The Bible is Not Without Error

Thanks Pro for the warm welcome. It is my first debate on here. You bring up some good points; let's see if I can do them justice.Crucifixion time Matthew, Mark, and Luke all follow the same timing system, that being Jewish. In the Synoptics the hours are numbered from sunrise which is about 6:00 A.M. Therefore Jesus would have been crucified at 9:00 A.M. John, however, was giving the time based on the official numbering system of the Roman civil day. This can be understood since he wrote his gospel in Ephesus, the capital of the Roman province of Asia. He does this a number of times (20:1; 20:19). A civil day began right after midnight. Pliny the Elder records this in his Natural History 2. 77 and by Macrobius in his Saturnalia 1.3 It should also be noted that the time given in John is specifically at the trial. Therefore, what would have been the 6th hour according to the Roman system, would have been 6:00 A.M. for the Jewish system. And there would be plenty of things to fill the time between being at the trial at 6:00 and being crucified at 9:00. You may not be convinced, but being that it is a possibility, then one cannot call it a contradiction.First appearance of Jesus to disciples While a reply to this apparent contradiction is not as technical as the least, neither is it as persuasive. However, using your definition of a contradiction, "two statements that cannot both be logically correct. One has to be wrong, and the other is either right or wrong," then this would not be considered a contradiction. Neither of the two passages use the word "first," nor anything implying first. Therefore, one cannot argue as you have that they each are claiming to have the disciples meet the resurrected Jesus for the first time. Matthew, for instance, does not deny, but simply could be passing over earlier appearances of Jesus. He simply may have wanted to focus on the occurrence in Galilee. Nevertheless, since neither case is claiming to be the first appearance, then both appearances could be correct. Again, you may not agree of course to the likelihood of my explanation, but it is not a contradiction.The Earth is a circle When one claims the inerrancy of the Bible, and takes it as literal, they must interpret it according the context, and as the author originally intended. For instance, there are parts which speak of God having wings and such, but it is being used as a literary device to describe an aspect of God. We know that such literary devices are being used throughout this chapter as well. We often use such literary terms taken from a point of view - the sun rising/setting. When one is sitting upon something, taken from that view, it would be understandable to describe it as a circle, especially when a term for ellipse in Hebrew did not exist. At least it shows that they knew there was a "roundness" to the Earth. The Hebrew word translated circle here, has also been translated as compassed or compass in Job and Proverbs. In context, it is clear it refers to the sphericity of the Earth, used in by a specific point of view. However, there is another possibility. Since it refers to "he who sits above the circle of the earth," it could be referring to the bowl-like sky over the earth, such as in Job 22:14, or the outer horizon encircling the earth as in Job 26:10. Of course, this isn't a clear-cut, obvious and easy verse. However, since it can be understood as a literary device depicting a point of view, or as a term used in reference to be a ball like object, or in reference to something else around the earth that is circular, then this is not a contradiction. As I said, you have brought up some difficult apparent contradictions, and you probably are not convinced otherwise by my explanations, however, to hold fast to it being an absolute contradiction one cannot.A global flood This will be difficult to discuss given the time and space allotted. Of course there are entire books published on the topic of the possibility of a global flood. Many historians of course disagree. Many historians would say there is the possibility. This technically is not a contradiction since it is arguable and not logically incompatible. The debate is basically over which side has the better evidence. There are many ancient versions of a global flood all having the same basic core points. Myths perhaps, but because of the number, it appears some truth to it may be found. For instance, Ziusudra of the Sumerians, and Utnapishtim by the Babylonians, and the Greeks, Hindus, Chinese, Mexicans, Algonquins, and Hawaiians to name a few all have a similar flood story. One list of Sumerian kings treat the global flood as a historical reference point. "Then the Flood swept over the earth and when kingship was lowered again from heaven, kingship was first in Kish." There is geological evidence that points to a global flood. Such a flood would explain the partial skeletons of modern animals found in deep fissures all over the world, such as in high hills. None of these skeletons have been found complete so they did not fall into or were pushed in by streams. Calcite cemented their bones together, which gives credence to being deposited while under water. But there are many evidences given, most of which I do not have enough knowledge to delve too deeply in to. Such would include the origin of civilization near the Ararat-Babylon region after the supposed Flood time; the dating of the oldest living things to the Flood time; the apparent convergence of population growth statistics to the date of the Flood; the worldwide occurrence of water-laid sediments and sedimentary rocks; the recent uplift of major mountain ranges; the finding of marine fossils on mountain peaks; the evidence of a former warmer worldwide climate; the necessity of a catastrophic burial and rapid lithification of fossil deposits; the recent origin of many datable geologic processes; the worldwide distribution of all types of fossils; the uniform appearance of many rocks from different ages; the mixing of fossils from different ages; the near-random deposition of formational sequences; the equivalence of total organic material in present world and fossil world; the worldwide distribution of volcanic rocks from the same age; evidence of recent bodies of water in desert areas; the wide distribution of raised shore lines and river terraces; the evidence of a recent drastic rise in the sea level; the occurrences of too small rivers in large valleys; sudden extinctions of prehistoric animals; a rapid onset of a glacial period; the existence of polystrate fossils; the preservation of tracks and markings throughout the geologic column; the worldwide occurrence of sedimentary fossil graveyards in rocks of all ages; the absence of physical boundaries between ages; the occurrences of all rock types in all ages; the absence of meteorites in the geologic column; the absence of hail imprints while there is an abundance of rain imprints in the geologic column; the evidence of man's existence during the earliest geologic ages; similar structural features in rocks of all ages; the absence of evidence of drainage systems; the hydraulic evidence of rapid deposition of each stratum; and finally, numerous possible sighting of Noah's ark. This is just to mention some of what I have found over the years of study. While I don't intend for that list to necessarily prove Noah's global flood, I do intend it to show that at least there are arguments and evidences for the possibility of a global flood. I also understand there are historical proofs against such a flood, such as your Egyptian notation. However, one cannot honestly say that the Biblical flood of Noah is a historical mistake when one can amass considerable geologic and historical evidences lending support to the historicity of the biblical story. A historical mistake it may not be, and certainly not a contradiction of history.Will respond to others as space allows.