If the Bible is inerrant, then why does it prove itself to be errant?

Question

Here is a verse from the Bible; Titus 1:12-13

"One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are ALWAYS liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."

So let's see here. A Cretin, meaning "an inhabitant of the island of Crete" is saying that Cretins are ALWAYS liars. However, this is basically that infamous brainteaser, because if Cretins are always liars, then THIS Cretin is lying when he says that they are all liars! Therefore, this is false.

"This testimony is TRUE. For this cause reprove them severely that they may be sound in the faith."

If Paul is correct, then this Cretin is honest, by saying that Cretins ALWAYS lie. That means that in fact, if this statement is true Cretins DO NOT always lie, because this Cretin is telling the true about Cretins always lying! Paul says that this statement is true; that Cretins always lie, but this one tells the truth. Therefore Paul is wrong, which means that the Bible, in this case is wrong. So it can't be perfect.

So, any takers?

Also, you can't quibble about the definition of "always", because here it is: "at all times : INVARIABLY" from dictionary.com. This, then is an absolute. Paul is saying that Cretins ABOSOLUTELY lie all the time, yet Paul says that this Cretin is telling the truth about Cretins lying all the time. Therefore, since Paul says that this Cretin is telling the truth about Cretins lying all the time, Cretins do not absolutely lie all the time, and this is false. Therefore Paul is wrong, and because this statement is in the Bible, the Bible is wrong in this case, which means that the Bible is errant.

Kelly: How in the WORLD is that an ad-hominem? Do you know what that IS? It is attacking the person instead of attacking an argument. I have ripped Paul's argument, that this statement is true, to shreds, and thusly concluded that the Bible is in fact Errant. An ad-hominem would be, "The Bible is mean. Therefore it is false."

jweston2: A good point, however the scripture says "A prophet of THEIR OWN", since later this same prophet slanders Cretins, I would assume that the THEIR OWN refers to a prophet of the Cretins. The logical fallacy remains.

Thomas the doubter: Considering that the Bible is supposed to be the inspired word of God, I wouldn't think that Jehovah would let hyperbole into the text, considering that it would result in a contradiction. Jehovah would KNOW this. Therefore, if hyperbole seeped into the text, Jehovah would know it, and in order to avoid the logical contradiction that was created would make sure that the hyperbole was not added to the text. Sorry, but that excuse doesn't work. At any rate, the prophet doesn't just say "Cretins lie" it says "Cretins ALWAYS lie." I have provided a definition of Always above. It is an absolute. I would not believe Bill if he said that he ALWAYS lied, because it walks into the contra diction detailed above. So that excuse doesn't work either.

Answer 1

What evidence do you have that the "prophet" is a Cretan?

Re: The phrase "of their own" clearly refers to verse 10, "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:" Again I ask you, What evidence do you have that the "prophet" is a Cretan?

Answer 2

We are all liars and yet most of us tell the truth most of the time. What if Bill Clinton told you he was a liar? Would you believe him? I would, even though I know he is a liar. Also, I wonder if you have ever heard of hyperbole?

Edit: You clearly do not understand the purpose of hyperbole. Hyperbole is not a contradiction because it is an obvious, intentional exaggeration intended to make a point. In this case, Paul is quoting another man's hyperbolic statement about Cretins. So what?

Answer 3

You really have to understand this: you got that verse wrong. I think that someone else tried to explain it to you, but apparently it didn't sink in. Please allow me to try.

This is what Paul faced whebn dealing with those who lived on Crete. They were idolatrous. And Paul was referring to them in a way which ONLY STUDY would reveal. Not the attack of an angry man, but an observation of what the idolatrous priests on that island practiced.

( From the Varsity Press) Thus far given has drawn out the obvious faults of the false teachers. When their attitudes, methods and motives are exposed, there can be no doubt that these people are evil. Paul puts the cap on this expose with his surprising quotation of Epimenides (v. 12). He calls this ancient religious teacher, from the sixth century B.C., one of their own [that is, the false teachers'] prophets. This first connection probably lies in their common profession, teaching religious fables, and in their common homeland, Crete. But how does Paul mean the citation to be understood? Cretans had acquired the name liars because of their claim that the tomb of Zeus was on Crete. Thus a reference to religious deceit is at the heart of the saying. These false teachers have fulfilled Epimenides' prophecy in their own generation by propagating a religious lie. The rest of the quotation, evil brutes, lazy gluttons, associates the false religious claim with uncontrolled, wanton behavior. Notice how closely Paul's description of the errorists corresponds to the three-part saying: they are deceivers (v. 10), rebels and disrupters (vv. 10-11), with minds set on money (v. 11). Clearly, in the case of these Cretan heretics, the ancient forecast held true. Today the religious lies propagated by cult leaders (those that draw attention away from the gospel) belong to the same category. Their purpose is to attract attention to the leader or the cult's ruling elite. Their result is self-gratifying behavior on the part of the leaders and ignorance on the part of naive followers.

So don't take it as an ad hominem attack. Take it as an obsevation of what those preists, those greedy priests would do to those who they caused to fear Zeus.

Now, as far as the Bible being inerrant; it isn't inerrant. And any one who thinks that they can read Bibles in English and say that it is inerrant is just fooling themselves. The Bible, as so many have noted, is copied and translated from centuries past. It wasn't meant to be inerrant, but it was meant to be inspired. Only those who are inspired and cares for these texts are the one's who understand it. So while you are cruising through the Anti Biblical Atheistic sites, remember that you are only getting one side, and the other side are those credentialed scholars who interpret scripture FOR THE BENEFIT of those who want to REALLY know what it's talking about.

Answer 4

Yes, your using something called FAULTY LOGIC.

All cats have 4 legs, all dogs have 4 legs, therefore all cats are dogs. Sounds correct, BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE IT SO.

For another thing: you say "I don't think Jehovah would let hyperbole into it." Why not? We have the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc., that SHOW the early Bible. The King James Bible is the MOST mistranlated Bible in history, yet everyone seems to use it. God gave man the Bible, his part is finished, its up to mankind NOW to keep it clean.

Answer 5

LoL. I think you are trying to hard to prove your own point of view toward the bible. Meaning that the minute you open the bible you allready have a pre consieved idea, that what you are searching for is to prove your point. And not really giving it a fair and uninfluencial point of view. If you were to look at everying in life the way you looked at the bible, then we would all be in jail and no one would be innocent.

Answer 6

The bible is the inerrant work of God!

God Bless

Answer 7

the bible is not inerrant. ther eare many alterations imade by man. even many biblical scholars believe this. the bible was a holy book sent by God, but it has been corrupted by man. the Quran is the unaltered word of God and it is truly inerrant. it is a book or miracles that could never be produced by man.

Answer 8

Ad hominum.

If you referring to the rest of the errors in the bible, it was edited by man

Answer 9

You get an A+.

Answer 10

he is quoting Epimenides.