Squaring circles: direct biblical contradictions

Hi, first time poster here...Great site!I've been creeping through this forum for quite some time now, and I have to say that it's one of the most valuable and interesting resources in the creo/evo debate that I've come across. It seems to me to be well-moderated, and for the most part differing viewpoints are respected, as long as you back up your position. Keep up the good work.OT portion concluded, I see the OP'er is currently suspended, but hopefully this won't fall on deaf ears. What I suspect that he was attempting was to address those Christians who consider the bible as wholly inspired by God, even those portions clearly written by men. For example, the letters of Paul are thought to be, in many circles, written by Paul's physical hand, but they may as well have been by the hand of God, since men are fallible, and for an uninspired man to write anything connected with the bible would be absolute anathema. This would serve to render the bible suspect from many, many different angles.IMO, people often confuse Christians who believe in a literal bible with those who believe in a literal, inspired bible. Does anyone else see this, or am I barking up the wrong tree?I'm not trying to put words in his mouth, you see. But from reading through the thread it seems like he would have been better served to address this subset of fundamentalists rather than trying to lump all Christians into one pile. (If that was even his intention)Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Thanks for the reply, Straggler.Let me see if I can explain this in a less-than-incoherent way. The church my family currently attends (much to my own chagrin) is quite fundamental in doctrine, as far as the commonly held definition of "fundamental" goes. I've come to understand that when the topic of bible authorship comes up in worship, the words "divinely inspired" are bandied about as the basis for claims of infallibility of this ancient collection of texts. Frequently, God seems to be portrayed as some sort of puppet master behind the various authors of portions of the bible.As I see it, there a couple of rules:1. If the bible says a book was written by X, it was written by X. (no surprise here)2. Since they believe the stories were divinely inspired, God was in effect speaking through this author, making the bible the literal Word Of GodWhat this means is that any questions regarding authenticity, or whether the bible is really God's word, are moot. The bible, regardless of who is said to have authored various parts of it, should really just be attributed to God, and God alone. Because of this, nothing can really ever be questioned, unless you want to question whether God is imperfect which, believe me, you don't want to do in these circles.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, no ability to make a mistake. God was speaking through them, so there can be nothing but perfection. What we see as imperfect is due to our own confusion.This is what I assume blzebub would like to have conveyed: that to these fundamentalists, a mistake means a LOT more when the front cover reads, "Bible, by God", than if you assume (like most Christians, probably) the bible was written by fallible men in homage to that God. Thus, alleged mistakes or contradictions are HUGE, if they are able to be proven. Therein lies the rub, no? Oh, it's treated as factual all right. As factual as the nose on your face.Let me know if I've been unclear. ;-)Have a good one.Edited by Apothecus, : Various stuff, additions, deletions

Agreed. Nevertheless, it's what I deal with every Sunday morning. 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. Exactly, brother.Have a good one.

Indeed. I fully agree with your understanding, Brian. However, I think some fundamentalist groups take it a step further. See here.

quote:

---

Though they were inspired, the authors of the sacred books also brought some human elements into them. The already-cited Complete Orthodox Encyclopedia reads: "as far as the human nature is not perfect, certain imperfections might occur in the sacred books due to the participation of the free human activity in the writing thereof. Therefore the divine inspiration of the Scriptures does not by any means come into a contradiction with genuine human thoughts and senses, inaccuracies and discrepancies, which may be found in them. The works of the holy writers are perfect to the extent that is needed for the divine purpose. Where imperfect human comprehension was sufficient for the salvation of mankind, there God permitted imperfections to appear."

---

So to me it seems that if you want to have your cake both ways, you can, if you choose to assign a different value to "divinely inspired" than the next feller. You can admit that contradictions, mistakes, inconsistencies, etc. happen in the bible whilst still maintaining divine perfection. God "permits imperfections to appear." However, that's a far cry from the non-fundamentalist assertion that an ancient text can be authored by fallible men. To some, the bible is infallible, inerrant, and unquestionably the word of God, no matter to whom a book may be attributed. Agreed.Have a good one.

In more ways than one, CS. Sigh. What we do for family...FYI, I'm trying to find my niche. 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. To some, there can be only one true religion, and if that's the case, what of the rest of humanity? I've been raised in science and as such, I look for evidence where I can get it (pertaining to origins, etc.) I know in the end it all falls back to "faith", which is I guess where I struggle. I need a revelation, I guess... ;-)But that's neither here nor there concerning this thread, so we'll leave it at that.Have a good one.

Maybe I'm the one being a bit, as you say, thick.I'm looking back at my posts and I've been thinking that maybe the distinction is one of degree. As in, you start bringing divine inspiration into the picture and you've upped the ante a few levels of consciousness.Thus maybe it isn't purely about different viewpoints, but more about how serious you are about defining those viewpoints. I think many people claim the bible to be literal without thinking about whether this also means it's necessarily divinely inspired. I think that's where I was going with this. Do you see a difference at all between claiming the bible to be "just" being the literal word of god vs the claim that it is the "divinely inspired" word of god? Maybe I'm confusing an apple with another apple.I think that was my point regarding blzebub's arguments. Mistakes would not be considered as big a deal to one who hadn't thought about the ramifications of a bible which was, in essence, written completely by God. Even if a mere mortal pens the scroll, divine inspiration necessitates perfection, at least according to the flock I roll with...Clear as mud yet? Have a good one.Edited by Apothecus, : Playing with smilies.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Well, all I can really tell you is what I've seen in my limited exposure to the fundamental crowd. I think believers of either doctrine would say (as Iblis noted) that literal is literal. A straightforward reading is all that's required, and both would perceive the text to be 100% accurate.I'll give you an example of a real-world situation where the difference highlighted. I was speaking to a fellow churchgoer awhile back about creation. She is highly educated, outgoing and very perceptive. She also believes Genesis is literal, and this is a typical viewpoint in the church we attend. While we were talking, I brought up the many questions and problems with a literal Genesis in relation to what is found in nature and other areas of mainstream science (e.g. dating correlations, astronomy, fossils, varves, etc.) We talked for a while, and at some point in the conversation, she began to admit that many of the points I brought to light made sense, and more importantly, cast doubt on this literal reading. When I told her that, according to church doctrine each and every verse is said to have been divinely inspired and what that meant, she replied, "Oh. Oh..."So it seemed she was fine initially believing in a literal, straightforward reading of this text, specifically. I think, on the surface of her mind, the bible could still be literal even in light of it having mortal authors. When confronted with the fact that when, in this church, it is taught that in essence God wrote or "inspired" what was written, what did that do to her belief in a perfect god?I don't think this woman is an exception in the fundamentalist regime. I believe the disconnect is merely one of degrees of doctrine, as I've said. If Blzebub was to have specified the type of fundamentalist who would have had the biggest problem with these contradictions (i.e. the divine inspiration crowd), I think he'd have gotten a little less beat down. As it was, he lumped all Christians into one pile and that put a big target on his ass. Just sayin'. Take care.

Thanks for the response (Bel?) Iblis. To me, this makes sense, innately speaking. Why is it that this is such a problem with the fundamentalist crowd? This, I'm not familiar with. Do you mean that when anyone is interpreting text as divinely inspired, that it is standard practice for it to be considered poetry? Or rather that if you're a fundamentalist, this is how you must necessarily interpret text that is thought to be divinely inspired in order for it to mesh with your worldview? Too true.Have a good one.Edited by Apothecus, : additions, subtractions...

Thanks for the replies, Sky. Elaborate, please. Elaborate here, as well. Exactly where do you assert that I may have been "making stuff up"? Please provide some sort of basis for this. The term I used was "mainstream science", not "Mainstream Science" (note capitals). As in science, modified with the adjective mainstream, to differentiate this type of science from other, less reputable or trustworthy types of "science". IOW, "Creation Science", which requires as much effort to differentiate it from mainstream science as is humanly possible. Were you in the coffee shop that day, Sky? You have no idea what type of discussion ensued, nor can you assume our conversation didn't serve to strengthen her faith by opening her eyes to other, some would say "more defensible" interpretations of biblical text. Your comment has been filed under "Baseless Assertions." I agree with you here, but one fella's truth is not the next fella's truth. So in your opinion, if you don't support the next fella's version of truth, does that mean that fella is believing what he wants to believe but is hopelessly wrong? If so, then how can you possibly support your own version without resorting to the same?Have a good one.

Sorry AdminPD. Just saw the part about not responding in this thread. Did you mean no responses to your post or just not to respond to Sky? Didn't mean to ignore your edict. Take care.