clrturquoise *.*

My current "investigation" is into the questions of the Bible and inaccuracies. The more I read, the more I find it difficult to explain them away. Some tenets of Christian doctrine that many take issue with I do not consider to be critical to my faith (such as the virgin birth) and therefore am not disillusioned to find that most likely the old testament writings referred simply to a young girl rather than a "virgin" (although this does not seem to be much by way of sign...but whatever).

Outrights untruths though are another matter. I do not know what to do with the historical fact that Herod died four years before Quirinius began his rule or that there is no record of a census/tax anywhere around that time, particularly one requiring people to journey back to their city of origin (which always seemed odd to me in any event). The obvious conclusion seems to be that the writers of the gospels were tailoring their story to fit in with the prophecies concerning the Messiah (i.e., that he would be born in Bethlehem) rather than relating the actual story. I'm having a very hard time reconciling this to what I have always believed: namely, that God's word, while not primarily a historical document, would nonetheless prove to be true to the extent that the human (and therefore fallible) authors were capable. I expect inaccuracies of the sort of an imperfect understanding of science, but the above reeks of manipulation and outright charlatanism.

Perhaps the solution, as has been suggested to me now by a whole range of friends and acquaintances, is to accept that the Bible is not inerrant but to view it as I would the words and works of more contemporary Christians - imperfect and broken tools that God uses to His glory in spite of themselves.