However, you seem to think that just because John doesn't mention this, it means that he says it wasn't. I don't call

that a contradiction, I call it an omission. When 3 sources agree on a subject and another doesn't say yes or no, I'd say

"Where's the problem?"

<<Looking at the specific passages, not only does John refer to the day of the Crucifixion as the preparation for

passover (which as you say could be reconciled if he were simply working to a different calendar) [<John 19:14> "And

it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour">>

Referring to the day before Passover.

<<and similarly <John 18:28>], he also:>>

He was talking about the Jews, who didn't eat the Passover on Thursday, as the disciples and Jesus did.

<<1) Clearly refers to the Last Supper as being the day *before* the passover feast [<John 13:1> "It was just before

the Passover Feast."]>>

The Jews' Passover feast!

<<2) Refers to Jesus and the other disciples buying food for the Passover Feast *after* they have eaten the Last

Supper [<John 13:29> "Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was

needed for the Feast"].>>

<You Rang> Biblical inerrancy and infallibility is necessary. Of course, some of the scriptures are thousands of years old, and it's only natural that copyists and translators would make errors over such a long span of time. What we are really saying here is that God is infallible--as He must be.

As <Ohio Chess Fan> has pointed out, most of these errors have been detected; also, they are mostly very minor details.

So, what you are saying is that God is infallible, but the Bible isn't really inerrant, because it's only natural that copyists/translators would make errors.

<As <Ohio Chess Fan> has pointed out, most of these errors have been detected; also, they are mostly very minor details. >

Yes, he 'pointed out' that claim, and now you have also 'pointed it out', but why do so many Christians think that merely making such a claim makes it true?

Isn't it obvious that one can't truthfully make that claim without having a good idea about how many *undetected* errors there are? And isn't it obvious that we don't know that?

Your justification for making this claim seems to be that it is 'necessary'. Do you see why such logic is faulty? Perhaps the faultiness would be more apparent if you heard a Muslim declare that the Quran is inerrant because it is necessary.

Christians like to sweep this issue under the rug, but a more honest position IMO is to admit it is a matter of faith to suppose that there aren't many undetected errors and that none of them are serious.

== MY LOGIC:

<Percentage of detected errors> = <Number of detected errors> / (<Number of detected errors> + <Number of undetected errors>)

That last part, the <Number of undetected errors> is unknown.

That means that the <Percentage of detected errors> is unknown.

That means one cannot meaningfully say "most errors have been detected".

== YOUR LOGIC:

<There is a large contingent of people who've made it their life's work to search the Bible for contradictions, etc. The vast majority of errors <<they have found>> are in fact obvious scribal errors of name spellings and numbers based on a multiple/power of 10.>

I'm not disputing your comment about the errors they *have* found. I am disputing your conclusion that there are therefore no more errors that they *haven't* found, or at least that all unfound errors must be unimportant. Evidently this is based on a dubious assumption that all errors will lead to a detectable contradiction.

<Evidently this is based on a dubious assumption that all errors will lead to a detectable contradiction.>

<Okay, we found a line of demarcation. 2000 years after the completion of the Bible, you are persuaded that despite the best efforts of how many people, there are untold numbers of undiscovered errors in the Bible? I guess that still borders on the extreme.>

I'm saying that there may well be undiscovered errors that are *undiscoverable* -- despite the best effort of many, because they don't happen to create contradictions with other scripture. Is that extreme?

But perhaps you and I are sparring about this for no good reason. My comments about copyist errors are directed at the claim that the Bible is "inerrant". I don't know that you hold that claim (although <playground player> does).

My position is that people who claim Biblical inerrancy are conveniently sweeping the whole issue of copyist errors under the rug. They seem to be saying: "The Bible is inerrant except for the copyist errors that we know about".

IMO, the very fact that copyist errors are *known* to occur gives rise to the possibility that some unknown number of undetected copyist errors exist.

I have *not* made the claim that copyist errors render the Bible useless.

There is still <whatthefat>'s question though:

It doesn't.

<Or does it equally apply to science? >

Yes, as discussed many times.

<Can I run out "It very well may be........." about anything currently believed in the world of science? I am guessing you'd consider me an extremist to trot that out every time it was convenient.>

Sooner or later one must admit some infallible standard. Without such a standard, how can we reason at all? Every chain of reasoning must start somewhere.

Whatever undetected errors the Bible might contain, vis a vis the spelling of proper names or the transmission of numbers, these are dwarfed by the errors inherent in any other standard of infallibility we might recognize.

Of course I admit my insistence on the Bible's infallibility is a matter of faith. How could it be otherwise?

But let's say none of us here has ever heard of the Bible. (<Whatthefat>, you might as well jump into the discussion, too.) We would all still have some standard which in our minds would be the ultimate court of appeal, as it were, and the beginning of all reasoning. What would it be?

Whatever standard anybody chooses, someone else who doesn't accept it will be able to point to errors in it, or insufficiencies. If your standard is "Science," I can say, "What about Piltdown Man, Climategate, Ernst Haeckl's faked-up drawings, etc.?" If my standard is "American values," can you give me a hard time by asking, "What are those so-called values based on?"