Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-26-2019 6:46 AM
23 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,465 Year: 15,501/19,786 Month: 2,224/3,058 Week: 82/516 Day: 3/79 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
11NextFF
Author Topic:   Squaring circles: direct biblical contradictions
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3474 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 1 of 161 (531417)
10-17-2009 4:57 PM


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?

This statement sums up the feelings of many christians about the bible. It's the word of god, and cannot be disputed. That's all very well, but the question is: which parts of it are "the word of god"? The reason why I ask is that there are many parts of the bible which directly contradict one another, and there is some extremely strange (and sometimes downright dangerous) advice in there, if you examine the whole document. Here's a few, for a kick-off:

1. It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil:

Genesis 2:15-17 (King James Version)

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil:

Hebrews 5:13-14 (King James Version)

For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

2. While he is drunk, Lot's two daughters "lie with him," become pregnant, and give birth to his offspring:

Genesis 19:30-38 (King James Version)

And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

Lot was "just". [So much for the bible as a moral compass!]

2 Peter 2:7 (King James Version)

And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

3.God tempts Abraham:

Genesis 22:1-12 (King James Version)

Genesis 22

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.

Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.

And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.

And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.

And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?

And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.

And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

God never tempts anyone:

James 1:13 (King James Version)

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

4. Honour your father and mother:

Exodus 20:12 (King James Version)

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Jesus says that he has come to divide families; that a man's foes will be those of his own household; that you must hate your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and even your own life to be a disciple:

Matthew 10:35-37 (King James Version)

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Luke 12:51-53 (King James Version)

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Luke 14:26 (King James Version)

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

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:

6. Take revenge on your enemies:

Deuteronomy 19:21 (King James Version)

And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Or perhaps not:

Matthew 5:38-44 (King James Version)

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

7. Sisera was sleeping when Jael killed him:

Judges 4:21 (King James Version)

Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.

Sisera was standing:

Judges 5:25-27 (King James Version)

He asked water, and she gave him milk; she brought forth butter in a lordly dish.

She put her hand to the nail, and her right hand to the workmen's hammer; and with the hammer she smote Sisera, she smote off his head, when she had pierced and stricken through his temples.

At her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay down: at her feet he bowed, he fell: where he bowed, there he fell down dead.

There are hundreds more. This doesn't even begin to address inconsistencies across different versions of the bible...


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 10-17-2009 8:38 PM Blzebub has responded
 Message 8 by purpledawn, posted 10-18-2009 11:27 AM Blzebub has responded
 Message 23 by iano, posted 10-20-2009 5:32 AM Blzebub has responded
 Message 34 by kbertsche, posted 10-20-2009 3:59 PM Blzebub has responded
 Message 126 by Apothecus, posted 01-05-2010 6:23 PM Blzebub has not yet responded
 Message 146 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-07-2010 6:47 PM Blzebub has not yet responded
 Message 161 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-12-2010 10:19 PM Blzebub has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 161 (531436)
10-17-2009 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blzebub
10-17-2009 4:57 PM


Needs Support
I'm not inclined to promote this topic as written because it is inconsistent.

The title and the lack of argument presented deals with contradictions, but the question asked concerns which parts of the Bible are "the word of God".

If you want to know which parts of the Bible are "the word of God", but feel that inconsistencies or bad advice negate that; then show why specific inconsistencies or bad advice mean the writings are not the word of God. I'd like to see a reasoned argument that shows you have taken into account the context and purpose of the writers.

I assume you want this in accuracy and inerrancy. If yes, that means you also have to show evidence for what you are saying. If not, please let me know which forum.

Edited by AdminPD, : Typo

Edited by AdminPD, : Correction


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blzebub, posted 10-17-2009 4:57 PM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Blzebub, posted 10-18-2009 4:21 AM AdminPD has responded

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3474 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 3 of 161 (531459)
10-18-2009 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPD
10-17-2009 8:38 PM


Re: Needs Support
I don't understand what you want me to do.

Christians say that the word of god, as written in the bible, is indisputable.

I've presented several biblical instances where this is clearly not the case, because the bible gives conflicting advice, and I'm asking how do christians reconcile these.

"It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil" is not consistent with "it is immature to be unable to tell good from evil"

Lot is described as a "just" man, despite the fact that he impregnated his daughters.

The bible says God never tempts any man. God tempts Abraham.

Honour your father and mother is one of the 10 commandments; Jesus says that he has come to divide families; that a man's foes will be those of his own household; that you must hate your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and even your own life to be a disciple.

God prohibits killing, but later god orders killing.

Does the bible advise taking revenge, or not?

Sisera was sleeping when Jael killed him. Sisera was standing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 10-17-2009 8:38 PM AdminPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminPD, posted 10-18-2009 5:22 AM Blzebub has responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 4 of 161 (531462)
10-18-2009 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Blzebub
10-18-2009 4:21 AM


Re: Needs Support
I'm still assuming you want this in the accuracy and inerrancy thread.

There have been many threads on inconsistencies and reconciliation. If all you want is to see how Christians reconcile inconsistencies in the Christian Bible, then narrow the thread down to addressing just a specific few inconsistencies and explain or show evidence as to why they are inconsistencies that need to be reconciled.

But if you are wanting to discuss the question: Which parts of it are "the word of god"? and use inconsistencies as evidence against it being the word of God (which I assume is your point); then you need to make an argument. We shouldn't have to assume your point. IOW, explain why you feel inconsistencies are evidence that the Bible or parts of it are not the word of God?

If you're wanting to discuss whether God or the Bible can or should be questioned or not, then you really need to clarify your position.

Right now, all I see is a thread to make Christians jump through hoops to reconcile inconsistencies, but to what end?

What is your contention?

Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Blzebub, posted 10-18-2009 4:21 AM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Blzebub, posted 10-18-2009 6:12 AM AdminPD has not yet responded

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3474 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 5 of 161 (531468)
10-18-2009 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminPD
10-18-2009 5:22 AM


Re: Needs Support
all I see is a thread to make Christians jump through hoops to reconcile inconsistencies

Huh? My point is that the bible directly contradicts itself, and does so innumerable times. It does so in many different ways. Conflicting advice is given. Even simple stuff such as the Jael murder story has two different scenarios.

Even one such instance is not consistent with the christian concept of a "perfect" god.

So, either the bible isn't actually the word of god, as is rather likely, or this god speaks with a forked tongue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminPD, posted 10-18-2009 5:22 AM AdminPD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by purpledawn, posted 10-18-2009 9:58 AM Blzebub has responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 6 of 161 (531500)
10-18-2009 9:41 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Squaring circles: direct biblical contradictions thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1691 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 7 of 161 (531502)
10-18-2009 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Blzebub
10-18-2009 6:12 AM


Word of God
While I work on addressing the inconsistencies you provided, please provide evidence for the Christian concept of a "perfect" God and what is meant by perfect in relation to God.

Please provide evidence that to be considered the "word of God" the Bible cannot contain inconsistencies.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Blzebub, posted 10-18-2009 6:12 AM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Blzebub, posted 10-18-2009 2:33 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1691 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 8 of 161 (531523)
10-18-2009 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blzebub
10-17-2009 4:57 PM


Supposed Inconsistencies
quote:
1. It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil:...
It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil:
The point of the A&E story in Genesis 2:15-17 has nothing to do with whether it is wrong to be able to tell good from evil. It is a foundational myth written as a just-so story to explain why mankind is the way it is. This story does not contradict what the author of Hebrews said in 5:13-14.

quote:
2. While he is drunk, Lot's two daughters "lie with him," become pregnant, and give birth to his offspring:...
Lot was "just". [So much for the bible as a moral compass!]
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.

quote:
3.God tempts Abraham:...
God never tempts anyone:
Do you really think Genesis 22 and James 1 are talking about the same thing?

God gave Abraham a command. The test of Abraham was if he followed God's command. A direct test of obedience. The author of James is talking about temptation (enticement) to do things that are wrong, not that God gave them a direct order.

quote:
4. Honour your father and mother:...
Jesus says that he has come to divide families; that a man's foes will be those of his own household; that you must hate your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and even your own life to be a disciple:
The NT authors are referring to Micah 7:6.

For a son dishonors his father, a daughter rises up against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies are the members of his own household.

It is a sign of the times of the Messiah. Remember the reality of the NT times. Some Jews wanted to battle the Romans and others didn't.

Again, this is not a contradiction of the law, but a sign of the times.

quote:
5. God prohibits killing:...
God orders killing:
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.

quote:
6. Take revenge on your enemies:...
Or perhaps not:
Deuteronomy 19:21 is not about revenge, but punishment for lying on the stand.

quote:
7. Sisera was sleeping when Jael killed him:...

Judges is considered an historical book. Judges 4:21 is telling what happened. Judges 5:25-27 is a song about the incident. Songs tend to take poetic license.

Take into account the context of the stories and that long periods of time have passed. Understand what is actually happening and what the authors are trying to tell their audience.

I see poor cherry picking, but I don't really see true contradictions.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blzebub, posted 10-17-2009 4:57 PM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Blzebub, posted 10-18-2009 2:49 PM purpledawn has responded
 Message 19 by Blzebub, posted 10-19-2009 5:23 PM purpledawn has responded
 Message 60 by Blzebub, posted 10-22-2009 2:04 PM purpledawn has responded

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3474 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 9 of 161 (531544)
10-18-2009 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by purpledawn
10-18-2009 9:58 AM


Re: Word of God
While I work on addressing the inconsistencies you provided, please provide evidence for the Christian concept of a "perfect" God and what is meant by perfect in relation to God.

http://www.theism.info/perfection.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by purpledawn, posted 10-18-2009 9:58 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3474 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 10 of 161 (531546)
10-18-2009 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by purpledawn
10-18-2009 11:27 AM


Re: Supposed Inconsistencies
I see poor cherry picking, but I don't really see true contradictions.

First of all (in post 7) you agree that they are "inconsistencies", and ask me why the bible shouldn't contain any (I would have thought that the reason would be obvious, if one accepts the bible as the word of a perfect deity); but now you are saying they aren't "contradictions", after all!

You seem to be reading the bible in a decidedly non-literal way! Isn't it a guide for the man in the street?

How about the "sabbath"? Guidance from the bible:

Exodus 31:15-17 (King James Version)

Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Mark 2:27-28 (King James Version)

And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

Romans 14:5 (King James Version)

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

First, no work is to be done on the Sabbath, not even lighting a fire. The commandment is permanent, and death is required for infractions. Later on, Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (after his disciples were criticized for breaking the Sabbath). Paul also chimes in with the insight that the Sabbath commandment was temporary, and to decide for yourself regarding its observance.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by purpledawn, posted 10-18-2009 6:27 PM Blzebub has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1691 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 11 of 161 (531570)
10-18-2009 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Blzebub
10-18-2009 2:49 PM


Re: Supposed Inconsistencies
quote:
First of all (in post 7) you agree that they are "inconsistencies", and ask me why the bible shouldn't contain any (I would have thought that the reason would be obvious, if one accepts the bible as the word of a perfect deity); but now you are saying they aren't "contradictions", after all!
Actually in Message 7, I said I would be working on the inconsistencies you provided. IOW, I would be working on the verses you deemed to be inconsistent.

I also didn't ask you why the Bible shouldn't contain inconsistencies, I asked for you to provide evidence that the Bible cannot contain inconsistencies to be considered the "word of God".

In Message 9, you provided a link that supports that some Christians consider God to be perfect, but you didn't tell me what perfect means in relation to God.

Who says the Bible cannot contain inconsistencies and be considered the "word of God" besides you?

quote:
You seem to be reading the bible in a decidedly non-literal way! Isn't it a guide for the man in the street?
I'm looking at the P'shat. Remember what that is?

I assume you agree with my assessment of the verses you provided since you didn't provide a counter argument to support your position and have moved on to another verse. This is what I meant about jumping through hoops. You aren't trying to understand the texts as they apply to reality. Religion changes with civilization.

quote:
How about the "sabbath"? Guidance from the bible:...
First, no work is to be done on the Sabbath, not even lighting a fire. The commandment is permanent, and death is required for infractions. Later on, Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (after his disciples were criticized for breaking the Sabbath). Paul also chimes in with the insight that the Sabbath commandment was temporary, and to decide for yourself regarding its observance.
Exodus 31 is a later priestly writing according to Richard Elliott Friedman, in the book entitled "Who Wrote The Bible?" It deals with his insight on the documentary hypothesis.

As I said, religion changes with the culture. That is what you're seeing between the OT and the NT. Before Jesus came on the scene, Jewish reformers attempted to bring Judaism into the "modern age", according to Paul Johnson in his book entitled "A History of the Jews".

They embarked on the first Biblical criticism: the Law, as now written, was not very old and certainly did not go back to Moses.

Like Hillel before him, Jesus brought a more humane and universal notion of Torah interpretation. The spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is that everyone gets to rest from their daily grind: men, women, slaves, animals, etc. It wasn't that they should be afraid to move, save a lamb or a neighbor, etc. They were applying common sense to the application of the law. Laws also change with society.

Paul preached to the Greeks who weren't under Jewish Law to begin with, so the Sabbath rule had no bearing on them.

Now before you flop out some more verses that are centuries apart, please pay attention to the context and the audience.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Blzebub, posted 10-18-2009 2:49 PM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Blzebub, posted 10-19-2009 3:21 AM purpledawn has responded

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3474 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 12 of 161 (531597)
10-19-2009 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by purpledawn
10-18-2009 6:27 PM


Re: Supposed Inconsistencies
I also didn't ask you why the Bible shouldn't contain inconsistencies, I asked for you to provide evidence that the Bible cannot contain inconsistencies to be considered the "word of God".

In Message 9, you provided a link that supports that some Christians consider God to be perfect, but you didn't tell me what perfect means in relation to God.

Who says the Bible cannot contain inconsistencies and be considered the "word of God" besides you?

If you follow the link, you will see what is meant by perfection in relation to god. It's clearly not a perfect situation if god's word is left open to interpretation by different readers. Is it your opinion that god isn't perfect?

Religion changes with civilization.

True. It picks and chooses among the innumerable and diverse advice presented in the bible. Some advice is discarded. How does religion know which parts of the word of god are no longer relevent? The bible says nothing to outlaw torture, giving the catholics carte blanche to go ahead with the inquisition, but nowadays few churchmen would condone it. Why didn't god prohibit torture, preferring to concentrate on various weird dietary restrictions instead!?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by purpledawn, posted 10-18-2009 6:27 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by purpledawn, posted 10-19-2009 7:33 AM Blzebub has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1691 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 13 of 161 (531636)
10-19-2009 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Blzebub
10-19-2009 3:21 AM


Perfect God
quote:
If you follow the link, you will see what is meant by perfection in relation to god. It's clearly not a perfect situation if god's word is left open to interpretation by different readers. Is it your opinion that god isn't perfect?
Rule #5: Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

I don't debate links.

When you say perfect god, what do you mean by perfect in relation to God?

I can't answer whether I consider God to be perfect or not until I know what definition you're using for perfect in relation to God. Catch phrases tend to get thrown about without any real meaning behind them. I need to know what meaning you are attaching to these phrases and words.

quote:
True. It picks and chooses among the innumerable and diverse advice presented in the bible.
You really missed the point concerning inconsistencies. Within the Bible we see change in religion. That's why there are differences in what is said in the OT and the NT. Things change over hundreds of years and the Bible shows that change if you pay attention. The rest of your questions are irrelevant to the discussion.

You still haven't shown support for the claim that the Bible cannot be the "word of God" if it contains inconsistencies.

What do you think "word of God" means?


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Blzebub, posted 10-19-2009 3:21 AM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Blzebub, posted 10-19-2009 1:17 PM purpledawn has responded

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3474 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 14 of 161 (531715)
10-19-2009 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by purpledawn
10-19-2009 7:33 AM


Re: Perfect God
Rule #5: Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

I don't debate links.

When you say perfect god, what do you mean by perfect in relation to God?

Wow, you are being very strict with me. Since I believe there is almost certainly no god, I have no "personal" interpretation of the word "perfect" in this context. It would be like trying to describe a perfect Peter Pan. I take the word at its face value. Perfection is a state of flawlessness.

That's why I posted the link to a theist website, which you are refusing to discuss, for some reason.

What do you think "word of God" means?

What it says, of course. Words originating from god. They should be flawless and indisputable if god is perfect.

Why does everything seem like a conundrum in your version of christianity? Is the bible supposed to be a plain-speaking guide for ordinary christians ("thou shalt not kill", etc.) or is its true meaning only accessible to advanced bible scholars?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by purpledawn, posted 10-19-2009 7:33 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by purpledawn, posted 10-19-2009 2:51 PM Blzebub has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1691 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 15 of 161 (531731)
10-19-2009 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Blzebub
10-19-2009 1:17 PM


Re: Perfect God
quote:
That's why I posted the link to a theist website, which you are refusing to discuss, for some reason.
The point of the rule is that you read the article and make the argument in your own words. My debate is with you, not the article.

So you're saying a perfect God is without fault or blemish.

quote:
What it says, of course. Words originating from god. They should be flawless and indisputable if god is perfect.
According to you they must be flawless (without fault or blemish) and unquestionable if God is flawless. The adjective "perfect" describes God, not necessarily what he says or does or inspires. You already know he isn't omnisicent or omnipotent. So what is perfect describing?

Why should the writings in the Bible be unquestionable because God is supposedly flawless? How does one relate to the other?

I don't have to have a clean house to tell someone how to keep their house clean. They would believe me more if my actions fit my words; but if my advice is sound, the condition of my house is irrelevant.

Of course if I gave my advice before the advent of the vacuum cleaner, modern technology may render my advice obsolete. Was I at fault when the advice was first given? No.

The writers spoke to their audiences, not to us. When God spoke or inspired people to write, the target audience was a specific group in time, not us today. He's not going to tell a man how to drive a car if all he has is a horse and chariott.

That's what's was wrong with your supposed inconsistencies you provided. You didn't take into account what the writers were addressing or allowing mankind to change and grow over time.

I feel inconsistencies arise because of current theologies, as opposed to what the authors of the Bible were telling their audiences. Were the author's inconsistent at the time?

To answer your earlier question: No, I don't consider God to be perfect, but my defintion of perfect in relation to God means completed or finished. God is always changing as the Bible shows us.

2Sa 22:31 [As for] God, his way [is] perfect (sound); the word of the LORD [is] tried (tested): he [is] a buckler to all them that trust in him.

The italics are mine. In this verse God's way is sound. What God utters has been tested. This author feels that God's way is sound and doesn't feel it is unreasonable to test the words of God. Now what God has them do thousands of years earlier, may not seem so sound to us today. Current theology may want people to dump their common sense, but I don't see that any words attributed to God supports that.

I know I sucked the fun out of plopping a list of supposed inconsistencies out for Christians to justify for you, but I was hoping you would take the time to make a more intelligent argument.

So, do you still consider the verses you provided to be inconsistent? You didn't really respond to my explanations.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Blzebub, posted 10-19-2009 1:17 PM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Blzebub, posted 10-19-2009 4:06 PM purpledawn has responded

  
1
23456
...
11NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019