Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-17-2019 3:34 PM
26 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, JonF, PaulK (4 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Happy Birthday: lopezeast0211
Post Volume:
Total: 856,865 Year: 11,901/19,786 Month: 1,682/2,641 Week: 191/708 Day: 18/40 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
11Next
Author Topic:   Squaring circles: direct biblical contradictions
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3434 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 31 of 161 (531921)
10-20-2009 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by iano
10-20-2009 5:32 AM


Re: A personal favorite..
God doesn't prohibit God killing. Thou not= God.

In this case God is the killer and man the weapon of Gods choice. Man isn't subject to the law which prohibits him deciding to kill off his own bat in this case (think of our own laws prohibiting killing yet that same authority can instruct us to kill (executioner/soldier))

Apparently, my previous reply to this preposterous argument has been ruled "off topic", so I will try again:

God prohibits humans from killing other humans. Later, he orders humans to kill other humans. If god had wanted the second group to be killed, then he should have found another method, rather than having to countermand his earlier commandment, and appear inconsistent. An earthquake, or something of that kind, would have done the trick.

My earlier criticism still stands, though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by iano, posted 10-20-2009 5:32 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by iano, posted 10-21-2009 3:13 PM Blzebub has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1651 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 32 of 161 (531937)
10-20-2009 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Blzebub
10-20-2009 12:54 PM


Re: Supposed Inconsistencies
quote:
Asking for evidence that god has (or hasn't) changed is patently absurd. You might as well ask whether I think Father Christmas has changed. But christianity teaches that god hasn't changed. I won't bother to provide any supporting links, because you have disallowed them.
You cried immutability. Therefore you are responsible for providing the evidence that God is not capable of or susceptible to change. I don't disallow supporting links. The rules frown upon only links with no supporting argument in your own words. It doesn't matter what Christianity teaches, there still has to be support for immutability. If you don't have support then you have no argument against what I've provided as explanations to the verses you considered inconsistent other than you disagree.

quote:
You are playing with words again. Of course he was countering it, by placing the interests of "man" above any petty rules about "the sabbath". The original command is, however, very explicit and it even stipulates that there are to be no exceptions in the future.
I gave you the information you needed to make a reasoned decision. Jesus didn't rescind the law, he knocked over the fence. Paul was talking to Greeks who were not subject to the covenant.

BTW, God did make exceptions. Just before the portion you picked, Jesus gave reference to what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? (Mark 2:25-26) The point was it is always lawful to do good and to save life even on the Sabbath. The spirit of the law, not the letter.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Blzebub, posted 10-20-2009 12:54 PM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Blzebub, posted 10-20-2009 3:33 PM purpledawn has responded

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3434 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 33 of 161 (531941)
10-20-2009 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by purpledawn
10-20-2009 3:10 PM


Re: Supposed Inconsistencies
You cried immutability. Therefore you are responsible for providing the evidence that God is not capable of or susceptible to change. I don't disallow supporting links. The rules frown upon only links with no supporting argument in your own words. It doesn't matter what Christianity teaches, there still has to be support for immutability. If you don't have support then you have no argument against what I've provided as explanations to the verses you considered inconsistent other than you disagree.

This is just ridiculous. Your argument is specious. You already know I don't believe in god, so I can't provide personal "evidence" about god's nature. But I was brought up in the christian tradition, and I have a good memory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immutability_%28theology%29

The term is important in Christology, in the sense that most Christian denominations teach that the Son of God did not undergo any change in his divine nature at the Incarnation. Immutability implies in this particular understanding that the Holy Trinity cannot change and remains united.

In Christian theology the idea of God's immutability is essentially tied to God's eternality. God, being out side of time (trans-temporal), can not change, because he is not affected by time, which is the agent of change in a temporal universe.

What do you mean by "Jesus didn't rescind the law, he knocked over the fence." It doesn't actually mean anything AFAICT.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by purpledawn, posted 10-20-2009 3:10 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by purpledawn, posted 10-20-2009 8:10 PM Blzebub has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 325 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 34 of 161 (531951)
10-20-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blzebub
10-17-2009 4:57 PM


Weak arguments
I find your arguments extremely weak. Most of them follow the pattern, "The Bible says A to person and situation X, and it says B to person and situation Y. Since A is not the same as B the Bible is inconsistent." This is silly; it ignores the different individuals, situations, cultural contexts, etc in the two different events. These are not inconsistencies at all!

Two of your arguments rest on bad translations of the Hebrew:

quote:
3.God tempts Abraham:

Genesis 22:1-12 (King James Version)
Genesis 22

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.



"Tempt" is a poor translation of nasah: "test" is better, as it reads in most modern translations.

quote:
5. God prohibits killing:

Exodus 20:13 (King James Version)
Thou shalt not kill.


"Kill" is a poor translation of ratsach; it should read "murder" as it does in most modern translations.

Your best argument is probably Judges 5:27. But this is part of a song, so could be expected to take some poetic license and to use poetic imagery.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blzebub, posted 10-17-2009 4:57 PM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by purpledawn, posted 10-21-2009 6:17 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply
 Message 38 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 12:31 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1651 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 35 of 161 (532004)
10-20-2009 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Blzebub
10-20-2009 3:33 PM


Re: Supposed Inconsistencies
quote:
What do you mean by "Jesus didn't rescind the law, he knocked over the fence." It doesn't actually mean anything AFAICT.
See Message 27


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Blzebub, posted 10-20-2009 3:33 PM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 12:25 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1651 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 36 of 161 (532056)
10-21-2009 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by kbertsche
10-20-2009 3:59 PM


Inconsistent Formula
quote:
I find your arguments extremely weak. Most of them follow the pattern, "The Bible says A to person and situation X, and it says B to person and situation Y. Since A is not the same as B the Bible is inconsistent." This is silly; it ignores the different individuals, situations, cultural contexts, etc in the two different events. These are not inconsistencies at all!
Many of the "inconsistencies" I see presented follow this formula. It is very obvious that those presenting these supposed inconsistencies haven't read the surrounding text to understand the point that is being made by the author. Here is another example:

GE 27:28 "May God give you ... an abundance of grain and new wine."
DT 7:13 If they follow his commandments, God will bless the fruit of their wine.
PS 104:15 God gives us wine to gladden the heart.
JE 13:12 "... every bottle shall be filled with wine."
JN 2:1-11 According to the author of John, Jesus' first miracle was turning water to wine.
RO 14:21 It is good to refrain from drinking wine.

Of course they didn't give the whole verse from Romans 14:21.

It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by kbertsche, posted 10-20-2009 3:59 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3434 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 37 of 161 (532123)
10-21-2009 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by purpledawn
10-20-2009 8:10 PM


Re: Supposed Inconsistencies
So, if all Jesus wanted to do was to knock over the fence, why didn't he say "I think it's OK to knock over this fence, but the earlier commandment still stands for any other prohibited activities which anyone might be planning"? Instead of making a specific sabbath exception, he made a general one.

Your initial arguments in this thread were all about whether god is perfect or not, and asking me for evidence that to be considered the "word of god" the bible cannot contain inconsistencies. May I remind you that the subtitle of this subforum is "Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?" There's an assumption in that subtitle, and also in the original starting quote, that the word of god is inerrant. So what is your opinion about that?

You seem to want to "have it both ways" in this discussion. In the first place you challenge the very idea that the word of god is inerrant, and then you employ a series of contorted wriggling manoeuvres to try to show that it is inerrant, after all!

Edited by Blzebub, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by purpledawn, posted 10-20-2009 8:10 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by purpledawn, posted 10-21-2009 1:31 PM Blzebub has responded

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3434 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 38 of 161 (532125)
10-21-2009 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by kbertsche
10-20-2009 3:59 PM


Re: Weak arguments
"Kill" is a poor translation of ratsach; it should read "murder" as it does in most modern translations.

Your best argument is probably Judges 5:27. But this is part of a song, so could be expected to take some poetic license and to use poetic imagery.

So, manslaughter is OK? Along with torture, which isn't outlawed either. Eating various types of prohibited food is worse than torture.

The "inerrant word of god" ought to be inerrant, at least, poetic license or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by kbertsche, posted 10-20-2009 3:59 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by purpledawn, posted 10-21-2009 1:51 PM Blzebub has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1651 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 39 of 161 (532137)
10-21-2009 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Blzebub
10-21-2009 12:25 PM


Doctrine of Inerrancy
quote:
Your initial arguments in this thread were all about whether god is perfect or not, and asking me for evidence that to be considered the "word of god" the bible cannot contain inconsistencies. May I remind you that the subtitle of this subforum is "Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?" There's an assumption in that subtitle, and also in the original starting quote, that the word of god is inerrant. So what is your opinion about that?
The Doctrine of Inerrancy refers to the original manuscripts and is only about 200 years old.

Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that, in its original form, the Bible is totally without error, and free from all contradiction; "referring to the complete accuracy of Scripture, including the historical and scientific parts."

Since I seriously doubt you have a copy of any original manuscripts, there's nothing to debate. I would agree that the original manuscripts probably were accurate. There's no way to know. Of course, we have to remember that the Bible was compiled over thousands of years and the originals probably weren't even around when the NT was written. We already know that the NT writings have been altered from their originals. Other books, which I believe are no longer extant, are referenced in the Bible. So we know that information was pulled from other sources than God.

I'm not the one who claimed the Bible we have today has to be free of inconsistencies or contradictions to be the word of God, you did.

Unfortunately, you haven't shown that the verses you provided are actually inconsistencies or contradictions other than to your own perception.

Why do you still feel these verses are contradictions or inconsistencies?
Just because you don't like the way God did what he did, doesn't make it an inconsistency or contradiction.

quote:
You seem to want to "have it both ways" in this discussion. In the first place you challenge the very idea that the word of god is inerrant, and then you employ a series of contorted wriggling manoeuvres to try to show that it is inerrant, after all!
Actually no wiggling is needed. These were very obviously not contradictions for anyone who takes the time to read the story surrounding the verse and understanding what the author was telling his audience. I'm not trying to show the Bible is inerrant. I'm just showing that the verses you provided aren't contradictions.

If you want to show the Bible has contradictions, then show real contradictions that can't be explained by simple understanding of the text.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 12:25 PM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 2:06 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1651 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 40 of 161 (532138)
10-21-2009 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Blzebub
10-21-2009 12:31 PM


Re: Weak arguments
quote:
So, manslaughter is OK? Along with torture, which isn't outlawed either. Eating various types of prohibited food is worse than torture.
Irrelevant! Try addressing the actual arguments and not venting your personal feelings concerning God.

quote:
The "inerrant word of god" ought to be inerrant, at least, poetic license or not.

The author is writing about an event that happened and a song that was sung concerning the event. You feel it is better for the author to change the song instead of accurately recording it for posterity? If he had done that, then the writing would have actually been inaccurate and not free from error (inerrant). We wouldn't know the difference and you would be happy, but the information would actually be wrong.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 12:31 PM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 2:09 PM purpledawn has responded

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3434 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 41 of 161 (532140)
10-21-2009 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by purpledawn
10-21-2009 1:31 PM


Re: Doctrine of Inerrancy
Unfortunately, you haven't shown that the verses you provided are actually inconsistencies or contradictions other than to your own perception.

No doubt we shall agree to disagree.

If you want to show the Bible has contradictions, then show real contradictions that can't be explained by simple understanding of the text.

The ones I've shown are real, and you haven't yet answered my query about Jesus and the sabbath contradiction.

Here's another:

God destroys all the cattle (including horses) belonging to the Egyptians:

Exodus 9:3-6 (King James Version)

3Behold, the hand of the LORD is upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep: there shall be a very grievous murrain.

4And the LORD shall sever between the cattle of Israel and the cattle of Egypt: and there shall nothing die of all that is the children's of Israel.

5And the LORD appointed a set time, saying, To morrow the LORD shall do this thing in the land.

6And the LORD did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died: but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one.

The Egyptians pursue Moses on horseback:

Exodus 14:9 (King James Version)

9But the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pihahiroth, before Baalzephon.

...and another:

1 Chronicles 21:22-25 (King James Version)

22Then David said to Ornan, Grant me the place of this threshingfloor, that I may build an altar therein unto the LORD: thou shalt grant it me for the full price: that the plague may be stayed from the people.

23And Ornan said unto David, Take it to thee, and let my lord the king do that which is good in his eyes: lo, I give thee the oxen also for burnt offerings, and the threshing instruments for wood, and the wheat for the meat offering; I give it all.

24And king David said to Ornan, Nay; but I will verily buy it for the full price: for I will not take that which is thine for the LORD, nor offer burnt offerings without cost.

25So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight.

2 Samuel 24:24 (King James Version)

24And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by purpledawn, posted 10-21-2009 1:31 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by purpledawn, posted 10-21-2009 5:07 PM Blzebub has responded

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3434 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 42 of 161 (532141)
10-21-2009 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by purpledawn
10-21-2009 1:51 PM


Re: Weak arguments
The author is writing about an event that happened and a song that was sung concerning the event. You feel it is better for the author to change the song instead of accurately recording it for posterity? If he had done that, then the writing would have actually been inaccurate and not free from error (inerrant). We wouldn't know the difference and you would be happy, but the information would actually be wrong.

Curiouser and curiouser. Can you appreciate quite how ludicrous your explanations appear?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by purpledawn, posted 10-21-2009 1:51 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by purpledawn, posted 10-21-2009 5:21 PM Blzebub has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 134 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 43 of 161 (532143)
10-21-2009 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Blzebub
10-20-2009 1:50 PM


Re: A personal favorite..
God prohibits humans from killing other humans. Later, he orders humans to kill other humans. If god had wanted the second group to be killed, then he should have found another method, rather than having to countermand his earlier commandment, and appear inconsistent. An earthquake, or something of that kind, would have done the trick.

And the distinction drawn between state prohibited killing and state authorised killing? You seem to have sidestepped that point.

-

My earlier criticism still stands, though.

No it doesn't. The state authority round here says so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Blzebub, posted 10-20-2009 1:50 PM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 4:16 PM iano has responded

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3434 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 44 of 161 (532147)
10-21-2009 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by iano
10-21-2009 3:13 PM


Re: A personal favorite..
And the distinction drawn between state prohibited killing and state authorised killing? You seem to have sidestepped that point.

Soldiers are voluteers, not commanded by god (except in the case of the Dubbya Iraq invasion, when god spoke directly to His Dubbyaness).

I must say that the thought of the Grand Creator of the Universe, Builder of Nebulae and Galaxies and All Within Them, getting himself caught up in a local human dispute makes me chuckle.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by iano, posted 10-21-2009 3:13 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by iano, posted 10-22-2009 9:31 AM Blzebub has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1651 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 45 of 161 (532154)
10-21-2009 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Blzebub
10-21-2009 2:06 PM


Re: Doctrine of Inerrancy
quote:
The ones I've shown are real, and you haven't yet answered my query about Jesus and the sabbath contradiction.
Sure I did, Message 27. I didn't respond to your last comment in Message 37 because it has nothing to do with what was written. Essentially you just don't like the methods used.

So, if all Jesus wanted to do was to knock over the fence, why didn't he say "I think it's OK to knock over this fence, but the earlier commandment still stands for any other prohibited activities which anyone might be planning"? Instead of making a specific sabbath exception, he made a general one.

That has nothing to do with whether the verses contradict each other or not.

To prove Jesus did away with the Sabbath, show evidence that his followers didn't keep the weekly Sabbath under normal circumstances. It would help your understanding if you would read the entire section and not just the verse. The argument is made within the verse.

quote:
Here's another:
More hoops to jump through.
quote:
God destroys all the cattle (including horses) belonging to the Egyptians:...
The Egyptians pursue Moses on horseback:
Well we have a cut and paste story and the verses come from different authors. So by the Doctrine of Inerrancy, the originals were probably fine. Only when Ezra started meshing these stories together do we get a problem. I agree, Ezra didn't keep the story consistent. He missed details. Now if one wanted to get really picky, the first verse says all the livestock in the fields. That leaves the possibility that Pharoh's horses were in the barn or stalls, etc. That detail isn't in the story though. (I'm being humorous in case you don't understand that.)

So why does Ezra's poor editing make the Bible not the word of God? Remember, we don't know what the original story said.

What great theological teaching will this inaccurately told legend cast doubt on?

quote:
1 Chronicles 21:22-25 (King James Version)...
2 Samuel 24:24 (King James Version)
I assume your issue is with the difference in the sale price. 600 shekels of gold vs 50 shekels of silver.

I agree the prices don't match. Does the world end now?

The book of Samuel was written before Chronicles. Odds are the price changed each time the story was told. I don't know that the writers of that time were as precise about their details as writers are required to be today.

So we have two different authors and two different prices. Why does the price difference mean the Bible isn't the word of God?

What great theological teaching will this ancient inaccuracy cast doubt on?

Since we don't have the original manuscripts on either of these, we don't know if the mistakes were in the originals.

Remember the inerrancy doctrine has only been around a few hundred years.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 2:06 PM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 5:30 PM purpledawn has responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019