|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Squaring circles: direct biblical contradictions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:So which verse had incorrect information? Please show evidence that the information was incorrect at the time of writing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Actually he said his rationale for justifying any of his beliefs. As I've said before, he isn't making a blanket statement like you are. Also notice he didn't mention a perfect God or that the Bible is without error or that God actually wrote the Bible. That's why I said: Before you can claim that an error in the Bible means God is not flawless, you need to connect God to the production of the Bible. You are the one asserting that an error or contradiction in the Bible means God is not perfect (flawless). You haven't shown evidence to support that contention. Yes, the Bible was written by men. I don't know about numerous errors, but odds are there are some true errors. I'm arguing with you because you're making unsubstantiated claims and aren't backing them up with any rational reasoning for your end conclusion. Just like the deal with Lot.
quote:I'm not defending Lot's righteousness. You supposedly want to discuss contradictions that in your mind means God is not perfect, but you are actually comparing the Bible writings with today's morality. You not actually dealing with what is written. You are casting your own judgment on the actions of the characters. In the story of Lot, he is not chastised for offering his daughters. The story doesn't deem him unrighteous for that action. It probably has something to do with the culture of the time, but the fact is the story doesn't make an issue of it. Now a later author has a certain point to make concerning righteousness and he doesn't make an issue of it either. You also have to remember that the average person in that time probably didn't have a Bible and by 100-160 CE, the author of 2 Peter was probably talking to Greeks who are not as familiar with the OT stories.
quote:This is rich coming from the guy who won't provide evidence for his own assertions. My attempt was to get you to think of the period the story was set in, but to no avail. It is irrelevant though, because the story itself does not deem him unrighteous for the offer. I don't see that it deems him unrighteous for what his daughter's did either. Bottom line: The actual story does not contradict what the author of 2 Peter was telling his audience. We may find the action repugnant and immoral, but that doesn't mean the verses contradict. Learn the difference between contradictions/inconsistencies between dogma/tradition and what's written in the Bible and contradictions/inconsistencies between Bible writers. Edited by purpledawn, : Typo "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:They could both be wrong. Who cares? The point here is that you're getting stuck on a difference that is insignificant. It has no theological value. It has nothing to do with whether God is perfect or if the Bible is the word of God. You're wasting time, trying to make issues out of nonissues. All you're showing is that you haven't done your homework and are unable to objectively read the simple reading of the writings. I'm probably the most neutral person here (IMO) when it comes to reading the Bible text. I'm not the most knowledgeable, but my belief system doesn't need protecting. Dogma is what I battle. Hell, I've argued that the fires of Hell have gone out and there is no eternal torment! You have not made a case for your conclusion: If god is perfect, and the bible is god's word, then the bible must be inerrant (without error). If the bible is god's word, yet contains errors, then god is not perfect. Like I said, the Bible is not considered the word of God because it is inerrant. Before you can claim that an error in the Bible means God is not flawless, you need to connect God to the production of the Bible. If what you want to show is that God is not flawless, then you picked the wrong way to go about it. You haven't or won't provide the evidence that makes the connection. Slamming God or Christianity is not support or evidence. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Thank you GM and CS. It is nice to know that my thoughts (unorthodox as they are sometimes) are appreciated.
Now if I can blow out all my birthday candles tomorrow without melting my eyebrows, it will be a great ending to the week. ThanksPurpleDawn "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Thank you and I am glad you enjoy my posts. Granny did write an excellent post.
My sister surprised me with an early cake and had 6 little 50 candles. So apparently I'm going to be 300 years old! Now back to the topic before I have to chastise myself. Are there any real contradictions within the Bible that make any theological difference? I'll have to look at one of those contradiction websites and see if they have any. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The story of Lot is probably just that, a story. (His wife turns to salt, the offspring of the daughters just happen to become the enemy tribes of Israel, etc.) What is interesting though is that that same scenario takes place in Judges 19 in an Israelite city. In the Judges story, which is also just a story, the concubine was thrown to the wolves and didn't survive.
The Levite’s Concubine: The Story That Never Was The article says the tale is used to show how corrupt Israel had become. From a literary standpoint this scenario may just be a way of showing a place is corrupt, not that it really happened, since it was also used to show Sodom was corrupt. I've read old folk tales, and they tend to be rather harsh. It makes one wonder if they are a totally true reflection of the times or an exaggerated reflection of the times. Writers tend to want the shock factor. Of course the early history of Israel may be more fiction than fact. I do think it's dangerous when people take the stories as actual events and feel it is something to emulate. We don't follow outdated laws and ways today, so why would we want to follow laws and ways that are over 2000 years old? (rhetorical) Looking at the history of the Jews, their way and laws changed over time. The NT showed even further progress. Religion changes over time, for better or worse, as the Bible shows. Originally the church of my childhood had two doors to enter through. The women through one door and the men through the other. They didn't sit together. That was changed before I was born, thankfully. Times change. From our viewpoint today, these tales are an odd way to show corruption; but it may have been a significant marker for their time. We just have to remember that it wasn't written for us. I haven't found a real theological contradiction yet, as opposed to a theological progression, from a contradiction list.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I'm not sure you really know what your point is. quote:Then let's actually discuss it. #5 from the OP:
Blzebub writes: 5. God prohibits killing:
Exodus 20:13 (King James Version) Thou shalt not kill. God orders killing:
Exodus 32:27 (King James Version) And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. Deuteronomy 7:2 (King James Version) And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: My response from Message 8:
PurpleDawn writes: Exodus 20:13 is a priestly writing and later than the Exodus 32:27 story. Deuteronomy 7:2 refers to conquering/war. The law of not killing refers to people with the nation of Israel killing each other. Iano's response from Message 23iano writes: Bzlbub writes: 5. God prohibits killing: God prohibits man killing. Thou = man
God orders killing 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)) Kbertsche's response from Message 34:
kbertsche writes: quote:"Kill" is a poor translation of ratsach; it should read "murder" as it does in most modern translations. Unfortunately your initial responses in Message 26, Message 31, and Message 38 were less than stellar and didn't address what was presented by the responders. Participants have shown you several times that you are viewing the text with modern eyes. Iano actually explained the difference very well. You're looking at a difference between laws for individuals, laws that deal with punishment and laws that deal with war. Do you understand the difference? If yes, why do you feel the Nation of Israel didn't function the same? Now when you say this clashes with statements like "God is a god of love" then you are looking at current theology, beliefs, views, etc. We aren't going to get anywhere if you can't admit what you're actually trying to debate. As far as these verses go, you need to provide evidence that the God of the OT was only presented as a God of Love or that God can't love his chosen people and still help them fight their enemies. The Nation of Israel was a Theocracy, meaning God ruled. Bottom line is, show evidence that our statements are wrong. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:How can the United States claim to be a free country when it advocated slavery, slaughtering natives, etc. in their history. If you read the history of the Jews, you see a nation battling the same battles as every other nation to survive. They struggled with changes in the world around them. They were influenced by those who conquered them. They had to make changes to stay in the game so to speak. Religion also has to change, laws updated, etc. the same thing other nations do. Was Israel any worse than the other nations of the time? Didn't several groups consider themselves to be special or the chosen people of their god? I think some Native American tribes did. We don't even know if these events happened as depicted. They may have been grossly exaggerated to make Israel look fierce. The idea that God cannot or will not allow change is something that hurts Christians and I think it hurts the religion-free who try to understand this vocal religion. IMO, it is a misconception. The Bible shows change, why do we insist it can't? If the supposed goal is for man to behave better, they have to change and the religion with them. Gods have changed from being personifications of nature to untouchable concepts that change to stay ahead of man's knowledge. Why is the Christian God not allowed to change by those who are religion free? I know some Christians present God as unchanging; but, IMO, that more from their own insecurity. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:It's a historical account from the religious viewpoint. Some religious views of 9/11 were different than the news version. I realize it isn't a fundamentalist view. Fortunately I've never been a fundamentalist. Is God unchanging? That is the question.
quote: 1 Samuel 15:29 says that God does not change his mind, but we already know that he does. Genesis 2:17 and the story of Sodom of Gomorrah. So what does Samuel mean by his statement? Is he really saying that God never ever changes his mind? Saul screwed up and wants to be forgiven, but Samuel tells him that God has rejected him as king over Israel. IMO, what Samuel is telling Saul is that God is not going to change his mind about Saul's kingship. God made Saul king of Israel and he has now changed his mind and taken that kingdom away because Saul rejected the word of the Lord. In verse 35 is says: ...And the Lord was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel. I really don't think Samuel was saying that God never changes his mind about anything. That would negate the potential for a merciful God. IMO, God has to be willing and able to change his mind to grant mercy.
quote:Again we have to look at what is being discussed. The Lord does not change what or how. The issue at had is the faithfulness of Israel. Israel has been unfaithful. IMO, God is saying he hasn't been unfaithful (changed his faithfulness) and won't destroy Israel. By not destroying Israel, God is again changing his mind. He said in Exodus that they would be his people as long as they obeyed his commandments. According to Malachi they haven't been obeying his commandments and God still isn't going to destroy them. quote:(70-100CE) This is a sermon, dealing with trials and temptations. The author is telling his audience that God will not switch and give them bad gifts. Does that mean God doesn't change in any way, shape, or form? quote:These are from songs and are the feelings of the people of the time. IMO, when people use the word forever, the usually mean beyond their own lifetime. They really don't know if something is going to last forever. Looking at reality, the Nation of Israel didn't last forever, how can the statutes?
quote:And yet in reality Christianity dumped the majority of the Law. quote:We don't know what was preached to them specifically. Of course the other question in all of this is, what is the word of God according to the Bible? It was mentioned in Samuel, which is before any of the prophets. We know what "word of God" refers to today (most of the time), but what exactly were they referring to back then? Were they referring to the scrolls? Have we change what the "word of God" refers to? Some use it to refer to Jesus Christ.
quote:They say it when defending beliefs or scripture, but do their actions reflect this belief? I agree the Bible is stagnant. Once something is in writing it doesn't usually change and if protected will last a very long time, but we do know that the Bible has been changed through the ages. The character and nature of God changes with man. They can always point to the Bible and say see it doesn't change. Well, duh. But when we look at what the various religions present, God's character has changed. As for the nature of God, what is the nature of God?
quote:There is a difference between literal and literalism. Most Christians don't view the Bible consistently one way. Most Christians don't really read the Bible. I have a less dogmatic view. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I agree. I saw it just by observing Christians. They don't necessarily practice in their day to day living what they preach or supposedly believe. (General observation of those who claim the loudest.) I found it fascinating while looking at the Jewish religion, that when Rabbi's explain something they have no problem using legends. Abraham is the father of Judaism. We could drop the creation stories and the flood stories and it wouldn't alter Judaism supposedly. I've run into this story several times being used by Rabbis to explain how Abraham came to believe in one God. Using his own observation he decided the idols had no power.
Abraham, the son of the idol-maker Terah (Gen. R. xxxviii. 13), was, like his father, a thorough-going idolater, being chiefly devoted to the worship of the stone idol called Merumat ("Eben Marumah," stone of deceit and corruption). But on a journey to a place near Fandana (Padanaram), some of his idols were smashed, and having long felt misgivings as to their power, he became convinced of the unreality of such deities. The legend continues with Abraham smashing or chopping up some wooden idols in his father's shop and when confronted by his father, Abraham said the one idol left standing was the one who smashed it. (There are variations on this theme.) His father didn't believe him, which shows even his father didn't really believe the idol had power. That's what I see in many Christians. If I tell a preacher that God told me not to give money this week, he would scoff. If I would say that God gave me any instructions contrary to what they want or their traditions, they would scoff. God only speaks if it is in agreement with the established mind set, which is strange considering Jesus went against the established mind set in many instances. The legends of the Jews seem to have the "rest of the story". I like some of the explanations given in Judaism. They refer to legends and the sages. Christians attribute everything in the Bible to God. So we have "the Bible says" or "God says". We lose the understanding of Paul talking or Isaiah talking, myths, poetry, etc.
quote:As a creative person, imagination is important. Now with a grandchild that imagination will be utilized even more. I've watched people make up explanations to fit what they saw or experienced or thought they saw or experienced, whether there is evidence for the explanation or not. My grandfather had a habit of doing that. I'm not even referring to fanciful stuff. The ancients did the same thing. Gods were personifications of nature. The more man learns the more gods disappeared. Gods need to be moved beyond the realm of human knowledge. That's why God is out there where science can't see him. Science has already proved the existence of the ancient gods: planets and nature. Our planet and the nature on it is what sustains us. The sun never changes, east to west. Natural disasters don't care what god is worshiped.
quote:I agree. Unfortunately Christianity was based on Paul and Paul was a salesman, so they are in perpetual sales mode. If you've ever been part of Amway, it seems like the same theme. IMO, preachers should be teaching practical behavior application and not continually selling the product to people who have already bought into it. The people shouldn't be selling the product, they should be examples of it. quote:I challenge them to see the literary diversity in the Bible and what the authors were probably telling their audiences. Then they can see what lessons can be learned. I find lessons in all types of writings, religions, and experiences. I agree, no one forces them to participate and several times I've suggested that if the Christian is uncomfortable with addressing the plain text and looking at the reality behind the Bible, they should abstain from the discussion. Usually they prefer to link me with Satan. Take Care "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Now there's the iano I know and love. Remember we're in the science forum and I'm dealing with reality and the simple reading of the text. I agree about jurisdiction, mainly because Paul dealt with the Greeks who weren't under Jewish law anyway. As far as "law of sin or death", those are personifications. As you well know, Paul was very fond of personifications. Sin and Death do not have laws, unless you can list them for me. Sin doesn't pay wages either. The question is, what did Paul really mean? To discuss the reality of this further, I would need to know which verses of Paul's you are actually looking at. I don't want to guess. I think this type of difference would still be on topic, since the originator doesn't really want to discuss what he provided. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:That's what I said. Saul screwed up and wants to be forgiven, but Samuel tells him that God has rejected him as king over Israel. IMO, what Samuel is telling Saul is that God is not going to change his mind about Saul's kingship. IOW, God is not going to give Saul back the kingdom. Samuel isn't saying that God never changes his mind on anything. He's saying that God isn't going to change his mind concerning his decision to remove Saul as king. quote:I'm not clear on what you're saying in relation to what I said. I am looking at the plain text. The NT has nothing to do with the plain text of the OT. quote:Until you clean out the personification Paul uses, the verse by itself doesn't mean anything. You need to provide what you think Paul is saying. Paul does clear that up later starting with verse 5. Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but hose who live in accordance with the spirit have their minds set on what the spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. Death refers to immoral behavior or desires and life refers to moral behavior and desires. Paul isn't really dealing with what specific parts of the Mosaic law is or isn't to be followed. I look at what the plain text is saying. Other than you didn't like the word "dumped" what is your point concerning what I had said or the topic? Remember this is the science forum and evidence is needed to support your position. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Unfortunately you didn't respond to anything that deals with the topic or clarify your responses that I was unclear about. I don't see anything I can respond to that won't lead us off topic.
Please address the point of what I said and not just phrasing you dislike. If you have an issue in another thread, address it in that thread please. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024