AJ777 In response to your challenge to Pitar, well I can demonstrably prove that the great flood did not happen, I can also show through the fossil record that the events of Genesis did not happen, I can show you the contradiction between the vengeful old testament god and the loving new testament god (these are quite clearly not the same being). I could point to the council of Nicea where the nature of god was debated, decided upon and the gospels that supported that narrative chosen and the ones that didn't were cast asunder (this by the way is historical fact, not even the church denies that this didn't happen) and so the bible is simply an interpretation by humans of events. Since it's almost impossible for a human being to report on an event and not position it from their own personal paradigm it is entirely illogical to believe that this is a perfect document.

Take the following - (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.

Now these are both referring to the same event and yet they contradict each other in a fundamental way which means the bible cannot be perfect truth, at best it can be human witness to an event which is in itself to be fundamentally flawed. You may not think that the above extracts are important contradictions and indeed they aren't in the context of the overall narrative but in the context of proving the frailties of the text itself they are extremely important. The bible cannot be perfect and still have this kind of contradiction in it.

The bible cannot possibly be both perfect and open to interpretation, nuance has no place in perfection.

Solution 1 - You cannot say that that the text is perfect and then say that it's human interpretation of the event. Even the bible states that we're not perfect so by extension the writings of the people are subject to the same frailties which by definition makes the bible imperfect. Is it implied from this example then that if Matthew is telling the second event and Mark and Luke telling the first that Jesus had to be asked twice to help a little girl, I thought children were the greatest in all of heaven? Seems cruel to make her wait for healing until she'd actually suffered death, if Jesus then resurrected her from the afterlife does that mean he dragged her out of heaven back to earth? This seems even more cruel don't you think? More to the point if she has actually died why do Mark and Luke seek to downgrade the event to something less impressive?

Solution 2 - Craig Blombergs comments are a deflection, actually if you believe them they prove a lack of perfection, how is saying oh ignore that it was imperfectly translated anything other an admission of imperfection? And to state 'Yet to call this a contradiction is anachronistically to impose on an ancient text modern standards of precision in story telling' is hysterical. Have you read some modern books? The overwhelming majority of them are absolute pap so to suggest our story telling is somehow more sophisticated than biblical times is laughable. I'd contest one of the greatest stories ever written was homers the iliad written 75 years before Jesus was even a non twinkle in his dads eye we hold this to modern standards of storytelling and it glowing puts most of them to shame.

Proposed sequence of events - How is this even an argument? This is not Schrodingers cat, she either was or wasn't dead she cannot be both. The event is told from the perspective of an observer that he was begging to heal his dead or dying daughter. It doesn't say Jairus was begging for his sick daughter, then a runner came along and informed him she'd died which would have been a rather important point if you're Mark or Luke wouldn't you say. Imperfection by omission is still imperfection and your challenge was to prove the bible flawed or fabricated. All of the above make it one or the other.

Focal Points - It cannot be perfect and interpreted, it is either exact testament or it isn't, she is either dead or dying. The fact that the contradiction even exists proves it's flawed.

I'm not saying the event didn't happen I'm saying that a book that puts itself on a pedestal of perfection cannot then hide behind imperfect notions of interpretation, points of reference, mistranslations or sheer denial of the issue, very few books ask us to do this but the ones that do deserve scrutiny.

The only reasonable thing is to recognize our own ignorance. All so-called "proofs of God" only reinforce that conclusion. They only prove that some people will go to any length to deny that THEY SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW. They don't have the guts to stand up to this universe and accept that in this vast universe what we know is just like a drop compared to the ocean. I sure would love to know, but I don't. Now the thing to do is to ask ourselves, What can we do to know more? And go on from there... That's the only sane thing which makes sense. Hard indeed to realize you're the only sane person you know...