Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Squaring circles: direct biblical contradictions
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 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 replied

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

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 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:
Immutability (theology) - Wikipedia
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 replied

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

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 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 replied

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

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 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 seen this message but not replied

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

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 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 replied

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

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 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 replied

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

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 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 replied

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

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 47 of 161 (532159)
10-21-2009 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by purpledawn
10-21-2009 5:07 PM


Re: Doctrine of Inerrancy
we don't know what the original story said
In that case, how can anyone debate what is says in the versions we have? It's the ultimate global biblical get-out clause, and this section of the forum may as well be closed down.
I agree the prices don't match. Does the world end now?
We are only debating biblical contradictions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by purpledawn, posted 10-21-2009 5:07 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by purpledawn, posted 10-21-2009 7:38 PM Blzebub has replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 48 of 161 (532161)
10-21-2009 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by purpledawn
10-21-2009 5:21 PM


Re: Weak arguments
So the song doesn't match the event.
But your explanation of why it doesn't is extremely tortuous. If you genuinely don't care whether the bible is inerrant, or not, why are you tying yourself in logical knots trying to prove that this one is OK?
I neither know nor care whether Jesus' followers subsequently observed the sabbath. The point is that he made a general remark about it, rather than one specific to the circumstances.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by purpledawn, posted 10-21-2009 5:21 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by purpledawn, posted 10-21-2009 7:03 PM Blzebub has seen this message but not replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 51 of 161 (532215)
10-22-2009 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by purpledawn
10-21-2009 7:38 PM


Re: Doctrine of Inerrancy
How does the error by the song writer make God not perfect?
How does the error in prices make God not perfect?
How does Ezra's bad editing make God not perfect?
How does Jesus showing that it is lawful to do good and to save life even on the Sabbath make God not perfect?
None of these are God speaking.
How are these instances not consistent with the Christian concept of a perfect God?
You're the one saying that one mistake in the Bible means God is not a perfect god. Says who?
What are the characteristic of a perfect God? (Don't forget to show evidence.)
In this subforum, the premise of debate is whether or not the bible is the "inerrant" word of god (or is it the words of man), and not about whether or not god is perfect. Inerrant means without error. Just one error or contradiction means that the bible cannot be the inerrant word of god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by purpledawn, posted 10-21-2009 7:38 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2009 4:38 AM Blzebub has replied
 Message 53 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2009 9:18 AM Blzebub has seen this message but not replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 58 of 161 (532279)
10-22-2009 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by purpledawn
10-22-2009 4:38 AM


Re: Errors
Show me that the song writer deviated unintentionally. If the song writer knowingly chose to write the position of the dead man differently to accommodate the song, then it isn't an error.
Show me that the prices listed were errors. If the authors wrote down the story that was circulating at their time, they aren't errors.
Show me that Ezra's bad editing was unintentional. If he left the horses in on purpose, it isn't an error.
Good grief! Just read my first post again. It begins with a post snipped from a different thread, from a christian poster. In it, he suggests quite strongly that the bible is all true, and cannot be disputed:
The rationale for justifying any of my beliefs stems from an overarching belief that the Bible is the word of God. Once I've accepted that, there isn't much need to justify any specific belief arising from that overarching acceptance: God says it's so - who am I to argue with God?
I point out that there are inconsistencies in the bible, such that it would be impossible (and occasionally dangerous) to agree with everything in the bible. I haven't actually got around to posting dangerous advice from the bible, because you've done your best to derail the thread by continually changing the subject, and making silly excuses for the inconsistencies. Jumped Up Chimpanzee can see this, and I'm sure any other fair-minded person could as well.
Show me that the prices listed were errors. If the authors wrote down the story that was circulating at their time, they aren't errors.
Exactly! What the price discrepancy shows is that the bible is not "the inerrant word of god". It demonstrates that "the authors" (men, not god) "wrote down the story that was circulating at their time" (circulating among other men). That's not the word of god, and it's not inerrant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2009 4:38 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2009 2:05 PM Blzebub has replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 59 of 161 (532283)
10-22-2009 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by iano
10-22-2009 9:31 AM


Re: A personal favorite..
Whether or not a soldier is a volunteer (and they very often aren't) is neither here nor there. What's here or there is my point that an authority forbidding killing and that same authority commanding killing is not a contradiction. At least not when their commanding a killing positions the authority as the moral agent and the person doing the killing as a mere instrument of killing.
Well, I admire your logic, but not your biblical/christian morals. I think killing other humans is wrong in nearly every circumstance, other than possibly voluntary euthanasia, and even there, it's dodgy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by iano, posted 10-22-2009 9:31 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by iano, posted 10-22-2009 4:14 PM Blzebub has replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 60 of 161 (532291)
10-22-2009 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by purpledawn
10-18-2009 11:27 AM


Re: Supposed Inconsistencies
The author of 2 Peter is referring to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, not what happened afterwards. In Genesis 19, Lot was saved because he was considered righteous before the destruction.
By the way, here's what the "righteous" Lot did with his daughters, before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah(!!!):
quote:
Genesis 19:4-8 (King James Version)
4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by purpledawn, posted 10-18-2009 11:27 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2009 2:19 PM Blzebub has replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 63 of 161 (532295)
10-22-2009 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by purpledawn
10-22-2009 2:05 PM


Re: Errors
I wrote: Exactly! What the price discrepancy shows is that the bible is not "the inerrant word of god". It demonstrates that "the authors" (men, not god) "wrote down the story that was circulating at their time" (circulating among other men). That's not the word of god, and it's not inerrant.
You said: Which is what I said in Message 45.
And also in message 52, I chose to quote that one. Glad you agree! The bible is not the inerrant word of god, it was written by men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2009 2:05 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 64 of 161 (532296)
10-22-2009 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by purpledawn
10-22-2009 2:08 PM


Re: Inerrancy or INfallible
Now it's my turn to laugh.
You said Lot was considered "righteous", but it turns out that he had offered his virgin daughters to be gang-raped by a group of strangers. How can that sort of behaviour be consistent with being "righteous"?
Edited by Blzebub, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2009 2:08 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024