Is the Bible inerrant? Does it contradict itself?

[Timothy]

The Bible is a spiritual work, and requires that it be read with the help of the Holy Spirit, in order to comprehend it's meanings 1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. It is not meant to be merely a "historical reference" or a "religious text".

[George]

Prime, do you feel that the discrepancy was not answered fully?

[Prime Number]

  I think it comes down to faith. If you have faith in the Bible you will believe it's Mary's genealology. My problem is faith doesn't require any proof. It seems my scientific and rational mind is saying one thing but I want to believe the other. It's an obvious discrepancy, I can't deny that. There is no reference to make me think it's Mary's genealology. But with God all things are possible so I'll say this: I have absolute faith in God, but less faith in the Bible as God's inerrant word.

 It looks like the search (and the debate) continues.

Prime#

[Timothy]

Let me pose a question or two for you to ponder, Prime.

Do you believe the Bible (in it's current form) to be the inspired Word of God? If not, then was He unable or unwilling to preserve His word in the written form?

[joed86]

Hi, here is something I think may clear it up a little...

First let me go to the following scripture:

And I will put emnity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel. Genesis 3:15

As you all know, this was part of Gods punishment to the serpent in the Garden Of Eden. It is also known as the first time the possibilty of a savior is foretold.

What I want to point you to is the choice of words used.

God says he will put emnity between thy seed(the serpent) and her seed(Eve).

It is the only time in the entire bible that a woman is mentioned as having seed. Of course the sperm can only come from a man. But God specifically mentions "her seed"! Did he err or did he know that Mary would be different even 3,000 years before she concieved Jesus? It's amazing!

So I say that Mary is worthy, and the only Woman in human history that can be included in the biblical geneaologies as George stated.

God's wisdom is indeed infinite!

[Guest Xan]

Prime, don't yell at me.  I'm not married to you, nor did I give birth to you.

Sorry, I was in a fog yesterday.  I kept messing up paper work at my job, too.  I've made a few minor mistakes today as well, but overall I feel better.

The first part of what I daid is true, however.  Luke was a Greek, and he wrote the geneologies from the stand point of a biological standpoint.  Since Joseph was the legal father, but not the biological father, Luke did not give as much credence to Joseph's lineage.  And he said Joseph, because it is like saying Mrs. Joseph.  On the other hand, Matthew was a Hebrew, and he gave more credence to the geneology of Joseph- the legal father.

[George]

While praying today over the different members of the forum, the Lord revealed to me just how important it was that the lineage of a bloodline is given through a male.

[Prime Number]

   First, let me say: Xan, I didn't mean to yell at you. I was simply trying to get the point across that your statement is your opinion. It's not what the Bible says. It seems that many Christians are trying to have it both ways. This includes many on this forum. Either the Bible is literal or not. You can't say "the Bible is God's word, you can't change it, or use your interpretations" and then on a different subject say, "well...this is what they meant". There is NO mention of it being Mary's genealology and you know it. You can try to rationalize it all you want, with your interpretations and opinions. But as soon as you do that, you prove that the Bible is errant and needs interpretation.

  I don't see how the story of Lot pertains to Xan's statement either. Lot's daughters had no worth, so they wanted to conceive a son(brother) to preserve the family line. If it pertained to Xan's statement all they would have to do is marry any man and "culturally" Lot's line would extend to the husband. But as you said, "they obviously felt they couldn't preserve their fathers line" except through his seed.

Prime#

[Timothy]

Hi Prime,

Any thoughts on my questions to you?

Also, you said;

My problem is faith doesn't require any proof.

How is that a "problem" for you? Do you lack faith?

[Guest Xan]

Just because G-d's Word is inerrant, does not mean there are not historical and cultural basis for what the writer is saying.  It also does not mean we should not look at who the writer is, to whom he is writing, and his intent.  The words of scripture are true, but sometimes the meaning of those words get lost when we don't understand the basis for them.