Christianity is a false Religion

We can (and will) discuss the merits of specific texts that seem to contradict one another. But there is something more fundamental that needs to be addressed concerning my opponent's argument: Why should the Christian approach the nature of the Bible inductively rather than deductively? That is, why should the Christian understand the nature of Scripture by the appearance of errors, rather than by what Scripture says about itself? CONTRADICTIONS 1. Who killed Saul? 1 Samuel 31:4-5 "...Saul took his own sword and fell upon it. And when his armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell upon his sword and died with him." (ESV) 1 Chronicles 10:4-5 says almost word-for-word the same thing. Things we can glean from these texts: A. Saul fell on his sword. B. Once Saul was dead, his armor-bearer fell on his own sword an died. And if we look at verse 3 of either text, we find that: C. Saul was already wounded by Philistine archers. 2 Samuel 21:12 makes reference to “the day the Philistines killed Saul.” The word translated 'killed' (ESV) or 'slain' (KJV) can mean strike, slay, beat, or kill. It could easily be referring to when their archers “badly wounded” Saul. It may even mean that they wounded him, which indirectly resulted in his death. It seems to me that it could also mean that they beat him in battle, which resulted in his death. Now, let's consider the Amalekite in 2 Samuel 1:8-10. Kohai says he cannot find where the Amalekite is lying and that it is important that he is talking to David. Is Kohai looking for a text that blatantly states that the Amalekite is lying? I would agree that there isn't that, but that is hardly a necessity in order to surmise that someone is lying. Often in stories, be it a written narrative or movie, you will come across a character who lies without anyone pointing it out explicitly. Why would he lie to David? The Amalekite seemed to have a pretty good idea of who David was and what it meant that Saul and Jonathan were dead. Why not embellish his story by claiming to have helped the King in his last hour? I don't imagine he was expecting David's response, or else he would have left that part of the story out. Lastly, consider whether or not it is a contradiction to say that God killed Saul. Often the Bible speaks of God accomplishing his purpose by means of the actions of a person or persons. For example, we see examples throughout Scripture of God judging nations by other nations. This seems like a rather commonplace thing for Scripture to say and needs further argument in order to be shown to be a contradiction. 2. The Genealogies of Jesus There are a number of possible answers (3) to this issue: 1. Both Matthew and Luke give true historical genealogies of Joseph (by levirate marriage or by legal adoption)2. Matthew gives the true historical genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives the true historical genealogy of Mary (by bracketing Joseph in Luke's genealogy) 3. Matthew gives the true historical genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives the true historical genealogy of both Joseph and Mary (by Levirate marriage or legal adoption together with consanguinity)4. Both Matthew and Luke give the true historical genealogies of both Joseph and Mary (by levirate marriage or legal adoption together with consanguinity) 5. Matthew gives the true historical genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives a non-historical genealogy of Joseph (by historical reservation)6. Luke gives the true historical genealogy of Joseph and Matthew gives a non-historical genealogy of Joseph (by historical. Reservation) 7. Both Matthew and Luke give non-historical genealogies of Joseph (by historical reservation) 3. How did Judas die? Matthew 27 says he hanged himself, but Acts 1 says he fell and he burst open, spilling his guts. It may be that both occurred. Judas may have hanged himself someplace high, the rope broke and he spilled his guts on the ground. I think its rather hard to say this couldn't have happened. On the other hand, that isn't the only possible explanation. Another, I think likely, possibility is that Matthew is not saying that Judas actually hanged himself. Instead, he is comparing Judas to Ahithophel, who in 2 Samuel 17:23, after betraying David, went off and hanged himself. Rather than telling us the actual way in which Judas died, Matthew may be creatively calling Judas Ahithophel. Prophecy: Ezekiel and Tyre It seems rather significant that in the beginning of Chapter 26 of Ezekiel, you find the pronouns 'I' (God) and 'they' (many nations – see verse 3). However, when Nebuchadnezzar is introduced, it switches to 'he'. In verse 12, the pronoun switches back to 'they'. It seems that the larger context is God bringing many nations against Tyre, Babylon being one of those nations – a specific one being described. It doesn't seem to be a problem for it to have been destroyed by Alexander. (4) Sources: 1. See the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy 2. http://www.blueletterbible.org... 3. http://www.rtforum.org... 4. http://www.answers.com...