The Argument from Biblical Defects is Sound

Thanks for the debate, I appreciate the opportunity. The content of the given argument is a big issue of misconception among so many unlearned people who lacks insight on Biblical theology and indepth perspective. I think it’s an essential debate to read. To the skeptic it might appear so tempting that it has exposed Christianity. But it’s not so if you do a good investigation.Let me come to the point. An argument is not sound or good if it’s premises are more likely to be false and if the argument is not more plausible than its negation. I will show how this is not a good argument. The main flaw in the argument is Premise (2) or (B) where the skeptic mistakes on the doctrine of Biblical inspiration. In 2 Timothy 3:16, we are told that all Scripture is inspired. The word used for inspiration means "God-breathed" implying that what was written had its origin in God Himself. In 2 Peter 1:21 we read that the men (writers) were "carried along" by God. Thus, God used each writer, including his personality to accomplish a divinely authoritative work. As Paul mentioned that believers are vessels (2 Cor 6:7; 2 Tim 2:20-21) for God’s work, same way God used humans vessels for revealing scripture. Read this page to understand the meaning & definition of revelation and inspiration, where the authors answered the so called 101 contradictions in the Bible [1]. It is important to note that it’s the Islamic doctrine that believes Quran to be directly dropped down from above with no possibility of error of even a dot. Assuming Quranic standards for Bible would be straw man attack. The article of Daniel Wallace refuting the repeated arguments of Bart Ehrman is the key to understand the Biblical position on inerrancy and objective evidence of text.Wallace writes “We need to begin by making a careful distinction between verbal inspiration and inerrancy. Inspiration relates to the wording of the Bible, while inerrancy relates to the truth of a statement. American evangelicals generally believe that only the original text is inspired. This is not to say, however, that copies can’t be inerrant. Indeed, statements that bear no relation to scripture can be inerrant. If I say, “I am married and have four sons, two dogs, and a cat,” that’s an inerrant statement. It’s not inspired, nor at all related to scripture, but it is true. Similarly, whether Paul says “we have peace” or “let us have peace” in Rom 5.1, both statements are true (though each in a different sense), though only one is inspired. Keeping this distinction in mind as we consider the textual variants of the New Testament should clarify matters.”[2]2.1 Genealogy of Jesus: - Michael Brown wrote in his book- “Common sense would tell you that the followers of Jesus, who were totally dedicated to demonstrating to both Jews and Gentiles that he was truly the Messiah and Savior, would not preserve and pass on two impossibly contradictory genealogies. In fact, this very suggestion directly contradicts the common objection that the NT authors rewrote the accounts of the Gospels in order to make Jesus look like he was the Messiah. The reality is that the story of his life and were careful to include two important genealogies in presenting the account of his ancestry and birth.” (Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol 4,p 76-83) Here the topic of genealogy of Jesus is dealt with a great detail, anyone wants to study must read these explanation.[3] Misunderstanding prophetic context; the prophesy for Egypt might have been fulfilled in immediate context as there had happened there, moreover it could well be an end time prophesy. It’s a misconception of interpretation. Verse 1 suggests the final coming of Jesus on the clouds.2.4 Nebuchadnezzar did conquer Egypt.[4]3.1 Keep in mind the definition of inspiration & revelation I gave above throughout my arguments. The verse of 1 John 5:7-8 is indeed a latter addition by scribes and copyists. It is not a single occasion but there are many such verses which are later found out to be added by scribal error where some late copyists might have attempted to harmonize the text further. These additional handful of verses are completely peripheral and irrelevant to any cardinal doctrine of Bible, they are not included in modern translations to pass on the more authentic text. KJV was made from very few mss of 6th century, later we discovered more authentic early copies of the NT hence the difference.3.2 “Church wanted to defend doctrine of trinity” the argument is silly, we should ask the skeptic, does he really think that the Church now wants to destroy the same doctrine by deleting many verses from the KJV? The doctrine of trinity is not based on that particular verse.3.3 We also have good evidence against the textual authenticity of the Pericope Adultarae passage; again it doesn’t affect any central doctrine. Christians don’t worship the adulterous woman. Read details of these references in “Gospel of Bart” [2]4 Confusing Variants with Contradictions4.1 It very irrelevant if the Pericope Adultarae was mentioned in Luke in handful of later century mss.4.2 The variants have no significance to the textual reliability."There are approximately 138,000 words in the Greek NT. The variants in the manuscripts, versions, and Fathers constitute almost three times this number. At first blush, that is a striking amount. But in light of the possibilities, it actually is rather trivial. For example, consider the ways in which Greek can say “Jesus loves Paul”: 1. ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ Παῦλον2. ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Παῦλον3. ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ Παῦλον (upto 12)Factor in synonyms (such as κύριοςfor ᾿Ιησοῦς), spelling differences, and additional words (such as Χριστός, or ἅγιος with Παῦλος) and the list of potential variants that do not affect the essence of the statement increases to the hundreds. If such a simple sentence as “Jesus loves Paul” could have so many insignificant variations, a mere 400,000 variants among the NT manuscripts seems like an almost negligible amount." [2]4. 4 The longer ending of Mark is also latter addition; imagine why would the Christians themselves edit the Bible to make conflict with any doctrine at all? These things are known to the scholars and common man from long time. It’s silly the passage affect any doctrine because the Resurrection of Christ already happened before that passage. Many have died because of it? That surely came from Muslims.5.1-4 Only couple of epistles was in dispute however the works of Church Councils was to attest and declare the authentic list of books to make known to public that they may reject any second century Gnostic forgery. The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the NT, as it stands today(all 27 books), together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. See the canon list of councils in history. [5]5.5 Old Testament books in Canon are the exact same with what unbelieving Jews have with them, not a single word in disagreement. The books he mentioned are apocrypha books which are not the inspired scripture. [6] The belief of Catholics is irrelevant.The argument that we don’t have original autographed mss of NT is absurd, because one can never know for sure whether or not some mss are the original autographed in the first place if they are discovered. It doesn’t affect inerrancy. This year we discovered some mss that date from first to the half of second century, which made the textual authenticity even more incredible these mss fragments make 33% of the NT dating within 1st to 2nd century.[7]Ref:[1] http://debate.org.uk...[2] http://bible.org... (Gospel of Bart, must read)[3] http://tinyurl.com... (Genealogy)[4] http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com...[5] http://www.biblestudying.net... [6] http://www.bible.ca... [7] http://www.csntm.org... Center for Study of NT Manuscripts