Egyptian Mythology

[Will Jones]

Tom and others,
To answer your questions:  I am not and have never stated that I think science is a perfect system, but we do know more than what the ancients did.  The passages that you quoted are quite interesting, but there are more passages that clearly show the ancients did have an incorrect view of the universe—I’ll get to that later.  And, yes, I have studied Christian apologists at great length while I was also studying what secular scholars were saying.  I have considered both very carefully and have actually moved away from my former belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.  This took time and a lot of prayerful study.  I have not jumped into my beliefs… they have formed slowly over time because I desire to have the best understanding of reality as possible.

You wrote, “I learned the reply to the Graf-Wellhaus hypothesis years ago from Walter Martin.  It is quite simple.”  Sorry to disagree, but your response was very simplistic.  You attempt to ridicule the notion of four main authors by equating yourself with the Penatuach when you most clearly not Scripture.    By using this false comparison, you are trying to say an apple is an orange to disprove oranges without even dealing with what the real orange is!    It is true that there are no MSS documents to “prove” this hypothesis because, like the supposedly inerrant autographs, there are no remaining MSS that pre-date the time the Pentateuch as we know it was assembled together.  However, what prompted scholars to develop this hypothesis, The Documentary Hypothesis, was an attempt to account for the various styles of writing and all the “doublets” or double stories that you can find in Genesis if you examine the text.  As I have argued, there are two accounts of creation, two flood stories, etc.  This is accepted as fact by a majority of scholars today as you said.  Seeing as it has been a few years since I studied that theory, please refer to  http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/dh.shtml for a good explanation of the Documentary Hypothesis.  I remember being convinced at the time that this theory is not perfect but does make sense, especially when you realize that there are the two accounts of creation, the flood, etc. and realize that Moses probably did not have the time to write the books on clay tablets.  

Sorry, but you have only ridiculed this the notion of the Documentary Hypothesis, you have not dealt with it by simply dismissing it.  Have you examined it in great detail?  Not perfect, but it does explain why there are doublets in Genesis and these doublets account for so many of the contradictions that people like to point out when they choose to reject the Bible that men teach is inerrant.    

Many of us tend not to question our commonly held cultural beliefs because they seem right or the truth because everyone believes them.  To look beyond our cultural conditioning or what we were taught to believe is very painful and difficult because we tend to see and interpret things according to what we believe.  If we are taught to believe the Bible is without error, we will not believe it is with error until proven otherwise.  For many years I staunchly believed in inerrancy because that is what many Christians believe today and it seemed “normal” or right.  I believed in all the extra-Biblical arguments like God preserved the Bible for us and the Bible is perfect because it is His Word, etc.  I read the Christian tracts that used selected passages to claim the Bible was reliable in matters of science. Then I started noticing that the gospel accounts gave slightly different accounts of the same events.  I bought a book (I think entitled Gospels Paralleled) that put the different stories of the gospels side by side and I could see very clearly that there were discrepancies, especially in the resurrection narratives.  In one event, Jesus was coming into the city, in the middle of the city, and leaving the city according to the Synoptic Gospels!  I tried to make the resurrection stories and other events fit each other but I discovered I could not.  This and a few other things sent me searching and I realized that many other Christians and scholars also noted that the synoptic gospels differed on events.  I also decided to take a few religious courses on the Bible in my first year at university.  I learned both how Christians and secular scholars viewed the Bible.  I studied the history of Christianity, Theology such as Calvinism, and the writings of the early Church Fathers and Luther.  I spent hours in the library reading the old dusty first-hand sources and scholarly books written by Christians and non-Christians.  I was shocked at first and tried to hold onto the idea of the Bible as inerrant simply because it is a strongly held religious/cultural belief.  However, it only takes one error in the Bible—and I had seen many—to disprove the theological notion of inerrancy.    

[Will Jones]

Part 2

Inerrancy is a theological term imposed on the Bible.  Yes, I know that Trinity is also a theological term, but the word Trinity has been around as a theological concept for well over a thousand years—Inerrancy is only an early 19th Century word that was used by the Princeton Scholars to attempt to justify their view of the Scriptures, a view many conservative Christians are taught to believe in.  Inerrancy is a relatively new development in theology.  Inspiration does not imply inerrancy as I have argued earlier. I know from my own extensive readings of the early Church Fathers such as Origen and Augustine—and also Luther—that Christians thought the MESSAGE of the Bible was the Word of God, not the whole Bible itself, because human aspects of the Bible were criticized or pointed out by these great Christians.  I also demonstrated that the Bible as we know it has gone through a lengthy process of being accepted as canonical and I believe I posted a link to a good timeline.  I also discussed the discoveries at the time that caused the Princeton scholars and Fundamentalists to develop the notion of THE Word of God that had more authority than the findings of science and scholars such as archeologists, textual critics, etc.  I also suggested that such a belief in an inerrant book has and will cause many people not to accept the gospel because, as I have pointed out below, the Bible is a book written by humans from the knowledge and understanding of their time and culture.  

It is true that there are many apparent contradictions in the Bible that can be explained away successfully through a variety of means such as copyist error, translation problem, interpretation issues, etc.  For example, it says in Leviticus 11:6 that the rabbit chews its cud.  The rabbit does not chew its cud but that’s OK because “rabbit” is an incorrect translation of “rock badger.”  However, I have found from my past and present readings that apologists are selective in what contradictions they choose to tackle.  Christian apologists selectively pick apparent contradictions, explain them, and then claim that the Bible has no contradictions.  I have also seen tracts and websites that claim the Bible in Isaiah says the earth is round and then claims that the Bible is ahead of its time and never makes an incorrect scientific statement.  However, there are plenty of other passages in the Bible that reveal the people who wrote the Bible DID in fact make many unscientific statements.  Now, Christian apologists tried to explain them away by the “phenomenological argument,” that the writers were just writing according to what appeared to be true to them.  Well, it was not true—their cultural understanding of cosmology was wrong; thus, the Bible is not inerrant in matters of science because so many unscientific views are expressed as accepted fact.  

Cosmology was one of the first things that I stated disproved inerrancy.  For ancients who wrote the Bible and other extra-Biblical works, the world was often seen as flat and immovable: “He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved” (Psalms 104:5).  Read all of Psalm 104, especially verses 5-9, and this is very similar to the creation story of Genesis 1 and the ancients’ view of the way the world was.  (Cf. Psalms 93:1; 1 Chronicles 16:30; Joshua 10:12)  An immovable earth is just one of many examples of an incorrect, ancient cosmology is depicted in the Bible.  Others include the sun standing still, sun circling the earth, earth that has a dome over it that keeps the waters in heaven back, heaven held up with pillars, windows of heaven opening, winds blowing in the four corners of heaven, God dwelling in a universal heaven, the Tower of Babel trying to reach to heaven, Jesus ascending into that heaven or place where God has a throne, age of the earth/universe, etc.  

There is a longer list of contradictions than most Christian apologists can and have dealt with.  
One Christian website deals with a long list of 134 apparent contradictions:  http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~werdna/contradictions/cindex.html
But this website like so many other apologists’ works I have read do deal with any of the doublet problems found in Genesis like the two creation stories and the two flood stories.  There are more valid and not-so-valid contradictions on other websites that show how the Bible is not without errors.
The popular “101 Cleared Up Contradictions in the Bible” site (http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm) I see mentioned so often on the net is interesting simply by the fact that not all of the contradictions that I have found in the Bible are listed there.  Many non-Christians on the net claim there are more than 101 contradictions in the Bible.  For example, one site called “The Skeptic's Annotated Bible” that I found as I surfed the net this week has 1010 supposed contradictions listed—60 just for Genesis that mostly result from “doublets” such as the two creation stories, the two flood stories, etc. Check it out at http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra.html.  There is also a lengthy section on “Science and History” Contradictions that lists 150 instances where science, history and Scripture don’t appear to jive in the website author’s mind.  See http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science.html.
Some can be explained away, others simply cannot.  If you just read these words and instantly disregard them without seeking to look at these links then you are simply seeking to protect your view of inerrancy, a view I have discovered through years of searching is unsupportable if you examine the evidence without bias.    

[Will Jones]

Part 3

We are human and have much to learn.  We can blind ourselves by simply refusing to believe what does not match up with our beliefs.  If you just believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures and refuse to admit it may be wrong by examining your belief, it will never be wrong to you especially if you don’t read sources beyond the Bible.  

“My question to Will, David and whoever else is:
Why believe the scholars that you quote, why not believe me or Verne or   I have been studying the Scriptures since High School.  I do not have a degree but maybe my word is just as good or better than those scholars being quoted.”

MGov and others, I have not come to my beliefs haphazardly or lightly.  Extensive soul-searching and research FROM A VARIETY OF SOURCES has helped form my beliefs.  I have two university degrees and I have spent years reading and seeking.  The question is not a question of believing you or any one person, it is examining what many people and sources have to say.  MGov, the key is open-minded research and a willingness to look beyond what we are taught is true.  Study more than just the Bible because, as you said, there is truth apart from the Bible.

Please no more messages that I am deceived simply because I don't believe that the Bible is inerrant.  We will have to agree to disagree.  This has been a great dialogue and I hope nobody thinks that this is an arguement because it is not.  I said what I have wanted to say and I have tried to relay what I have learned the best I can in hopes that others will benefit.  MGov and others, it is not fair to say that I am wrong until you have taken the time to examine what I have said without simply dismissing it with an apples and orange arguement or a restatement of commonly held cultural/religous beliefs about the Bible.  

However, I am willing to be proven wrong as I have said before.  Try YOURSELF to reconcile the details in the Synoptic Gospels to prove me wrong.  Start with the Crucifixion and Resurrection narratives.  Don’t just try to force them into agreement, see if they actually fit.  Then study the Documentary Hypothesis and other scholarly theories on the Bible and see if it makes sense on the whole—SEE IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN AWAY THE DIFFERENT DETAILS IN SUCH THINGS AS THE TWO CREATION STORIES AND THE FLOOD STORIES to prove me wrong.    Until then, you cannot honestly say that I am deceived for believing what I believe.  Here is just a few apparent discrepancies I found today on one of many websites that deal with contradictions caused by not understanding the fact that the Bible has two creation stories:  

Genesis 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
Genesis 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
Genesis 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
Genesis 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
Genesis 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
Genesis 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
Genesis 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
Leviticus 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)
Genesis 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
Genesis 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)
Genesis 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Yahweh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
Exodus 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Yahweh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.
Genesis 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
Genesis 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.
Genesis 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.
Hebrews 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil.

Taken from http://www.geocities.com/atheistdivine/errors/genesis.html

This is just one of many websites on the net stating that the Bible is laced with contradictions and this is turning people off to the gospel due to the theological notion of inerrancy.  Some of these sites are too extreme and have faulty arguements, but these sites are correct in pointing out what most people accept as fact today:  the Bible is not inerrant in matters of science, etc. The notion of inerrancy is something that Christians need to honestly examine through continued and careful study.  So, please try to prove me wrong by following the suggestions I have given above.    

One of my main points in posting here is to push the idea that we need to be open and be willing to examine our cherished beliefs because we are human and we don't have all the answers.  I am thankful for this opportunity to revist some of the things I came to see, things I have re-examined again in the process of our dialogue here.  May we all continue to re-examine what we believe because the light in us could very well be darkness.

Thank you all and God bless!
 

[Mark C.]

Thank you Verne and Tom!
   I have had similar musings re. this topic that you have had Verne.  By concentrating our search for theological truth on "scientific/ historical" methods that start from the assumption that the Bible is flawed we risk missing hearing the voice of God.
   I agree Verne, that simplicity is the key to the Gospel and the key to a wondeful living relationship with Christ.  
   I am not anti-scholar and have a great respect for same.  We have gained much from textual critics, as our modern translations give testimony.  Also, critical commentaries are very important and helpful.
   Every honest critical commentator will have a bias that they start from; a set of assumptions (faith).  By "faith we understand etc.", Heb. 11 begins.  Higher criticism (that Verne mentions, and Will seems to believe is the only honest method for understanding the Bible) is not the universal method that Will seems to think that it is.                    
   "Modern" proponents often snobbishly insist that their view is the only "scientific" means of scholarship.  It almost seems that these "modern" scholars have an agenda to reduce the revelation of Scripture to insignificance.  Is this an attempt to escape responsibility for the consequnces of facing the God revealed in the Bible?

   These scholars don't like certain concepts:

 1.) A holy God who has absolute moral standards.
 2.) Absolute truth.
 3.) One way to God through Jesus Christ.

   In other words, these scholars begin with a bias against the above principles which skews their entire position.  
   Where does the "Modern" method leave us?  lost in a sea of relatavism that is a slippery slope that gave us such wonderful "Ism's" as, communism and Nazism.  
   We have a clear and simple revelation of who God is in Jesus Christ (though the depth of that revelation is vast, a child can receive the Gospel).  "His sheep hear his voice", and this means that God is able to communicate assurance to His child.  The incarnate God who died to save man is a revelation that is unparralled in any other religion or philosophy.  The holy God who redeems his lost creation is presented in the Bible from Gen. to Rev. in a wonderfully consistent manner that gives testimony to the fact of the cannocity of the text.
                                  God Bless,  Mark
   
   

     

[Oscar]

Will wrote,

" In one event, Jesus was coming into the city, in the middle of the city, and leaving the city according to the Synoptic Gospels!  I tried to make the resurrection stories and other events fit each "

In the Biblical Archaeology class I took, the professor showed us a picture of the city, (I can't remember the name of it right now). The photo was made from an airplane looking down at the area.  It is a city built on a slope with an "Old Isaiahville" and "New Isaiahville" sections.  The road runs right through it.  So that whether Jesus was leaving or entering Isaiahville simply depends on which way one is looking down the road from the same location.

Also, I was not "ridiculing" the G-W hypothesis.  Ridicule accomplishes little.  But if you restate an argument in other terms it is easy to see its problems.  My restatement does indeed summarize the argument.  I do not deny that there is more to it.  However, it is just this:
1. We can detect many different styles in the books of the Pentatuch.
2. Different styles mean different authors
3. Therefore we conclude that the Pentatuch had many authors.

The problem is with premise 2.  I have forgotten the names here, but I heard  a lecturer at Biola tell of two U of Chicago scholars who created a computer program to analyze the writings of Paul for authorship.  The idea is that the number of times an author uses certain words, names for things, and so on is FIXED and therefore his individual style is detectable.

Anyway, the program said that Paul's epistles were written by 12 different authors.

So, a Christian fellow used THEIR program to analyze THEIR book.  Result:  It was written by 7 people!  

Will, I have been reading books about archaeology for over 40 years and so I am no stranger to the problems raised by these folks.  Most of the problems flow out of the presupposition of materialism/athiesm that the authors hold going in.  This is not an Ad Hominem argument.  I am saying that they exclude EVIDENCE because of their presupposition that it CANNOT be otherwise.

Thomas Maddux

[Amy Denny]

I have no advanced degrees. I am unable to be as eloquent as Will and others. I have a BA in fine arts. Just to let you all know where my abilities in communication hail from.
I inturpret feelings. I believe it my gift.
I have never been good at remembering facts. (that is not my gift) So, I will now attempt to communicate a feeling.

Maybe,we humans are fallible. always have been and always will be. We screw up everthing we do. Even our inturpretation of the devine.
Maybe, the bible was put together by such humans. No. Not super humans but humans just like... YOU. Humans with prejudices and adjendas of their own.
Do I think the bible is divinely inspired? YES! Do I believe many of us are inspired by the divine? YES! Despite our flaws. God can use us.
But, here is the heart of it. Do I believe that there is any route to God but through Jesus?
No.
BUT...Who is Jesus? To know the son it helps to know the father.
Who is God?
God is love. In love God sent his son. So, is Jesus LOVE incarnate?
What did Jesus do? He loved. he healed in love. taught in love. lived love for all to see.  and died in that and for that love. He even rose up from that death to show us what a life of love can do.
What did Jesus say was the most important (greatest) commandment: LOVE.
Is it possible that that IS the message. We take all these rules that his fallible diciples among other fallibles made during a time many many years ago and try to apply them to a different time.
Not to say that some truth isn't universal but some things are simply prejudices of the moment.
Remember the passage where Jesus sent his diciples out to heal and teach others and some came back saying they had rebuked these other people for healing in Jesus' name because they weren't followers of Jesus. and Jesus said that they shouldn't have done that because if they weren't against them they were for them. What might that mean?
Might it mean that LOVE is the connecting factor. In order to heal they must have love. If they have love, they have Jesus. because Jesus IS love.
When we received Jesus into our lives what/who did we receive? I believe I received LOVE. The grass was greener... the sky bluer...(at least for me)
So, we argue over the bible and whether it is perfect in every imaginable way. or imperfect in so many unacceptable ways. Are we getting stuck?
Are we willing to throw our faith away if we found out that the bible was really put together by a bunch of catholics that really did have an adgenda. That Mary Magdalen really was a conglomeration of the stories about  three or five different women. One of which was truly Jesus' beloved diciple. (O boy, I think a stone just whizzed past my head)
Do we have a real faith that could withstand if we found out tomorrow that the bible was complete balderdash? Not to say I believe any such thing... but if it were so, God is STILL God. I would simply have to look for his messages to me in other places.
Again, I say that my gift isn't the use of the side of my brain that can remember facts. (I can't even remember which side that is) God gave me the ability to feel things deeply. To see beauty everywhere I look.
So might it be that simple? Do we have to become like little children? What do they do? LOVE freely and without prejudice. Do we still need to seek God's help to simply love? I SURE DO!  There are so many unlovely people out there.
I may be wrong. I am willing to believe whatever it is God wants me to believe/know. he knows that. I trust that, whatever the answers, in his mercy, I'll be shown what I need to know-through whatever means he finds necessary to teach me.
amy

[peterbrusati]

I think Blaise Pascal would agree with Amy:
"We know truth, not only by reason, but also by the heart."

I have never posted before, but I feel the need to put in my "two cents worth."

First a bit of background:
I became a part of the assembly in Fullerton in 1982.  My wife and I were married in the assembly in 1983.  We left in 1985.  We eventually moved to the Bay Area where I worked for many years desinging computer networking equipment in Silicon Valley.  I am presently working as a mechanical engineer for Northrop Grumman.  I work with a bunch of rocket scientists (real ones with Phd's.)

In my career I have been around a lot of very intelligent, well-read, well eduacted people for many years.  I have discussed (and argued) about the veracity and relevance of the Sciptures with many of them.  One valuable thing I have learned is that there is enough evidence for a rational, intelligent human being to believe that the Bible is the Word of God.  There are also enough questionable areas in Scripture to leave room for doubt.  I believe God palnned it that way.

The one thing I keep coming back to is "Who is Jesus?"  And I still believe He is God in the flesh.  And He says that the Scripture cannot be broken.

I propose that we look at each "contradiction" one-by-one and search out the truth together.  I don't know all the answers but I know Someone who does.  And it is obvious that there are a lot of regular contributors to this site who have a lot to offer in this . . .

Which one would you like to start with?  Hit me with your best shot.

[Oscar]

Amy,

You wrote,
"Might it mean that LOVE is the connecting factor. In order to heal they must have love. If they have love, they have Jesus. because Jesus IS love"

It is true that the Bible says God is love.  That, however, doesn't mean that love is God.  Saying "God is love" speaks of God's essential character and "love" serves as a descriptive term.

To say "love is God" would be speaking of love as a noun.

In logic, this kind of thing is called a fallacy of equivocation.  A word is used but there is a subtle shift in its definition.

In practical terms, a very wicked person like the late(?) Saddam Hussein probably loves his kids.  So...he has, (or had), love.
I rather doubt that he has Jesus.

Another point is that Jesus is God.  The Bible says very clearly that there are things that God hates.  When you love something, you are against that which harms or threatens it.  

The above is not intended in any way to be an affront to you personally.  Feel welcome here and make your contribution.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux

[Will Jones]

PART 1

Verne,

Genesis 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
Genesis 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Sorry, but I found your explanation for the first apparent discrepancy unsatisfactory.  We know that light comes from our sun and distant stars; thus, people who know this have a difficult time believing that God could separate light and darkness on the first day and then not create the sun and stars until the fourth day.  The notion of “a day” comes from the partnership of the spinning earth and our sun.  But, in some parts of the Bible as I have mentioned, the ancients did not understand this concept and even thought of the earth as immovable and flat.  Here is an interesting article you might want to read later:   http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm.  Therefore, Genesis 1 does not match up with what we presently know of science due to the fact that a day appears without the sun and, if you read Genesis 1, the earth is considered flat because there is this dome or firmament over the earth that holds back the waters above, waters that later fell through “floodgates of the sky” or “windows of the heavens” (Gen. 7:11) in the two flood stories of Noah.  So far, the Hubble telescope has not found this firmament of water in the heavens or any windows of heaven.  Ancients did not understand the water cycle or what lies beyond our sky.  This is not just poetic or figurative or phenomenological language because extra-Biblical writings have demonstrated that the ancient Hebrews and other cultures saw the earth as a kind of flat object (the four corners of the earth, etc.) that had a dome or sky above it much like a futuristic city with a dome over it might look like on Mars or the Moon, but Genesis 1 says that there is water above this firmament that God divided.   Have a look at http://www.siena.edu/tamburello/Cosmology%20of%20Genesis%201.ppt that gives a diagram of the universe that Hebrews envisioned.   And please don’t bother quoting Isaiah 40:22 because it states that God sits above the circle of the earth which can also be interpreted as the dome of the firmament AND this is only one verse versus the many verses that describe a flat earth.

The point is, the ancient writers of the Bible thought there was water magically held back by God in the sky, that God lived in heaven, that there was a type of hell in the earth, that it rained when God opened the windows of heaven, etc.  This ancient cosmology is WRONG.  If you accept Genesis 1 as fact as Fundamentalists and Evangelicals tend to do, the fact is the Bible betrays the fact that the writers wrote according to their understanding at the time, an understanding that we know today is wrong.  Therefore, the Bible is not inerrant because it describes a cosmology that is errant.  Throw out the “phenomenological” counterargument because it is just an attempt to explain away the fact that the ancients INCORRECTLY described the world as they saw it.  It is true that the ancients wrote the Bible according to what their perspective on the universe, but what they saw was incorrect and that makes what they wrote incorrect and errant from the standards of modern science AND this makes the Bible errant.  

The ancients were wrong about cosmology—the Bible was written by fallible humans who were inspired by God to communicate the message/truth of God.  But, if you accept that Genesis 1 is just an attempt to explain what might have happened in relation to a similar Babylonian creation story that matches perfectly with the order of creation, then it is no problem.  There is only a problem if you are (forgive me for being so blunt) naive enough to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.    

I will not bore our readers with responses to all your supposed discrepancies; I will try to talk to you privately...
Verne

These are not MY “supposed discrepancies.”  I just quoted this site to show that there are plenty of sites that state that the Bible is full of discrepancies.  This discussion has caused me to look at what non- or anti- Christians have written on the web.  And why will you not bore us with responses to these discrepancies?  Let me suggest an answer:  it is due to the fact that these discrepancies in Genesis 1-2 cannot be honestly dealt with if you believe in inerrancy but is easy to deal with if you accept the fact that there are two creation stories.  As I have said, it only takes and examination of the two creation stories of Genesis to bring the manmade notion of inerrancy crashing down (without even mentioning the discrepancies in the gospel accounts and other doublets like the two flood stories).  Here is an example...  

END OF PART 1

[Will Jones]

PART 2

Everyone,

Here is what one of the websites I found this week that have stated about the two accounts of Genesis:

Order of creation
Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:
Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)
Note that there are "days", "evenings", and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim", which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods". In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good".
The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:
Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

How orderly were things created?
#1: Step-by-step. The only discrepancy is that there is no Sun or Moon or stars on the first three "days".
#2: God fixes things up as he goes. The first man is lonely, and is not satisfied with animals. God finally creates a woman for him. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

How satisfied with creation was he?
#1: God says "it was good" after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh day, evidently very satisfied.
#2: God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple.

Taken from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

I can’t associate with this writer’s atheistic distain of God, but this writer has pointed out what so many scholars have demonstrated since the 18th Century when Princeton scholars felt a need to create inerrancy:  the Bible has come together over time from a variety of sources; thus, Genesis, for example, has two creation stories that do not jive.  My point is:  I am just trying to show that the secular world does not accept the Bible as inerrant and have (from what I have seen in the last week or so from surfing the net) quite a body of valid and not-so-valid list of apparent discrepancies.  As I said below, the Christian apologists that I have read in the past and have seen online SELECTIVELY deal with these discrepancies, just as Tom and others have only dealt with only some of my points below.  Christians should not be afraid or bored of dealing with these thousands of listed discrepancies because it only takes one discrepancy in the Bible to disprove the whole notion of inerrancy.  So how do you deal with the fact that in Genesis 1 mankind was created last but in Genesis 2 Mankind is made before the things listed in Genesis 1?  How do you deal with the fact that Adam is made before such things as the birds, trees and animals and that he took time to name all the creatures BEFORE he fell asleep and God created Eve?  Even if you explain away the order, which you cannot honestly, I would wager that it would take more than a day for Adam to feel lonely and name all the animals before God created Eve.  (Does that include the dinosaurs and the millions of extents species that once lived?)   The order of creation simply does not match up in the two creation stories, but Bibles like the NIV try to fix the translation to try and make them match up.  But you cannot simply ignore it.  Can anyone answer my questions?  It was Peter who suggested that WE deal with each “contradiction” one by one.  He wanted me or someone else to pick one to start with.  However, I already suggested many in what I thought was going to be my last post on this subject:  Deal with Genesis doublets like the two creation stories and the flood stories, deal with the errant cosmology that the ancients presented as fact, deal with the discrepancies in details in the gospel accounts, etc.  I have cited a lengthy list from the popular site, “The Skeptics Annotated Bible.”  I believe there were 1000s to deal with.  

Until the posters on this board have taken the time to contrast the doublets in Genesis and the various accounts in the gospels AND admit that fact that the Bible is loaded with errant cosmological views, nobody should have the right to send me messages and tell me that I am wrong or deceived.  It took me years of honest research to come to the view that the Bible is errant.  I came to this understanding because I wanted to know the truth, not just believe what I wanted to believe when the facts were clearly indicating otherwise.

END OF PART 2 of 3

[Will Jones]

Part 3 of 3

Mark C said,

By concentrating our search for theological truth on "scientific/ historical" methods that start from the assumption that the Bible is flawed we risk missing hearing the voice of God.

This is a similar idea to my whole point in bringing up this whole issue:  it is dangerous to state the Bible is inerrant in all matters including science because when people focus on the obvious fact that the Bible is NOT inerrant in all things it does keep them from “missing the voice of God” simply due to the fact that many Christians are falsely teaching that the Bible is inerrant.  I have continued this dialogue simply because I passionately believe that the manmade belief in inerrancy is a hinderance or stumbling block to many who would hear the message of the Bible.  And Christians can also be blinded to the voice of reason by assumptions that the Bible is inerrant just as non-Christians can be blinded to the voice of God that the Bible is flawed.  

I did not come to believe that the Bible was errant because I wanted to have an excuse not to believe in God.  I still believe in God!  I also still believe in the message of the Bible, the Bible is still the most influential book in my life and I very highly esteem it as a communicator of spiritual truth and early history.  I don’t think that higher criticism is THE way to understand the Bible, but, to answer MGov’s question, I believe, like Luther, that it takes one’s reason and conscience to understand its message.  My faith has not been lost because I have come to see that the Bible is errant.  On the contrary, the more I read about the Bible, history, etc. the more I feel enriched.  If you only read the Bible and reinforce your beliefs through reading books that support your viewpoints, you will be missing out on a bigger picture.  To refuse to take the time and honestly examine discrepancies—the things that are keeping many people from accepting Christianity because of this manmade belief about inerrancy—is an indication that you only want to believe what you want to believe.  I wanted to believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures when I started my studies, but that belief slowly dissolved as I was open and honest with myself that what I was seeing disproved what I wanted to believe.

So I will ask again, How do you deal with the fact that in Genesis 1 mankind was created last but in Genesis 2 Mankind is made before the things listed in Genesis 1?  How do you deal with the fact that Adam is made before such things as the birds, trees and animals and that he took time to name all the creatures BEFORE he fell asleep and God created Eve?  Even if you explain away the order, which you cannot honestly, I would wager that it would take more than a day for Adam to feel lonely and name all the animals before God created Eve.  (Does that include the dinosaurs and the millions of extents species that once lived?)   The order of creation simply does not match up in the two creation stories, but Bibles like the NIV try to fix the translation to try and make them match up.  But you cannot simply ignore it.  Can anyone answer my questions?  It was Peter who suggested that WE deal with each “contradiction” one by one.  So here is the first one.  

I have said my peace.  I have a feeling that the answers will not be forthcoming or satisfactory unless the theory of inerrancy is dropped and the theory of two creation stories is accepted as a strong possibility.  Is there anyone bold enough to answer ALL of these questions and deal with the fact that the Bible, in many places, describes an errant cosmology?

[Amy Denny]

In practical terms, a very wicked person like the late(?) Saddam Hussein probably loves his
                kids.  So...he has, (or had), love.
                I rather doubt that he has Jesus.

Tom,
I think we may be talking about apples and oranges. From my understanding of Saddam and his treatment toward his family, I doubt seriously he has the same/any "love" toward his children. He may call it "love" but is more likely and egocentric sort of thing. And if he felt his position/power was threatened by any of his children  do you think for a moment he wouldn't off them?
The "love" that is healing and nurturing, that would sacrifice for another is the "love" that I was referring to.
There are many things out there called "love" but they are vastly different from one another.

Another point is that Jesus is God.  The Bible says very clearly that there are things that God
                hates.  When you love something, you are against that which harms or threatens it.

was this a complete thought? It may just be late but, I'm not following. To what were you referring when you said this?

[Oscar]

Amy,

Perhaps I could have used a better example, but the point is that just because someone has love, even the real thing, it doesn't mean he/she has Jesus.

The other thought was simply that love is not the whole story on God.  Love sometimes involves hate.  God, "loves righteousness and hates iniquity."

Thomas

[MGov]

Part 3 of 3
I did not come to believe that the Bible was errant because I wanted to have an excuse not to believe in God.  I still believe in God!  I also still believe in the message of the Bible, the Bible is still the most influential book in my life and I very highly esteem it as a communicator of spiritual truth and early history.  I don’t think that higher criticism is THE way to understand the Bible, but, to answer MGov’s question, I believe, like Luther, that it takes one’s reason and conscience to understand its message.  My faith has not been lost because I have come to see that the Bible is errant.  On the contrary, the more I read about the Bible, history, etc. the more I feel enriched.

Will, you have not yet answered these questions:
However, if you believe that the Bible contains truth, how do you decide what is truth and what isn't?
I'll ask again about the fact that the Bible states that there is salvation in none else (other than Jesus Christ).  How do you reconcile this with your other books of truth? Forgive me for asking again if you have already answered this in one of your earlier posts.

MG

[Oscar]

Will,

The idea that Genesis was cobbled together from various sources during the Babylonian captivity has its own problems.  One is that this book is a fraud.  You have to believe that men intending to order the moral conduct of a nation resorted to fraud to achieve their goal.

Another is that they must have been pretty stupid.  You or I could easily reorder all this information into a coherent account without any contradictions if we wished to.  These guys, according to your postition, don't seem to have been up to the job.

You have repeatedly said that you believe in the things taught in the Bible, though how you know whether you are accepting something true or something these guys made up is unclear to me.   I suspect it is unclear to you as well.

I think the understanding many have of the two sections is valid, and makes more sense than the "stupid Rabbis" theory.  Chapter 1 focuses on an chronological account of creation, while chapter 2 focuses on humanity's responsibilites.  

Thomas Maddux