Squaring circles: direct biblical contradictions

Revelations are but faith based confirmations of faith in disguise.Trust me on that without question as I know the one true way

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

I am still willing to go with the hypothesis that it is me rather than you. What is the differnce in terms of perecived accuracy by believers of each doctrine? I'll keep asking till I either "get it" or you get fed up of me And you. And more pertinently welcome (again). You seem like a questioning intelligent theist (a bit like CS when he is on form ) which this place is in much need of.

Hi Apothecus! Modern fundamentalist misconceptions derive from a failure to understand the esoteric concepts of literality and inspiration.When we say that the Bible is to be interpreted literally, we mean first that a straightforward reading must prevail over later interpretations. That doesn't mean that it isn't full of parables, allegories, metaphors, hyperboles, and other forms of idiom; but rather, that those things are what they are. They are not exclusively what some further later exegesis makes them out to be. This is the principle of peshat.But secondly and more importantly, it means these are the words, no substitutions, no changes, no subtractions, no additions. A good translation, like the Authorized Version of the Christian text or the Biblia Hebraica of the Jewish, makes clear which words necessary for grammatical translation are not found in the original using italics or square brackets, in keeping with this principle.Inspiration is even more misleading, what it means is that the text is poetry. This is true even where it appears to us to be prose, it is still designed to follow specific rhythms and tones. This is one part of why it is so important not to mess with the words, different words have different scansion. Both the Hebrew and the Greek orthodox texts have musical notation attached to them, known as cantillation and neumes.Misinterpreting these concepts provides a steady paycheck for people unable to do honest work like burglary or the practice of law.

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.

Well I think I understand now. Cheers for explaining. And you. I hope you stick around EvC as you seem to have an interesting and considered take on stuff.

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...

Yes, with a minor quibble about the word "anyone". When correctly interpreting poetry, the term "inspiration" relates to the extent to which a given poem or body of work reflects much larger aspects of the world and our experience of it than the mere details of the poem would entail. A divinely inspired work is one which uses characterization of transcendent beings to give us important messages about ourselves.But further, understanding that the Bible is poetry all through allows us to recognize the huge depth of metaphor involved. Each passage means much more than it appears to on first glance. For example, the creation hymn at the beginning of Genesis is a reworking of prior "Songs of Moses" found in Psalms 148 and as used by David in 103. These Psalms tell us that all that out there, everything there is, is in our immediate reach when mediated by our idea of transcendent mind. Genesis 1 goes further though; in response to the Babylonian planetary model, which attributes specific aspects of creation to specific gods honored on seven weekdays, it asserts that there is ONE being who creates all those godforms or labels and controls our own experience of the whole world, every week, all night and all day long. I've never met a "real" fundamentalist who understood anything except the most superficial aspects of the nature of poetry. They will tell you in one breath that those days of the week in Genesis must be actual 24-hour days and in the next they will say that the days of the week in Daniel have to be years; and then when you ask them why this "literal" Jesus hasn't showed up yet, they will point at Peter where it says a day is a thousand years. They don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that the Bible isn't a science text or a historical chronicle, or a law-book made for them to find loopholes in either. Because it takes away their slave-morality prerogative to interfere with other people's mental activity. As long as they have one book that beats all the rest of human knowledge, given sufficient thumping, they can feel superior to people who go to the trouble of actually getting a good education. As long as they are sure that God agrees with them against the people who mock and abuse them, they can be counted on to be good slaves who are easy to manipulate.Let me just ask this. If the Bible is "literally true" in the more simplistic sense, what's the purpose of those multiple-family paychecks that go out on the grounds that you need someone to interpret it for you? Why do people keep coming round thumping down paraphrases like the NIV and claiming they are "literally true" when they aren't even literal? Answer: it's just a buzzword for them, they are working the old fool/money disengagement process. Tell people what they want to hear, and agree with them while they nod their heads, and they will pick their own pocket for you.

Maybe you could convince yourself, and/or your family, that a new church would be a better thing to do for them... Its overrated. I find agnosticism to be the default, naturally and logically. Well I'm Catholic I have a BS from U of I. 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 was full feldge atheist before I got mine. Then I came back. Maybe you should try it 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. I usually do.You too.

What I've found is that reading the Bible AS IF it were intended to be readable and understood, gets results and provides insights. Whereas reading it without that premise leads nowhere. Comming from a very liberal church, I can easily contrast the failures of one side verses the other.

None of these are worth analysis. If you are seeking the truth its WAY easier to see. Your blindness to this is most obvious by almost accusing Lot of raping his daughters, while the text clearly says he was not even aware his daughter was there. Lets just say he was really wasted. And it was a plot by both daughters for this to happen, not a friday night binge.Each of your points has an equal amount of blindness,
but that one takes the cake.Another lame claim is that different versions of the bible would confuse somebody seeking truth. The 6 version bible is a great aid when seeking the meaning of scripture. There are some concepts that are boarderline between one english word and another and multiple versions often cover both ideas in differing ways. Such as kneeling, worshiping, or lying flat on the ground. The person seeking truth....gets it. Others see condradictions.Edited by -Sky-, : .

Correct Answer: They are saying the Bible is Literal Truth.That the concepts and ideas are not hidden or needing scholarly interpretation by any high mucky-mucks. No matter what language it happens to be in, the concepts God has for us to learn are ours for the taking. Some of it is poetic, and some full of imagry,and some cold hard historical facts. But the overall concepts come through clear to anyone ready to believe it.But even then, the words are not critical, according to Romans 1:20 Edited by -Sky-, : No reason given.

You're almost there. Next comes the discovery that the stories are actual events that happened AND they are metaphores for truths and they are metaphores for other actual events yet to happen or that have already happened. But seeing the imagery everywhere is a good step.Edited by -Sky-, : No reason given.

Fundi Churches don't work that way. Sorry.

Yes, but you didn't give her a chance to research any answers to knowledge you were well versed in. Not that there is any such thing as "Mainstream Science" unless you are refering to the concept of "intelligence" or UFO's.And the phrase is only about 10 years old.So your kind of making stuff up to support your views.