How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[alexxcJRO]

Flood stories are found in all cultures around the globe, or at least in all near rivers. Indeed, it would be exceedingly strange if flood stories were NOT widespread since floods are so common, thousands every year. As you say, stories grow legs. Each re-teller wants his version to get attention. These things are like fish stories

That would be true for local floods, however global flood stories would be quite a claim. Yes, global flood stories would each have their own embellishments, like all legends. But, the question is why is this found all around the world in various cultures? Not only that, the flood stories have specific details that match the Biblical account. What can account for that? I can only think of three possibilities: it could be coincidence, there was a common legend that passed on to all cultures around the world, or there actually was a worldwide flood.

According to ancient astronaut proponent Zecharia Sitchin interpretation of ancient Mesopotamian religious texts a giant planet Nibiru passes by Earth every 3,600 years and wracks havok among our solar system. Its passage close to Earth exerts a gravitational tug on our planet and causes cataclysmic pole shift (geologically rapid shifts in the relative positions of the modern-day geographic locations of the poles and the axis of rotation of our planet) causing calamities such as floods and tectonic events.
This rapid shift of the poles explains in the proponents mind the frozen mammoths with undigested grass in their stomach and other such weird occurrences.
The believers of such wild things also believe the legends concerning global floods as in Noah’s story or other such things like ancient Mexican flood myths were inspired by the cataclysm caused by the passage of Nibiru.

Stories of great floods are some of humanity’s oldest stories. The usual suspects are tsunamis(causes - earthquakes, mountain huge rock slides, oceanic asteroid impacts), glacial outburst floods, and catastrophic flooding of lowlands. Noah’s flood legend possibly inspired by catastrophic inundation that possibly happened when the post-glacial rise in sea level breached the Bosporus and decanted the Mediterranean into a lowland freshwater valley, forming the Black Sea or cataclysmic lowland flooding in estuarine Mesopotamia.

[Difflugia]

According to ancient astronaut proponent Zecharia Sitchin interpretation of ancient Mesopotamian religious texts a giant planet Nibiru passes by Earth every 3,600 years and wracks havok among our solar system. Its passage close to Earth exerts a gravitational tug on our planet and causes cataclysmic pole shift (geologically rapid shifts in the relative positions of the modern-day geographic locations of the poles and the axis of rotation of our planet) causing calamities such as floods and tectonic events.

I always had a soft spot for Zechariah Sitchin and loved reading his books as a palate cleanser between apologetics authors. It takes a special kind of person to make Erich von Däniken seem rational.

[alexxcJRO]

According to ancient astronaut proponent Zecharia Sitchin interpretation of ancient Mesopotamian religious texts a giant planet Nibiru passes by Earth every 3,600 years and wracks havok among our solar system. Its passage close to Earth exerts a gravitational tug on our planet and causes cataclysmic pole shift (geologically rapid shifts in the relative positions of the modern-day geographic locations of the poles and the axis of rotation of our planet) causing calamities such as floods and tectonic events.

I always had a soft spot for Zechariah Sitchin and loved reading his books as a palate cleanser between apologetics authors. It takes a special kind of person to make Erich von Däniken seem rational.

Yeah is refreshing to stimulate our brains occasionally with a new story, new idea and get a break from the same same old stories.
It amazes me sometimes to what lengths humans and human imagination go.
The Anunnaki will soon be upon us.

[TRANSPONDER]

Just a possible suggestion as to why flood stories are ubiquitous. When you read them, they don't look much like the Flood story.

Again, the question remains why stories would share similar details.

"Flood stories pervade hundreds of cultures and there are striking similarities to many of the accounts. It seems that at least some of these stories could be based upon actual events."
https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blo ... d-stories/

"A good deal of similarity exists between several of the flood myths, leading scholars to believe that these have evolved from or influenced each other."
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Great_Flood

How would cultures across the globe have influenced each other? Or if they all evolved from a single source, how could that have happened?

It just doesn't seem possible now we know the world is round and you'd have to get everything on board including whales, disease bacteria and prehistoric animals.

The FM is based on the world being round, so it's possible.

Whales or any other marine animal did not need to be in the ark. Microbes, though they could be on the ark, are pretty hardy by themselves. They can even survive in outer space.

It's been pointed out that Egypt and China do not have Flood stories, any nobody kept records of these early times like they did.

Yes, China has flood stories.

"There are many sources of flood myths in ancient Chinese literature. Some appear to refer to a worldwide deluge."
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/en ... lood#China

Egypt had a flood myth, but it was of blood.

"The flood myth in Egyptian mythology involves the god Ra and his daughter Sekhmet. Ra sent Sekhmet to destroy part of humanity for their disrespect and unfaithfulness which resulted in a great flood of blood."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths

I am not going to let you waste my time.

I'm simply asking for you to back up your claim. But, if you can't back it up, then we can consider your claim to be an unsupported claim.

I have said what the pre -flood deposits were - the strata under the unconformity and overlying the basal rock that you'd made a big deal about.

They are not pre-flood. The tilted supergroup was formed during the flood as I explained in post 410:

How can the angular unconformity be explained in the Grand Canyon?

The sedimentary layers are formed from rock being eroded at the mid-oceanic ridges. The tilted supergroup formation was formed by erosion of the Pacific ridge west of the American continent. After this strata was deposited, tectonic activity caused the layers to be tilted. Then the layers in the tonto group and above were formed by the continental crust eroded along the mid-Atlantic ridge.

I'd say the Bible sure ain't the true account and (as said in many other contexts) science has made its' case so often and the Bible accounts been shown wrong that maybe science deserves better than you dissing it because it doesn't support Genesis.

Here is the fundamental flaw in your argument -- I never used or appealed to the Bible when presenting the FM. I only used secular sources for my evidence. So, because the FM coincides with what the Bible says, then the FM is a priori rejected. It doesn't matter what evidence or arguments is presented. Because it happens to affirm the Bible, then it is on that basis it is rejected. How can I say this? Because this is exactly what happened when Bretz (who is not a Christian) theorized that the Washington Scablands was formed by a catastrophic flood. It was rejected by others because it sounded too much like the Bible. But, it was only later accepted when ice dams (which there was no evidence for) were proposed to have multiple, local floods instead of a single, massive flood.

There is evidence for tectonic plate movement on top of olten rock

What molten rock are you speaking of? Do you mean the molten rock at the plate boundaries? If so, it is molten only because of the forces of the plates crushing against each other, not because of any source deep within the earth.

Otseng, mate, why don't you accept that Genesis is a myth adapted from a myth, and you'd embarrass yourself less if you swallowed that and just went for cafeteria Christianity instead?

Posturing and claiming I'm embarrassing myself doesn't help your case.

(1) according to your theory of the break -up of Pangaea with the flood causing the mountains to pile up, they should be on the east of America and West of Africa, but they are on the West of America and only a continental bow -wave could cause it.

No, it does make more sense that the largest deformation would be on the west coast. The American plate was moving west. Which side of a car would you expect to have more deformation when it runs into a wall, the front or the back?

Though I'm reluctant to open up this can of worms, I am horribly fascinated by human capacity to follow instinctive thinking which includes ad hoc justification of a personal viewpoint and how this is the method of political thinking, religious thinking and cult -thinking, and I found that UFO - believer apologetics made just the same arguments and excuses (including science -dissing) as Creationist apologetics does.

Not sure who you're referring to, but I assume it's me. Regardless, attacking the person, rather than arguments, is an ad hominem fallacy and doesn't help your case either.

The global flood - stories are as likely and more likely to be due to a common human story -making instinct and not your strawman shared cuture. Which in fact you must be arguing for as the Noah story shared by global transmission, unless you are postulating that much of humanity survived. Which is it? And if they were Noah's descendants telling the Noah story, why are the tales so different?

Also I have discussed the China flood here and the Egypt flood elsewhere. They are not anything like a global flood -s tory. The Egypt story is a Nile - pollution story related as I recall to the creation -myth and the Chinese story is about river flooding and how it was managed.

As to your reference to you earlier post
"How can the angular unconformity be explained in the Grand Canyon?
The sedimentary layers are formed from rock being eroded at the mid-oceanic ridges. The tilted supergroup formation was formed by erosion of the Pacific ridge west of the American continent. After this strata was deposited, tectonic activity caused the layers to be tilted. Then the layers in the tonto group and above were formed by the continental crust eroded along the mid-Atlantic ridge."

This is glib. eroded by what? The flood? But the erosion is of the strata already laid down. Further that says, the tilting is not caused by erosion but tectonic activity, which I supposed was caused by the Flood. Why can't you see the problem here? It is the same reason as you pretend you don't know what under rock (mantle) molten rock is, even if you don't believe it. It's even been discussed before, where do you think volcanic lava comes from? This, like tectonic activity is going on today long after Flood activity supposedly ended. Why are you ignoring or denying this evidence? I have suggested that you stop embarrassing yourself and you choose to take it personally or try to make a cheap point out of it. Very well.

I was talking generally about Theist -thinking (which I recall was obviously what I was saying). But yes it does apply also to creationist arguments and science -dissing. Don't think that you can filibuster a cheap point. I am going to deal with your claims even though I will not be sent on a wild goose chase of former posts. I will deal with them here as per post.

What else have you got? The side (front) of a car (continent) is running into a wall. What wall? The flood water? But the Hydroplate theory has the plate shifting caused by the water from the fountain, which would be on the east. Do you even understand your own Flood model?

Yes I gather that the Hydroplate theory does have a round earth but aren't all the diagrams showing flat ground? On the continental scale this would have to be curved, and even worse, one diagram shows not a reservoir but a shallow under -surface layer of water. I suppose the idea is collapse of the 'roof' ...no, a fountain makes no sense A collapse into the water causing an apparent flood might be more feasible but not a spout causing the broken lid to slide apart on the water apparently with all the (sorted) animals already aboard. It's trying to cram too much into one continual action.

[TRANSPONDER]

Flood legends.

On the face of it and superficially, Genesis - literalists only have to point to Flood legends from everywhere and that is supposed to be evidence. Skeptics look like they are in the position of explaining evidence away by criticising this apologetic.

The fact is that they often look very different and often strikingly the same. It is worth ŋoing to Talk Origins and reading all the flood stories and asking whether those could credibly be related versions of Noh's Ark - unless the idea is that many other people survived. In which case, even if there was a global flood, it wasn't doing what God supposedly intended.

Now as to the Chinese Flood, it is simplistic and indeed crafty to say 'There is a Chinese flood story'

"This theme is based on the efforts of Great Yu (and Gun) to control the flood, sometimes is also associated with Emperor Yao and Shun, and the initial efforts of human to domesticated wild animals as pack animals and livestock.[2] The theme outline narrates Gun stole xirang to stop the flood while Great Yu channeled the flood into the sea and succeeded to subsided the water level, and so the earth can be cultivated." (Wiki)

This is clearly about river -flooding, an eternal worry in China. It is NOT support for a Noachian flood. Neither is the Egyptian flood. It is about polluting the Nile (it's flooding was life giving) and is sometimes linked with a creation/ destruction myth to try to make it look Global/total which it isn't. The fact remains that China and Egypt do not record the Noachian global Flood.

One has to ask why Flood apologists are willing to mispresent these stories, falsifying the evidence. I suggest it's because Bible apologetics are Faith -based and the purpose of evidence is to support what is known to be true on Faith, and it's ok to fiddle the evidence if it does that.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is a comprehensive summary of the Egyptian 'Flood' (from Quora).
Most Egyptologists will tell you that there is no Egyptian flood myth. Certainly, there is no equivalent to the world-destroying deluge tales found in some other cultures. Part of the reason for this is that the annual Nile inundation was viewed as essential to agricultural success and the fertility of the land.

The closest we come to a flood myth is a mid second millennium BCE composition (http://www.etana.org/sites/default/file ... /20625.pdf - pp 388–399 or Myth of the Heavenly Cow) that describes a decision by the high god Ra (a solar deity) to destroy humanity because they were plotting against him. In this myth he sends the goddess Hathor and (or as) the lion goddess Sekhmet to slaughter the rebels. This occurs on dry land in a mountainous region, so there is no flood as an instrument of destruction. However, the myth does describe Sekhmet wading in the blood of humans, and Ra ultimately decides to limit the killing by flooding the land with beer dyed with red ocher. Believing it to be blood, Sekhmet drinks her fill, becomes intoxicated and forgets to finish the slaughter. This element of the story appears to be an etiology for the great drinking festivals associated with the worship of Sekhmet and Hathor (sometimes called “Mistress of Drunkenness”). See e.g. Sekhmet - Wikipedia, . There may be an additional association with the first, red-silted waters of the annual Nile floods

Whether than can be regarded as supporting the Genesis/Noachian Flood has to be up to the individual. The flooding of the fields rather looks like saving human life, not destroying it.

[otseng]

Many of these accounts share elements:
A punishing God who is angry that people have broken his laws [sinned].
The lone hero who grabs a log, builds a raft, or constructs a substantial boat.
The collection of species to use to renew the world.
A bird that is sent from the vessel as a possible indicator of land re-emerging from the waters.

After some reflection, none of these elements should surprise:
The appeal to a god who punishes 'bad' behavior is universal.
The myth of the Hero is well documented in mythology [e.g. Joseph Campbell's many works on myth, including The Hero with a Thousand Faces.
The hero building a boat is an obvious solution the the flood. What else could he do?
Obviously, when the world is being destroyed (renewed) seeds and animals must be preserved.
What more logical way would preindustrial man have at his disposal, for testing whether there is dry land, than to send out a bird to see if it returns.

Yes, the story does not come as a surprise in that things would follow common sense.

But, there is another class of explanations which include the concept of syncretism:

Syncretism is the merging or assimilation of several mythologies or religions, a process well known by anthropologists.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Native ... cal-change

Syncretism is definitely prevalent in world religions. As a matter of fact, practically all existing world religions either mention or have a modified version of Jesus Christ in it. So, getting back to the influence of Jesus, it's interesting that Jesus Christ even has influenced the major world religions.

Jesus in Hinduism:
"Looking at these criteria Jesus measures up as a Sadhu, a holy man. He preached a universal message, love of God and love of brother, which was beyond any sectarianism or selfishness. Jesus was one of those people who appealed from heart to heart, and that's what makes him such a good Hindu Saint."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religion ... us_1.shtml

Jesus in Islam:
"In Islam,ʿĪsā ibn Maryam (Arabic: عِيسَى ٱبْنُ مَرْيَمَ, lit. 'Jesus, son of Mary'), is the penultimate prophet and messenger of God (Allah) and the Messiah, who was sent to guide the Children of Israel with a revelation: Injīl (Arabic for "gospel")."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

Jesus in Buddhism, Taoism:
"The Jesus Sutras say that Jesus 'put on' the five Skandhas, to save all living beings from Samsara, the endless repetition of birth, life and death."
https://www.thehistoryquarter.com/post/ ... ristianity

Jesus in Baha'i:
"As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended."
https://www.bahai.us/christianity/

You can even say Jesus has been highly influential with New Atheism.

[otseng]

With all these creation and flood myths we are expected by the Christian faction to accept absolutely only one of them, the account in Genesis. It seems the height of ethnocentric arrogance to pronounce ONE scripture out of thousands of similar traditions that represents the 'one true belief.'
Why should the Biblical account in Genesis be considered the inerrant word of God, and the one and only true account?

Note that this thread dismisses inerrancy, so it's not quite a relevant question. But, it is true that Christianity makes exclusive claims.

John 3:36 (KJV)
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 14:6 (KJV)
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Acts 4:12 (KJV)
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

1Tim 2:5 (KJV)
For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

So, I think the better question is how can Jesus be the only way to God? That would be quite a arrogant claim. But, if it's true, then it's not an arrogant claim, but simply the truth.

Like I can claim that I am the master of this forum and have the ability to have full control of what people do on this forum. Is that an arrogant statement? If it's anybody else that made that claim, it would be arrogant because it would be false. But, since I alone have access to the code and the database, it would not be arrogant.

So, just because an exclusive claim is made doesn't necessarily mean it's arrogant or even false.

[mgb]

So, I think the better question is how can Jesus be the only way to God?

I think we are talking about the spirit of Jesus here, not the human being. Origen said Jesus is with God from the beginning and this is how creation is redeemed. Regardless of whether one is a Buddhist or whatever, all are save by the spirit of Jesus in creation at large. So there is no need for arrogance in the context of religion or of 'our' religion being the 'only' way. The spirit of Jesus is in all paths of redemption.

[TRANSPONDER]

Many of these accounts share elements:
A punishing God who is angry that people have broken his laws [sinned].
The lone hero who grabs a log, builds a raft, or constructs a substantial boat.
The collection of species to use to renew the world.
A bird that is sent from the vessel as a possible indicator of land re-emerging from the waters.

After some reflection, none of these elements should surprise:
The appeal to a god who punishes 'bad' behavior is universal.
The myth of the Hero is well documented in mythology [e.g. Joseph Campbell's many works on myth, including The Hero with a Thousand Faces.
The hero building a boat is an obvious solution the the flood. What else could he do?
Obviously, when the world is being destroyed (renewed) seeds and animals must be preserved.
What more logical way would preindustrial man have at his disposal, for testing whether there is dry land, than to send out a bird to see if it returns.

Yes, the story does not come as a surprise in that things would follow common sense.

But, there is another class of explanations which include the concept of syncretism:

Syncretism is the merging or assimilation of several mythologies or religions, a process well known by anthropologists.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Native ... cal-change

Syncretism is definitely prevalent in world religions. As a matter of fact, practically all existing world religions either mention or have a modified version of Jesus Christ in it. So, getting back to the influence of Jesus, it's interesting that Jesus Christ even has influenced the major world religions.

Jesus in Hinduism:
"Looking at these criteria Jesus measures up as a Sadhu, a holy man. He preached a universal message, love of God and love of brother, which was beyond any sectarianism or selfishness. Jesus was one of those people who appealed from heart to heart, and that's what makes him such a good Hindu Saint."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religion ... us_1.shtml

Jesus in Islam:
"In Islam,ʿĪsā ibn Maryam (Arabic: عِيسَى ٱبْنُ مَرْيَمَ, lit. 'Jesus, son of Mary'), is the penultimate prophet and messenger of God (Allah) and the Messiah, who was sent to guide the Children of Israel with a revelation: Injīl (Arabic for "gospel")."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

Jesus in Buddhism, Taoism:
"The Jesus Sutras say that Jesus 'put on' the five Skandhas, to save all living beings from Samsara, the endless repetition of birth, life and death."
https://www.thehistoryquarter.com/post/ ... ristianity

Jesus in Baha'i:
"As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended."
https://www.bahai.us/christianity/

You can even say Jesus has been highly influential with New Atheism.

And old atheism, too. New and old atheism being the same except that it got its' hands on the internet. 'New' atheism was a term invented by theists who had a problem with it, even though I don't mind it other than it gives the impression that it's some different kind of atheism. It isn't.

That said, the influence of Christianity and its' totem figure is undeniable. We have to be very wary of the Christian ploy of trying to argue that the success or influence of Christianity somehow is evidence of its' truth.

And just a look back at the OP. Which hopefully has been answered. Inerrancy in the strict sense isn't the discussion. It only means that God isn't micromanaging his Book. This is unarguable as Christians generally don't argue that the book is perfect and without error or flaw. Rather they argue that the errors are man's but the inspiration, message and general truth is from God.

Bible critics have contested this, saying that too much is wrong, inaccurate and self contradictory to suppose that any of it is from a god. It has to be the work of man.

While related to inerrancy' it is not an inerrancy argument but a reliability argument. Bible apologists will (of course) misrepresent the discussion as about 'inerrancy' (Bible perfection) when it isn't. It is about the Bible being repeatedly wrong (unreliability).

That has had some influence, too, particularly over Genesis. Not a few Christians have been willing to accept that Genesis is wrong. Others want to deny or fiddle the science to make it seem that the Genesis story could be true.

It is wrong all the way through. Unless one denies science including history up to the tower of Babel which is about the Babylonian ziggurat (Bab-el Marduk) and has nothing to do with why humans have different languages, just as the rival nations when Israel appeared around the 10th c BC are nothing to do with the names of the Children of Lot 19.36 and not for the first time in Genesis. This is polemic, not historical, as if anyone really needed to be told that Genesis is all about putting Judea forward as the basis and ruler by divine right of all other nations. It is a fascinating window on the thought of Babylonian Jews inventing rather than compiling a history of their people and nation during the Exile, but reliable, it ain't.

It isn't just Genesis either. While the debate about the Davidic or at least Solomonic nation is still going on, the archaeology is suggesting that Israel emerged from the hills to the North east of Canaan, and I think that Exodus is also an 'origin' story along with Genesis. I won't get into the problem with a Jewish/Hebrew Israelite people who had remained a separate people even before the Law had been given and didn't even seem to have a national religion, but give my own pet theory that the Exodus wasn't a history of Moses leading his people out of Egypt but is derived from records of Ahmose kicking the Canaanites out of Egypt, after defeating the Hyksos. You read it here first.
Just as you read the argument or theory that the inaccuracy or unreliability of the Resurrection accounts means that it never happened, though that is not a common argument in Bible criticism.

The Nativities are. Atheist apologetics does argue that the nativities are not historical but invented and that has been debated as strongly as the Noachian Flood -account. On my previous board the '2nd census' apologetic got knocked on the head, but I don't know whether this has become generally known. It's one reason I came here, because Bible critics don't seem to have worked this out any more than they have realised that Mark never lost its' ending; it never had one. And nobody so far as I know, has noticed that John has no transfiguration. Nor have I seen it noted that he has no Sanhedrin trial.

I have seen it noted that Jesus and Barabbas are the same person and that John tacitly reveals that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, but somehow atheist apologetics needs to bring all this stuff together. Rather as Talk origins is a think tank of rebuttals of Creationist claims, we atheists (or Bible critics) need a 'NT origins' think tank of better arguments than 'one angel or two'.

Indulge me...Atheists or Bible critics can be as stubborn and closed - minded as Bible apologists. A poster I worked with ..he was brilliant on antique dating and debunked the attempt to change the death of Herod from 4.B.C (whatever that was supposed to do (1). But he was as stubborn as a flat earthist on Markan priority. I showed compelling evidence that Mark had to have have amended an original synoptic version, though not as much as Matthew and Luke did. He tried to excuse this by claiming that Matthew just left these things out. It got quite heated arguing about the death of John. I argued that it made more sense that Mark added the details about the execution of John than Matthew leaving them out, but he wouldn't have it and even became quite abusive.

Same with Q document. My god, you'd think I was arguing the hollow earth when I said that the treatment of Matthew/Luke material (not found in Mark) meant that Q - document had to be true (I mean a separate document from the synoptic original version, incorporated into their gospels in different places). Well I Have Faith that in Nongodd's good time, these truths will out but I fear long after I'm gone and forgotten (2)

(1) possibly to make an Augustan loyalty registration of 3 B.C identified as the Census of Qurinius. But I suspect this is normally done to try to bring the date of the nativity to 1 B.C.

(2)" Transponder...you are not forgotten...Nobody's ever heard of you".