otseng wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 10:36 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 3:04 am
That said, major or minor is I suppose how easily explainable it is and how much it impinges on credibility.
Not exactly sure what you mean. Are you saying all sources must agree on something in order for the Bible to be credible and if sources do not agree, then the Bible is then therefore not credible? Or are you saying that anything that invokes a supernatural cause immediately makes it not credible?
We have already seen (or we should have) how even an undeniably historical event (confirmed by the Assyrians) can still be something that affects Bible credibility: God did not smite the Assyrians.
The lack of agreement between us on what constitutes a major or a minor issue is why this is repeatedly brought up. As I argued before, it does not really matter how the Assyrians died and it was not the point of the text.
Thus it is (or so I argue) an example of the writers lying about what happened in order to support God - belief. It's significant; and that the siege was a real event is not the issue.
Lying would be hard to prove in this example.
But Matthew and Mark BOTH say nothing about it. It is a discrepancy not so easy to dismiss with 'Oh..they didn't think it important'. or ''they just forgot'. Like the omission of the raising of Lazarus or no transfiguration in John or indeed no tomb -guard anywhere but in Matthew, these are significant discrepancies or contradictions that can't easily be explained. And the more of them we get, the less credibly the gospels look as eyewitness report, even at second or third hand.
There is no need for all four gospels to all have the same content in order for the Bible to qualify as reliable.
but the resurrection is (as you agreed) basic to Christian doctrine.
Yes.
Major contradictions or discrepancies are, as I explained, ones that bring the credibility of the Bible -narrative into serious question and can't be easily explained. Obviously if the gospels (for instance) agree on something it is not going to be a discrepancy or contradiction. Also if easily explained or irrelevant (1) it is minor.
The lie about God saving Jerusalem when the evidence (when compared with the Assyrian account) shows that Hezekiah actually submitted and paid tribute, is pretty clear. It is significant precedent I'd say. You do yourself no credit by pulling distractions about major or minor contradictions, nor by references to 'how the Assyrians died' because that is the lie - the evidence says they didn't 'die' - not so as to save Jerusalem (you will not, I trust pull 'oh...well surely Some died..' so as not to make yourself a laughing -stock). If they had, Hezekiah would not have submitted and paid tribute, as both the Assyrians and the Bible say he did, though the Bible tries to cover that up. That's the Spin.
Neither do you do yourself or your case much credit by trying to pass off serious and major contradictions as 'not having the same content'. We know the excuse that minor disagreements enhance Bible veracity rather than damage it, but people are not dumb,
otseng , mate,and they can see that the major contradictions DO call Bible reliability into question as well as I can, and your ongoing refusal to see it (or pretend that you don't) harms the credit of your case and your own., mate,
But then I have come to learn that the believer doesn't care about trashing their own credibility and that of their belief, just so long as they can prop up their faith with denial. And it's not getting at you, mate; it's something that Believers catch, like C19, and it's not really their fault. It's a religious virus that harms the correct working of the brain.
(1) Doctrine is irrelevant to whether a part of the Bible narrative is credible or not, but obviously a discredited claim that takes a doctrine (like Virgin birth or the resurrection) down with it is additionally significant.
but the resurrection is (as you agreed) basic to Christian doctrine.
