[quote=manygift1spirit] A simple historical example would be the Prodigal Son story.
And still the point is missed! You cannot use parables to disprove historical errors! When Jesus told the story, did He name the people? Did He name the time and place this occurred? NO, So it was never intended to be historical! This is nowhere near the same level as that found in the book of Judith! Now, ask me about the rich man and Lazarus. I would say that was a true story, because He named Lazarus. I would also suggest that the people He told the story to knew exactly who the rich man was (it would be similar to someone back in the early 1990’s saying, “There was a certain public servant who gained great popularity and rose to a high office, and there was a certain intern named Monica…” Many people would immediately know who the story was about).
patg - I believe the original writings were inerrant. Variations have crept in over the years, but there is not a single doctrine of faith that hinges on a textual variant (for example, the doctrine of the Trinity is not dependent upon a variant found in one particular manuscript). While I am not as familiar with texttual variations as I would like to be, I can say that it does not diminsh the Scriptures we have (at least the copies in the original Greek and Hebrew). I agree that translations can cause changes, which is why I try to avoid using the DR (this was translated from the Latin Vulgate, which was translated from the Greek and Hebrew, thereby being a translation of a translation).
As fascinating as the study of textual variants is, I would still ask - Are the Scriptures “God-Breathed” (as described by Paul in 2 Tim 3:16)? I would also ask for an example anywhere in the Scriptures that we (Catholic and Protestant) agree on, where you can find historical errors of the same magnitude as those found in the book of Judith.
Already refuted (see post #15).
Creation story maybe, parting of the red sea maybe, few more i cannot think of off of the top of my head
Sounds like you beleive evolution is true and God lied about creation. Also, you seem to have a problem with miracles (like the crossing of the Red Sea). I would just say that a miracle is NOT scientific, so to include them as such is inappropriate.
[quote=NotWorthy] You know there’s know way of knowing for sure. They were found, at least in part, in such writings as the Dead Sea Scrolls, but there were other books considered unscriptural that were included in them. Also, they were quoted by the Early Church Fathers, many of which were Jewish converts.
But, since the Jews never had a Canon that they could agree on even amongst themselves, this is something that can’t be definitively stated.
Then why is it OK for you to use this as an argument?
Do you think the Church just brought these up out of the blue. Although She had the authority to do so, I don’t think this was the case.
Of course not. These were added to the Septuagint (in some form or other, along with other writings - which books depended upon which “version” (maybe not the best word to describe this) of the Septuagint you were reading), which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (and other things).
For instance, the Council of Jamnia, it is claimed, rejected these. Why would they even feel the need to reject them if there were no question as to their Canonicity.
I keep hearing about this “council”, but I have never seen any evidence of it. Please name your source (I would love to see some credible documentation about it, and am almost ready to go to “Ask the Rabbi” for information on it). As I understand it, there was no “council”, Jamnia was a Rabbinical school, and the discussion was limited to Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon (see here).
Unless the authors weren’t treating the book as a historical account. I think you present a false argument here. It’s like making up the rules in the 7th inning of a baseball game. Hmmm… you wouldn’t perhaps be a democrat, would you?
Isn’t the author of Scripture God? He used men to write it, but isn’t He the author? And if Jesus didn’t misrepresent history in His parables (or anything else He said), why would God allow such errors in His inspired written Word? Was God incapable of keeping errors out of His inerrant Word? Was God incapable of preserving His inerrant Word? Even with the textual variants we have, we know that we have His inerrant Word faithfully represented.
How am I “making up the rules”? (and why resort to name calling? I had nothing to do with the Obamanation currently in the White House!). I’m being consistent in seperating parables from history.
I’m not questioning whether there was a king that could have forgiven a servant a vast amount of money. But do you realize how much money 10,000 talents is? This is an astronomical amount.
This is a PARABLE, not HISTORY. The amount is used to show that there is no way WE can ever pay for our own sins. We are ALL worthy of death and the eternal fires of hell, but God (the King), in His mercy, has forgiven His people (that, by the way, is a HISTORICAL FACT).
This is where you are stuck.
I don’t think so. First of all, the Song of Solomon does not name names, dates, empires, etc…, so it’s obviously not meant to be taken historically. Second, you did not answer the direct question - “which of the 3 explanations offered by Joe 5859 would you use to explain these contradictions with known history?” This, again, is referring to the historical contradictions found in Judith.