Jason - welcome 2 the forum!

is your research online somewhere?  am certain it could help many if made available...

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for your kind welcome.

I've written a full rebuttal to that atheist resource called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.  Mine is called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained.  Theirs: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com .  Ours: http://skepticsannotatedbible.org .

I came here with the intent to answer questions that people have regarding alleged Bible errors.  I'm looking forward to any questions that people may have.  However, if you want my research from the web, you can:

1. See the link above (the dot .org link!) and download a free sample of my resource.

2. See http://jcsm.org/biblelessons/Barker17.htm for a complete, post-resurrection chronology.

3. See http://www.jcsm.org/Education/FFRFQuiz.htm for 50 answers to the Freedom From Religion Foundation's misleading quiz regarding the Bible.

May God richly bless you!

Sincerely,

Jason

Jason -- welcome.

Just jump into the different threads.  There are plenty of opportunities.

Listen to these verses brother Jason then maybe you can conclude if there's any errors in the infalliable Word of God:

Isaiah 40:6-8(NIV)

"All men are like grass, aand all their glory is like the flowers of the field. The grass withers and the flowers fall, because the breath of the LORD blows on them. Surely the people are grass. The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever.

Matthew 5:17-18

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fullfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

I hope this helps!

Jason,

This is from an essay by Robert Brinsmead. What do you think?

(a) What was the number and identity of Joshua's women friends at the crucifixion and at the tomb? It only takes a few minutes to see that the four Gospel accounts don't harmonize. If you say, "This is a minor point which does not matter," then don't appeal to the evidence of either their number or identity.

(b) Did the women observe the crucifixion and burial from afar, or did they stand close to the cross? The Gospels give the two accounts. If it's not important, then why appeal to this evidence in the first place?

(c) Was the body of Joshua anointed on the Friday afternoon, or did the women come to do it Sunday morning? Again, the Gospels give divergent accounts.

(d) Did one angel or two angels greet the women at the tomb? Or were they young men? There are different accounts.

(e) Did the women (or one woman) see the risen one? Two evangelists say No. Two evangelists answer Yes. Paul apparently sides with the two evangelists who do not include the woman among the witnesses. (See 1 Corinthians 15)

(f) Did the angel/angels or young man/men tell the women that Joshua had risen and then invite them to see the empty tomb, or did the women first find the tomb empty and after that have the celestial messengers tell them that Joshua had risen? Again, one evangelist gives us one account, and the other gives us the order in reverse.

(g) Did an earthquake greet the arrival of the women at the tomb, and was the stone rolled from the mouth of the tomb before or after they arrived? The Gospels give both accounts.

(h) Now for the big one: Did the angels instruct the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee where he would appear to them, and did these appearances in fact take place in Galilee? Or did the appearances take place in and around Jerusalem? According to Mark who was later copied by Matthew, the disciples were instructed to go back to Galilee where the risen Joshua would meet them. The journey from Jerusalem to Galilee would take from 7 to 10 days. But according to Luke and John, the appearances did not take place in Galilee, but in and around Jerusalem. Mark and Matthew do not know about any Jerusalem appearances, in fact, they rule them out. This brings us to the discrepancies about the timing of the resurrection appearances.

(i) If the appearances took place in Galilee (at an unnamed mountain according to Matthew). then at least a week would have had to elapse between the actual resurrection and the appearances. But according to Luke and John, the first appearance to the disciples took place in or around Jerusalem the evening of Easter Sunday.

(j) Did Joshua appear to his disciples before he ascended to heaven to receive all power and authority, or did he appear after he was enthroned, glorified, and given all power and authority? Matthew has it one way and Luke another. Is the resurrection and ascension essentially one event (Matthew), or two events forty days apart (Luke - Acts)?

(k) Did the risen Joshua give his disciples the power of the Holy Spirit when he first met with them (John), or did he give them the Holy Spirit 50 days after the resurrection and 10 days after his ascension from Bethany (Luke - Acts)?

(l) Were the disciples commanded to return to Galilee to meet the Lord and receive the great commission there (Matthew), or were they commanded to stay in Jerusalem until the coming of the spirit on the day of Pentecost (Luke)? Or did the disciples go back to Galilee, resume their old trade of fishermen, then meet the Lord by the Sea of Tiberius where they got their commission rather than on the mountain? (See John 21, which scholars generally agree is a late edition or appendix to the fourth Gospel.)

While it may be possible to harmonize some of the above points, it is clearly impossible to reconcile mutually exclusive data...

God Bless

bandit - u really make me wonder what u believe some days... 

granted, i've not had the time 2 track your every post but stuff that attacks the Word gives me pause & should ANY believer

Will only say that ANY perceived doctrinal error in Scripture illuminates a lack of understanding by the reader & never the Word

Kevin,

Do you think you've found an error in the Bible? Have you heard an argument against the Bible's inerrancy that you couldn't answer?

I've studied hundreds of alleged Bible errors and I've found answers to them all. I conclude that the Bible is a book without error. Glory to God. If you think you've found an error, then please post it. I'd be happy to post the answer and if I don't know the answer, then I'll research it and post what I find.

I didn't write the above, Brimsmead did...I was curious, and still am, with how Jason might answer his points.  You have to agree that it's pretty big talk to say that he can answer ANY question...and if not, he'll research it.  You are welcome not to read his answers if you aren't interested.  I am.  Thanks for asking.

I am, as always, in Christ, Saviour of all,

God Bless 

Bandit…

  Brinsmead is a scholar??? Oh come on now. Frankly, Brinsmead doesn't write a man of letters… he writes like a novice. The first thing you notice is that he never bothers to annotate his references, forcing the believer to research his claims. True scholars behave more like the writers of many of the posts you read here. On this site most people present their arguments and, if necessary provide the Biblical verses to back up their claims. This man Brinsmead is too arrogant for that. He prefers to play upon the fears of his readers (that there just might be errors in Scripture) and who may be too challenged to even bother to research Brinsmead's claims.

  The 2nd thing you might notice is Brinsmead's use of "Joshua" in place of the name of Jesus. The reason he does that, I'm suspecting, is that Joshua is the Old Testament Hebrew equivalent of our Lord's name. But the use of this "substitute" smacks of a man who is more than a little impressed with himself. He wants to get you to believe that he is clever (otherwise why bother to use a name that doesn't appear this way in the New Testament).

  Lastly, he anticipates the obvious argument: If you say, "This is a minor point which does not matter..." because he realizes this is - in truth - a telling point. Decades ago, when the mis-named "higher criticism" was in it's hay-day, critics like Brinsmead had arguments that were much more forceful and less petty than this. Higher critics would question practically every corner of Scripture - from the location and names of towns to the existence of a supposedly mythological tribe known as the Hittites. But the constant discoveries of archeologists in the Holy Land over the years have laid waste to many of their accusations. The Hittites were a telling blow, their existence proven by the Tablets of Ebla (along with the proof of other cities and tribes mentioned in Scripture).