I figured this deserved its own thread.How is it that many Christians believe the word of the Bible is inerrant, when it has been shown to contain numerous inconsistencies, unfulfilled prophecies, and is most likely the work of a number of people with different theological views who redacted source texts with the intention of pursuing a particular religious agenda?Let's look at the most important prophecy in the bible - the second coming of Jesus. It failed. It was predicted in numerous passages that the second coming would occur within the lifetime of some of Jesus' followers. But it hasn't.
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord
- 1 Thessalonians 4:16
Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.
- Mark 13:30-31
And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.”
- Mark 9:1
Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
- Matthew 26:64Eschatology was one of the most important issues in early Christianity, but it got it all wrong.The bible is inconsistent on the other major issue in Christianity: salvation. Paul writes in Galatians that we are saved through faith, not works. But in James, it is explicitly stated that faith without works is dead.The bible contains many other unfulfilled or inaccurate prophecies. I'm sure you are all familiar with them. How can one reconcile this with the supposed inerrancy of the bible?It has also been shown that many of the books of the bible were written under false names. In particular, many of the Pauline epistles (the pastorals, and a handful of others) were undoubtedly pseudonymous works. "Paul" references proper conduct for bishops in 1/2 Timothy and Titus, but this clerical structure did not exist during Paul's lifetime. This means it must have been forged at a later date, using Paul's name as a claim to religious authority.Then there are the Gospels. Why would one need to tell the same story four times? If it's God's perfect and inerrant word, couldn't he just tell the story once, without any contradictions? The gospels contain a number of contradictions between each other - Jesus' lineage is different between Matthew and Luke, various details differ between important scenes, like who was present at Jesus's death and who first saw the empty tomb. Are these stories all supposed to be true? The gospel of Luke even specifically says at the beginning that he is aware there are inaccurate versions of the gospel in circulation and that he's writing this version to be a more correct and accurate version. Aren't the implications of this obvious?My opinion is that the reason the bible is inconsistent with itself is because it is the work of early Christians who had different views about Christianity. Some, like the author of the gospel of Matthew, clearly saw it as an extension of Judaism and wanted to cast Jesus as the new Moses, rather than the leader of a completely new religion. That's why only Matthew contains the sermon on the mount, why his lineage traces Jesus' ancestry back to Abraham, and why only Matthew contains the verse "I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it." The Gospel of John's focus on the Word, meanwhile, suggests clear gnostic leanings on behalf of the writer.Can we possibly believe that the bible is inerrant and internally consistent?
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord
- 1 Thessalonians 4:16
Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.
- Mark 13:30-31
And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.”
- Mark 9:1
Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
- Matthew 26:64Eschatology was one of the most important issues in early Christianity, but it got it all wrong.The bible is inconsistent on the other major issue in Christianity: salvation. Paul writes in Galatians that we are saved through faith, not works. But in James, it is explicitly stated that faith without works is dead.The bible contains many other unfulfilled or inaccurate prophecies. I'm sure you are all familiar with them. How can one reconcile this with the supposed inerrancy of the bible?It has also been shown that many of the books of the bible were written under false names. In particular, many of the Pauline epistles (the pastorals, and a handful of others) were undoubtedly pseudonymous works. "Paul" references proper conduct for bishops in 1/2 Timothy and Titus, but this clerical structure did not exist during Paul's lifetime. This means it must have been forged at a later date, using Paul's name as a claim to religious authority.Then there are the Gospels. Why would one need to tell the same story four times? If it's God's perfect and inerrant word, couldn't he just tell the story once, without any contradictions? The gospels contain a number of contradictions between each other - Jesus' lineage is different between Matthew and Luke, various details differ between important scenes, like who was present at Jesus's death and who first saw the empty tomb. Are these stories all supposed to be true? The gospel of Luke even specifically says at the beginning that he is aware there are inaccurate versions of the gospel in circulation and that he's writing this version to be a more correct and accurate version. Aren't the implications of this obvious?My opinion is that the reason the bible is inconsistent with itself is because it is the work of early Christians who had different views about Christianity. Some, like the author of the gospel of Matthew, clearly saw it as an extension of Judaism and wanted to cast Jesus as the new Moses, rather than the leader of a completely new religion. That's why only Matthew contains the sermon on the mount, why his lineage traces Jesus' ancestry back to Abraham, and why only Matthew contains the verse "I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it." The Gospel of John's focus on the Word, meanwhile, suggests clear gnostic leanings on behalf of the writer.Can we possibly believe that the bible is inerrant and internally consistent?