Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,462 Year: 6,719/9,624 Month: 59/238 Week: 59/22 Day: 14/12 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Squaring circles: direct biblical contradictions
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 161 (532417)
10-23-2009 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Blzebub
10-23-2009 3:39 AM


Re: Errors
Hello Blzebub,
From reading the thread, it doesn't seem like you care to have an earnest discussion about the Bible being the word of God but would rather have a little fun trolling some Christians with Bible contradictions. If its the latter then just let me know up front so I won't waste anymore of my time.
If god is perfect, and the bible is god's word, then the bible must be inerrant (without error).
Why?
Its not impossible for a perfect god to put his words in a book and allow for errors in it.
The Bible is a book written by men. I don't see why having some errors means that they weren't inspired by God.
If the bible is god's word, yet contains errors, then god is not perfect.
Non necessarily.
Another possible conclusion is that the Bible is God's word but is not perfect.
Why couldn't a perfect god make an imperfect book?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Blzebub, posted 10-23-2009 3:39 AM Blzebub has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Blzebub, posted 10-23-2009 12:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 161 (532439)
10-23-2009 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Blzebub
10-23-2009 12:09 PM


Re: Errors
In that case, why do christians never describe the bible as "an imperfect transcription of god's word, containing numerous errors"? Instead, they bang on about it being "the word of god", and refer to its unquestionable authority.
"Christians" is a pretty big and diverse group of people. Making sweeping generalizations about their beliefs is not going to help you understand them.
Catholics recognize the Bible as the Word of God but don't believe that it is literally inerrant. I don't see the point in bringing up the imperfection though.
I suppose the chistians that never describe the Bible that way do think that it is perfect.
Anyway, at least two of you now seem to acknowledge that the writings in the bible are questionable. Which is a start, I suppose.
Now? It didn't have anything to do with this thread. In fact, the doctrine of inerrancy is a very recent deal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Blzebub, posted 10-23-2009 12:09 PM Blzebub has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 161 (532479)
10-23-2009 3:16 PM


Oh and by the way, when purpledawn says this;
purpledawn writes:
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.
she ain’t lyin’. PD is one of the most honest and thoughtful members on here and one of the people whose posts I always make time to read.
Seconded!
The only reason I read this thread is because I love Purpledawn's stuff.
I always read and appreciate her take on the Bible and I feel like I have learned a lot from her.
Thank you Purpledawn!

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 161 (541849)
01-06-2010 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Apothecus
01-06-2010 2:24 PM


Re: Inspired works?
So you look at these inconsistencies and discrepancies brought up by those such as blzebub, and all you can really say is "There are no contradictions, inconsistencies or discrepancies. There can't be. This is God we're talking about. He's the perfect author." Everything in the bible happened as written, and if a couple verses are off by a couple of shekels, it is what it is. It is never attributed to a mistake by a various author, because it's as if those authors have no creative license. God was speaking through them, so there can be nothing but perfection. What we see as imperfect is due to our own confusion.
But that just can't be right...
For example, lets take the claim from Genesis that the Earth was made before the Sun.
Either that's not literally the Word of God or God's Word does actually contain errors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Apothecus, posted 01-06-2010 2:24 PM Apothecus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Apothecus, posted 01-06-2010 3:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 161 (541868)
01-06-2010 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Apothecus
01-06-2010 3:20 PM


Re: Inspired works?
Agreed. Nevertheless, it's what I deal with every Sunday morning.
Sounds like you need a new church...
We're also talking about YECs here, which I am steadfastly not. i.e. 24-48 literal hours' separation between creation events presents no problem.
What are you?
I fit into the Theistic Evolutionist category.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Apothecus, posted 01-06-2010 3:20 PM Apothecus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Apothecus, posted 01-06-2010 5:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 161 (542107)
01-07-2010 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Apothecus
01-06-2010 5:25 PM


Re: Inspired works?
Sounds like you need a new church...
In more ways than one, CS. Sigh. What we do for family...
Maybe you could convince yourself, and/or your family, that a new church would be a better thing to do for them...
FYI, I'm trying to find my niche.
Its overrated.
Outwardly, I'd describe myself as a TE like you. Inwardly...well, let's just say some days I tend to lean toward the agnostic area of the spectrum.
I find agnosticism to be the default, naturally and logically.
To some, there can be only one true religion, and if that's the case, what of the rest of humanity?
Well I'm Catholic
I've been raised in science and as such, I look for evidence where I can get it (pertaining to origins, etc.)
I have a BS from U of I.
I know in the end it all falls back to "faith", which is I guess where I struggle.
All? I don't think scientific positions rely on faith, in fact, quite the opposite. The position isn't taken until the evidence suggests it and faith is belief without evidence, so... yeah.
I need a revelation, I guess... ;-)
I was full feldge atheist before I got mine. Then I came back. Maybe you should try it
But that's neither here nor there concerning this thread, so we'll leave it at that.
Yeah... there's some leniency here with going off topic if we're just having a nice conversation, but it is frowned upon a little. Except for Adminmoose, he doesn't give any slack. If he notices, he'll immediately hide our messages and tell us to stop.
Although, I guess this would be a great opportunity to use the new messaging system. Feel free to send me a reply to this that way if you want to continue.
Have a good one.
I usually do.
You too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Apothecus, posted 01-06-2010 5:25 PM Apothecus 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