Squaring circles: direct biblical contradictions

quote:

---

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:

---

He was referring to his own rationale for justifying his own beliefs. He sees no reason to argue with it.

quote:

---

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.

---

That doesn't make it so for everyone.I understand that his comment sparked the topic, but you still need a position since you scoffed at all the responses without actually dealing with what was said. You've given no support for your responses to the answers.So which one of the verses did God contradict himself?The song issue isn't God talking.
The money problem isn't God talking.
The horse issue isn't God talking.None of these deals with any theological teaching. They are nonissues.Jesus didn't counter the Sabbath and he's not God. (Yes, some believe he is; but not all.)
You haven't shown that he actually didn't keep the Sabbath than to do good.

quote:

---

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.

---

I guess you should have lead with your ace. You haven't shown evidence to counter the responses.

quote:

---

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.

---

Which is what I said in Message 45. But you didn't answer the questions. So the Bible we have today isn't without "error" and it was written by men (Not really a news flash).I still have the same question as I did in Message 7, Message 11, Message 13.Who says the Bible cannot contain inconsistencies/contradictions/errors and be considered or contain the "word of God" besides you?Show evidence that it cannot be called the word of God if it contains "errors".

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Unfortunately you didn't address the verses or further the discussion.Your post is off topic, so I can't address it either.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

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.

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.

What were the rules in that day?
Since his daughters didn't leave the house, why does this negate his righteous standing?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Was it considered "righteous" to offer your virgin daughters to a mob of strangers, in that day, in your increasingly peculiar view?

quote:

---

Was it considered "righteous" to offer your virgin daughters to a mob of strangers, in that day, in your increasingly peculiar view?

---

That's what I asked you.Stop wasting posts that don't further the discussion.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

It doesn't much matter what you think. What matters is an authorities ability to both forbid killing and instruct killing without there being a contradiction involved.And unless you have some other line of argumentation that supports the charge of contradiction I'll take this supposed one at least, as having been resolved for you.

Of course it wasn't! Have you taken leave of your senses?

What seems to matter to you is to defend this point, even at the cost of admitting that "god" uses men as some kind of proxy weapon against other men. Can't you see how ridiculous this appears?

I don't have to admit God uses men as a weapon against other men. You've already accepted the Bible states as much yourself..remember? I gather dropping the charge of contradiction in this case isn't going to appear on your agenda so I'll leave things here having come a full circle with you.

So, then, in your opinion, the only people who could possibly know "the truth" are those who read directly from the original manuscripts? i.e. The Dead Sea Scrolls? Since you say every version since contains errors?

A recurring theme i am seeing here is that the bible is not the direct word of god, at least not all of it, but rather, man's writing.The problem i see with that, is that the bible is the only evidence ever cited as the proof of god. That good old christian circular reasoning "god exists because the bible says so and the bible is gods word"How do we know then that this god figure wasn't inserted by the writers? If the bible is just stories written by bronze age sheep herders, ho wis that proof of YHWH's existence? How do you pick and choose what is "god's word" and what is not? Do you base that on bible passages, which are written by those same men?{ABE}While I do see the NT as a decent moral compass, given jesus' hippy status.Why are there seperate authors for numerous stories? The A&E myth is touted as being evidence for how god made life. However, the story is told by many authors. Why?Sorry if this is off topic, not my intention.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So, then, in your opinion, the only people who could possibly know "the truth" are those who read directly from the original manuscripts? i.e. The Dead Sea Scrolls? Since you say every version since contains errors?

---

Nope. Blzebub didn't wish to answer my questions in Message 50. He chose instead to define the word inerrant.An error is unintentional. We have no way of knowing, concerning some of the verses we've addressed, if the difference was unintentional or not. If it was intentional, then it isn't an error.None of this has anything to do with the answers I provided concerning the verses. The Doctrine of Inerrancy is only a few centuries old and of no real value.God's words were considered to be in several Holy Writings way before the Doctrine of Inerrancy surfaced.Psalms 56:4, which is a song. 1 Kings 12:22 I feel the doctrine deemed the Bible inerrant because it is considered the word of God. The Bible isn't deemed the word of God because it is inerrant. IOW, lack of errors didn't make it the word of God.The Bibles contain the words attributed to the Jewish and Christian God. No amount of errors or contradictions are going to change that. Whether or not those words were actually spoken by a supreme being, neither side can really prove. Some of the writings are foundational myths/legends that became part of the culture. They are part of what shaped the Jewish Religion and eventually the Christian Religion. Some are historical and poetic.Yes, people can be dangerously literal, but that isn't the fault of the book or the authors.Do you feel the answers given for the verses he provided were contrived?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I was asking YOU a question. Not a question posed to you regarding Blzebub.Care to answer it?{ABE} The reason for my question is based on your continued assertion that it is the scribes who translated the original whom created any errors.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.