded incorrectly(the people of the time were supersttious and primitive) in a text like the bible knowing that it would be passed down through generations and have enormous power.

And, indeed, why only in a local version?

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote:

And, indeed, why only in a local version?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Exactly...

BrianCalgary

stevejazzx wrote:

Exactly, if you believe in god you attribute eveything that happens to him, this is where the idea of free will comes in handy for religon for it allows god to stand back and say no 'I gave you free will' eveything that happens is your doing and in the end I will jugde'.
So what this leaves us with is another contradiction because religous people who believe in free will still pray to god to get him to intervene in wordly affairs, if he did, he would interfering with our free will; and we know from the bible that he has interfered in the past in many things, so did biblical peolpe not have free will? .

Prayer in this case is inviting God into a situation. We are choosing to invite Him to the party instead of leaving Him out in the cold. He gladly shows up and becomes the 'life' of the party.

stevejazzx wrote:

If free will is something god gave us why didn't he begin the world like that? .

He did. He gave Adam and Eve free will.

stevejazzx wrote:

If faith is central to our love of god why were the people of biblical times able to experience god first hand only for future generations to agonise over his existence because he never appears at all..

He does appear, in the lives of many people who will give testimony to that.

stevejazzx wrote:

Why did god allow himself and his idea and notion be recorded incorrectly(the people of the time were supersttious and primitive) in a text like the bible knowing that it would be passed down through generations and have enormous power.

I don't think He allowed Himself to be recorded incorrectly at all.

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

...disputed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Which bit is disputed?

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Which bit is disputed?

This bit:

BrianCalgary wrote:

The Bible is the most reliable of any ancient document based on its accuracy and understanding that what we have is actually what the author wrote.

This is a statement of your belief, not of fact. There is a chunk of thread on the question of the accuracy of the Bible.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

This bit:



This is a statement of your belief, not of fact. There is a chunk of thread on the question of the accuracy of the Bible.

cordially,
Scofflaw

This is what is fact: The King James version of the OT was copied from a 12th century Hebrew text. This text was the earliest copy of an OT that existed. Until 1947 when the Dead Sea scrolls were found. The scrolls contained parts of every book of the OT but Esther. Aside from a few spelling variations the Dead Sea scrolls matched the 12th century copy.

On the NT there are over 27,000 manuscripts of the NT in existence with the earlisest dating to about AD 70. The NT reports on events that happened 40 - 70 years earlier.

In comparison the Iliad by Homer is the next best with about 900 manuscripts with the earliest being approx 1100 years after Homer wrote it.

Historical sholars will tell you that based on the manuscript evidence for the Homers work we can surmise that what we have is as the authors wrote it. The Bible far outweighs the next closest competitor. The OT as we have it is as it was written by it's authors. There is absolutely no question on this FACT by any serious historian.

with all due respect
Brian

irishpaddy

stevejazzx wrote:

Yeah, you see this is the problem 'bible experts' keep caliming that many poplulary held beliefs are incorrect because certain ideas were supposedly just figuarative and taken out of context, and always the phrase 'you can't take it litreally ' comes into play.
I think it is easier for the sake of the question though that we find examples that are considered bona fide and that are relatively small like one or two prophets being struck down and discuss the merits of Gods action in that particular circumstance.
I imagine the answers I will get are that God works in mysterious ways and can contradict himself ad infinitum if he wants as he knows best.

the problem with people that can find no way of proving that GOD exists is because of their own very small way of thinking means nothing is greater then them, maybe not themselves, but them as mankind with women thrown in. you say GOD works in mysterious ways, are you not a bit puzzled at the actions in the middle east right now, we; mankind have been making the same mistakes; just like they are making since we were created. maybe just maybe the only way we will stop making these mistakes is to addmit to ourselves is that we dont have all the answers and we really dont know it all.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

This is what is fact: The King James version of the OT was copied from a 12th century Hebrew text. This text was the earliest copy of an OT that existed. Until 1947 when the Dead Sea scrolls were found. The scrolls contained parts of every book of the OT but Esther. Aside from a few spelling variations the Dead Sea scrolls matched the 12th century copy.

On the NT there are over 27,000 manuscripts of the NT in existence with the earlisest dating to about AD 70. The NT reports on events that happened 40 - 70 years earlier.

In comparison the Iliad by Homer is the next best with about 900 manuscripts with the earliest being approx 1100 years after Homer wrote it.

Historical sholars will tell you that based on the manuscript evidence for the Homers work we can surmise that what we have is as the authors wrote it. The Bible far outweighs the next closest competitor. The OT as we have it is as it was written by it's authors. There is absolutely no question on this FACT by any serious historian.

with all due respect
Brian

You have missed out a major point. There are indeed thousands of manuscripts of the NT/OT - but they don't all agree. There are copyists errors, interpolations, mistranslations, errors, omissions.

Like any modern version of an ancient document, the Bible is a synthetic work.

For example: http://www.bible-researcher.com/

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

The Bible is the most reliable of any ancient document based on its accuracy and understanding that what we have is actually what the author wrote.

Suppose it depends on what you mean by "reliable"

It is certainly unlikely that the newer revised editions of the Bible, such as the New American Bible are that different than the ones written thousands of years ago, since most are translated from the orginal Greek or Hewbrew text, and is why they don't include statements such that Mary was a virigin, or the Old Testement prophey of a virgin birth, since they were not in the original text.

But if by reliable you mean "accurately describe actual events and people" that is in serious doubt.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

In comparison the Iliad by Homer is the next best with about 900 manuscripts with the earliest being approx 1100 years after Homer wrote it.

I'm not sure anyone has ever claimed that the Iliad accurately describes real events or people

stevejazzx

irishpaddy wrote:

the problem with people that can find no way of proving that GOD exists is because of their own very small way of thinking means nothing is greater then them, maybe not themselves, but them as mankind with women thrown in. you say GOD works in mysterious ways, are you not a bit puzzled at the actions in the middle east right now, we; mankind have been making the same mistakes; just like they are making since we were created. maybe just maybe the only way we will stop making these mistakes is to addmit to ourselves is that we dont have all the answers and we really dont know it all.

i think you need to read my post again, I didn't say that god worked in mysterious ways I was quoting christians, i myself am an atheist so.....
as for the rest of your post I have idea who you are directing it at, I never said i had all the answers or anything like that...

stevejazzx

BrianCalgary wrote:

Prayer in this case is inviting God into a situation. We are choosing to invite Him to the party instead of leaving Him out in the cold. He gladly shows up and becomes the 'life' of the party.

This wasn't my point, my point was that christians with free will praying for god to intervene in some situation in their life seemed pointless as how then would god judge them if every time they have a peoblem he solves it for them, moreover how will free will work if god keeps interfering.

BrianCalgary wrote:

He did. He gave Adam and Eve free will.

Adam and eve is one helluva story but...
Again god interferes and judges while on earth (when did decide to stop this practice is what I meant by 'why didn't he start the world this way'?), adam toils the field and eve makes clothes and has the pain of childbirth?

BrianCalgary wrote:

He does appear, in the lives of many people who will give testimony to that.

Sorry to be light, but people have seen everything from ufo to unicorns, doesn't prove anything, god appearing to few also make s no sense, why the inconsistancy, why bring more confusion as to his existence in allowing only a few to experience him or his persence.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I don't think He allowed Himself to be recorded incorrectly at all.

[/quote]

So do you believe in the god killing false prohets, childern women etc, plauges, floods, an emotional god who gets angry, vengeful, regretful...
a god with humanised features..this is god of the bible is it not?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not sure anyone has ever claimed that the Iliad accurately describes real events or people

The question is are the words as the author originally wrote. So the amount of manuscript evidence with regard to the Bible would indicate that what we have access to is as the author wrote. As the Iliad as we have it is as Homer wrote it.

stevejazzx

BrianCalgary wrote:

The question is are the words as the author originally wrote. So the amount of manuscript evidence with regard to the Bible would indicate that what we have access to is as the author wrote. As the Iliad as we have it is as Homer wrote it.

Your splitting hairs, the Illiad is clearly a work of fiction whereas many still proclaim the bible as fact

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

You have missed out a major point. There are indeed thousands of manuscripts of the NT/OT - but they don't all agree. There are copyists errors, interpolations, mistranslations, errors, omissions.

Like any modern version of an ancient document, the Bible is a synthetic work.

For example: http://www.bible-researcher.com/

cordially,
Scofflaw

what are you referring to specifically on that website?

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

what are you referring to specifically on that website?

The work, in general, of comparing versions of original manuscripts. The complaints of Jerome about scribal interpolations etc.

Overall, the mere existence of a body of workers whose work is the investigation and reconciliation of the various copies, recensions, versions, translations etc of Biblical material - all of which enables the relatively frequent production of new versions which disagree in subtle but important ways with other versions. There are differences, for example, over matters as fundamental as the virgin birth of Christ, and as secondary as the interpretation of malakos.

An extraordinary claim is made for the Bible, as opposed to any other ancient document, which renders less than meaningful the comparison with secular works such as the Iliad. It is either 100% accurate and reliably what the original (inspired) authors wrote, or it contains the possibiity of errancy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

The question is are the words as the author originally wrote. So the amount of manuscript evidence with regard to the Bible would indicate that what we have access to is as the author wrote. As the Iliad as we have it is as Homer wrote it.

True, but it is the conclusions that what the author(s) wrote actually happened the way the describe is where you run into difficulty.

Also as Scoflaw points out, just because we have accurate version from 2000 years ago, doesn't mean we have the same version from 4000 or 5000 years ago

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

True, but it is the conclusions that what the author(s) wrote actually happened the way the describe is where you run into difficulty.

This is where we disagree as other evidence used by historians points to the events of the NT as being accurate.

Also as any new finds are made by historians they agree with the events of the OT as also being accurate.

Wicknight wrote:

Also as Scoflaw points out, just because we have accurate version from 2000 years ago, doesn't mean we have the same version from 4000 or 5000 years ago

We will respectfully disagree here as the Jewish oral tradition is quite reliable and understood as such. So the Dead Sea scrolls written down based on the oral tradition would have been accurate, and who is to say that they weren't copied from lost manuscripts dated from the end of the OT period?

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

This is where we disagree as other evidence used by historians points to the events of the NT as being accurate.

Also as any new finds are made by historians they agree with the events of the OT as also being accurate.

Confirmation of the occasional point in the Biblical version of history does not really bolster the accuracy of the Bible. The Welsh legend of Magnus Maximus also has points of correspondence to real history, but that does not make it true. Most points of agreement between the Bible and history are of a very general kind (that So-and-so actually existed, for example, as opposed to confirming his activities as recorded by the Bible).

Any point of disagreement with history, on the other hand, invalidates the inerrancy of the whole. From that perspective, there remains the enormous problem of Genesis.

BrianCalgary wrote:

We will respectfully disagree here as the Jewish oral tradition is quite reliable and understood as such. So the Dead Sea scrolls written down based on the oral tradition would have been accurate, and who is to say that they weren't copied from lost manuscripts dated from the end of the OT period?

And who's to say they were?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

This is where we disagree as other evidence used by historians points to the events of the NT as being accurate.

Which events?

The only third party account of the events in the NT simply confirms that yes there might have been a Jewish cult with a leader called Jesus.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Also as any new finds are made by historians they agree with the events of the OT as also being accurate.

Again, which ones.

For example, the parting of the reed sea (a swamp land cutting off parts of Northern Eygpt from the middle east. The "red" sea that you find in bibles is actually, another, mistranslation) and the exodus of the hewbrews from Eygpt is actually now thought by modern historians to have been based on a series of floods and volcanic erruptions that would have disturbed northern Egypt possibly causing a series of slave revolts.

There is no external evidence on one mass exodus, or of a leader named Moses. As with most myth and legend, parts of reality are inter woven with fiction to produce compelling stories. Multiple events, and multiple characters are combined to form a more cohesive narrative. Facts are added, facts are removed, events are altered, places changed.

This happens even today, with the "Inspired by a true story" Hollywood movies. Anything I read in the Bible, OT and NT, I always mentally flash up "Inspired by a true story" message in my own head.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/moses/evidence/redsea.shtml

BrianCalgary wrote:

We will respectfully disagree here as the Jewish oral tradition is quite reliable and understood as such

I suppose we will have to, since I see no evidence to believe that is true.