Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Squaring circles: direct biblical contradictions
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 46 of 161 (532158)
10-21-2009 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Blzebub
10-21-2009 2:09 PM


Re: Weak arguments
Rule #4: Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
quote:
Curiouser and curiouser. Can you appreciate quite how ludicrous your explanations appear?
This type of response doesn't move the discussion forward and doesn't address what difficulties you have with the explanation.
As I asked before, please show evidence that songs always depict every detail of an event correctly.
So the song doesn't match the event. Why does that difference make the Bible not the word of God?
What great theological teaching will this ancient song cast doubt on?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 2:09 PM Blzebub has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 5:39 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 47 of 161 (532159)
10-21-2009 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by purpledawn
10-21-2009 5:07 PM


Re: Doctrine of Inerrancy
we don't know what the original story said
In that case, how can anyone debate what is says in the versions we have? It's the ultimate global biblical get-out clause, and this section of the forum may as well be closed down.
I agree the prices don't match. Does the world end now?
We are only debating biblical contradictions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by purpledawn, posted 10-21-2009 5:07 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by purpledawn, posted 10-21-2009 7:38 PM Blzebub has replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 48 of 161 (532161)
10-21-2009 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by purpledawn
10-21-2009 5:21 PM


Re: Weak arguments
So the song doesn't match the event.
But your explanation of why it doesn't is extremely tortuous. If you genuinely don't care whether the bible is inerrant, or not, why are you tying yourself in logical knots trying to prove that this one is OK?
I neither know nor care whether Jesus' followers subsequently observed the sabbath. The point is that he made a general remark about it, rather than one specific to the circumstances.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by purpledawn, posted 10-21-2009 5:21 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by purpledawn, posted 10-21-2009 7:03 PM Blzebub has seen this message but not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 49 of 161 (532169)
10-21-2009 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Blzebub
10-21-2009 5:39 PM


Re: Weak arguments
quote:
PurpleDawn writes:
So the song doesn't match the event.
But your explanation of why it doesn't is extremely tortuous.
How is it tortuous?
PurpleDawn writes:
The author is writing about an event that happened and a song that was sung concerning the event. You feel it is better for the author to change the song instead of accurately recording it for posterity? If he had done that, then the writing would have actually been inaccurate and not free from error (inerrant). We wouldn't know the difference and you would be happy, but the information would actually be wrong.Message 40
You're the one who said: The "inerrant word of god" ought to be inerrant, at least, poetic license or not.
If the writer reports the event and the song as they were in his time, it is not an error.
So what is the point of pointing out that the song doesn't match the event? There has to be a reason. Otherwise you're just making people jump through hoops with no intention of addressing the responses seriously.
quote:
If you genuinely don't care whether the bible is inerrant, or not, why are you tying yourself in logical knots trying to prove that this one is OK?
If you're an atheist why do you care if the Bible has errors?
Why do you care if someone else thinks it doesn't have errors?
Why do you care if others consider it the word of God?
See those types of questions don't further the discussion. That's arguing the person, not the position. Address the arguments presented.
Show me the logical knots.
quote:
I neither know nor care whether Jesus' followers subsequently observed the sabbath. The point is that he made a general remark about it, rather than one specific to the circumstances.
The issue isn't whether you care. Address the argument presented. I gave you information that shows there was more to "keeping" the Sabbath in Jesus' day than when the rule was first made. Jesus' followers still kept the Sabbath. Reread the issues I presented and address those. If you're not going to address the argument presented, I can't help you understand why the Sabbath issue isn't really a contradiction.
Edited by purpledawn, : Formatting

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 5:39 PM Blzebub has seen this message but not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 50 of 161 (532173)
10-21-2009 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Blzebub
10-21-2009 5:30 PM


Re: Doctrine of Inerrancy
quote:
In that case, how can anyone debate what is says in the versions we have? It's the ultimate global biblical get-out clause,
Do I have to say, Duh?
quote:
We are only debating biblical contradictions.
The rest of us are trying to debate, you're not.
There has to be a reason for the debate. What are you hoping to prove with the contradictions?
Message 5 is the closest thing to a contention I could get out of you.
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.
How does the error by the song writer make God not perfect?
How does the error in prices make God not perfect?
How does Ezra's bad editing make God not perfect?
How does Jesus showing that it is lawful to do good and to save life even on the Sabbath make God not perfect?
None of these are God speaking.
How are these instances not consistent with the Christian concept of a perfect God?
You're the one saying that one mistake in the Bible means God is not a perfect god. Says who?
What are the characteristic of a perfect God? (Don't forget to show evidence.)

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 5:30 PM Blzebub has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Blzebub, posted 10-22-2009 3:16 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 51 of 161 (532215)
10-22-2009 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by purpledawn
10-21-2009 7:38 PM


Re: Doctrine of Inerrancy
How does the error by the song writer make God not perfect?
How does the error in prices make God not perfect?
How does Ezra's bad editing make God not perfect?
How does Jesus showing that it is lawful to do good and to save life even on the Sabbath make God not perfect?
None of these are God speaking.
How are these instances not consistent with the Christian concept of a perfect God?
You're the one saying that one mistake in the Bible means God is not a perfect god. Says who?
What are the characteristic of a perfect God? (Don't forget to show evidence.)
In this subforum, the premise of debate is whether or not the bible is the "inerrant" word of god (or is it the words of man), and not about whether or not god is perfect. Inerrant means without error. Just one error or contradiction means that the bible cannot be the inerrant word of god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by purpledawn, posted 10-21-2009 7:38 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2009 4:38 AM Blzebub has replied
 Message 53 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2009 9:18 AM Blzebub has seen this message but not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 52 of 161 (532224)
10-22-2009 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Blzebub
10-22-2009 3:16 AM


Errors
quote:
In this subforum, the premise of debate is whether or not the bible is the "inerrant" word of god (or is it the words of man), and not about whether or not god is perfect. Inerrant means without error. Just one error or contradiction means that the bible cannot be the inerrant word of god.
Wow, you really don't have anything do you?
OK we'll play that game.
An error is an act involving an unintentional deviation from truth or accuracy.
A contradiction or inconsistency is not an error, so those are irrelevant to the discussion since inerrant means without error.
Show me that the song writer deviated unintentionally. If the song writer knowingly chose to write the position of the dead man differently to accommodate the song, then it isn't an error.
Show me that the prices listed were errors. If the authors wrote down the story that was circulating at their time, they aren't errors.
Show me that Ezra's bad editing was unintentional. If he left the horses in on purpose, it isn't an error.
ABE: Since we don't have original manuscripts, we can't really say whether the Bible writers made errors or not.
If scribes made copying errors later, does that negate the Bible from containing the word of God? If yes, why?
If translators made errors later, does that negate the Bible from containing the word of God? If yes, why?
If you make an error in comprehension or interpretation, does that negate the Bible from containing the word of God? If yes, why?
You do realize the Bible was physically written, compiled, copied, and translated by men, right?
There were several interesting King James Bibles published in the seventeenth century. These errors changed the meaning of what was written and would negate it being the word of God, but only where the error happened.
Murderer's Bible:
Jude 16 - Murderers instead of murmurers.
These are murmurers complainers walking after their own lusts and their mouth speaketh great swelling words having men's persons in admiration because of advantage...
Mark 7:27 was made to read: Let the children first be killed (instead of filled) - But Jesus said unto her Let the children first be filled for it is not meet to take the children's bread and to cast it unto the dogs...
Wife Hater's Bible:
Luke 14:26 - Wife should read life.
If any man come to me, and hate not his father . . . yea, and his own wife also.
Second Printing King James Bible:
Matthew 26:36 - Read Then cometh Judas with them unto a place called Gethsemane. It should have read: Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane and saith unto the disciples Sit ye here while __ I go and pray yonder...
The Adulterer’s or Wicked Bible (1631):
Exodus 20:14 - Thou shalt commit adultery. Oops, forgot the not.
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Understanding the reality that gave us the Bible, helps one understand the development of that religion and influence on mankind. That doesn't mean one has to agree with the message.
So far I don't see anything that makes a difference in the overall scheme of the Bible map.
You can crow that a single "error" means it isn't the word of God, but you didn't need this thread for that. There are Bible contradiction and error sites all over the web and apologetics to answer each one.
Just as there are Christians who can cherry pick verses out of context to create a new theology, those who are religion-free can also cherry pick verses out of context to create a contradiction that isn't there.
I dislike Christians misusing the Bible and I dislike the religion-free misusing the Bible.
Edited by purpledawn, : ABE

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Blzebub, posted 10-22-2009 3:16 AM Blzebub has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Blzebub, posted 10-22-2009 12:41 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 72 by hooah212002, posted 10-22-2009 6:46 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 53 of 161 (532244)
10-22-2009 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Blzebub
10-22-2009 3:16 AM


Reason For The Topic
What is your position concerning the topic you started?
What do you hope to prove from discussing "Bible Contradictions"?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Blzebub, posted 10-22-2009 3:16 AM Blzebub has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-22-2009 9:49 AM purpledawn has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 54 of 161 (532248)
10-22-2009 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Blzebub
10-21-2009 4:16 PM


Re: A personal favorite..
Soldiers are voluteers, not commanded by god (except in the case of the Dubbya Iraq invasion, when god spoke directly to His Dubbyaness)
Whether or not a soldier is a volunteer (and they very often aren't) is neither here nor there. What's here or there is my point that an authority forbidding killing and that same authority commanding killing is not a contradiction. At least not when their commanding a killing positions the authority as the moral agent and the person doing the killing as a mere instrument of killing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 4:16 PM Blzebub has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Blzebub, posted 10-22-2009 12:51 PM iano has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


(1)
Message 55 of 161 (532254)
10-22-2009 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by purpledawn
10-22-2009 9:18 AM


Re: Reason For The Topic
Hi purpledawn
I don't like to second guess Blzebub's position, but I would have thought it was obvious that he was trying to establish that the Bible is not the literal word of a single being (God) but that it is clearly a compilation of articles written by various people with different mindsets or agendas. Or even if it did once contain a perfectly consistent message, it has been miscopied or mistranslated so many times that nobody can be sure what the original message was meant to be.
Whatever the reason for the contradictions and discrepancies, the result is the Bible does not convey a wholly clear and consistent message, and that means it does not deserve the position of infallible authority that it is granted by so many.
By the way, it does make me laugh when so many people try to justify questionable sections of the Bible by saying, "Oh, that bit was a mistranslation from the Hebrew or the Greek". Well, why the **** doesn't somebody correct that translation? How many thousands of years do you need to do so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2009 9:18 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2009 10:23 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 56 of 161 (532257)
10-22-2009 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
10-22-2009 9:49 AM


Inerrancy or INfallible
quote:
I don't like to second guess Blzebub's position, but I would have thought it was obvious that he was trying to establish that the Bible is not the literal word of a single being (God) but that it is clearly a compilation of articles written by various people with different mindsets or agendas. Or even if it did once contain a perfectly consistent message, it has been miscopied or mistranslated so many times that nobody can be sure what the original message was meant to be.
I would buy that if all the verses he presented were problems because of various authors, but they weren't. When I brought up the Documentary Hypothesis in Message 11 he didn't jump on it. I opened the door to addressing the issue of different authors. When someone asks for evidence that the A&E story is a myth, they aren't looking at the various authors.
Do you feel the responses given to the verses he provided were contrived?
quote:
Whatever the reason for the contradictions and discrepancies, the result is the Bible does not convey a wholly clear and consistent message, and that means it does not deserve the position of infallible authority that it is granted by so many.
Infallible isn't the same as inerrant.
Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-22-2009 9:49 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-22-2009 11:12 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 57 of 161 (532267)
10-22-2009 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by purpledawn
10-22-2009 10:23 AM


Re: Inerrancy or INfallible
I'm not sure, and don't really care, what the difference is between infallible and inerrant in this context. I think the proposed topic was very simple and straightforward, and you've tried quite successfully to muddy the waters.
You mention context as justifying certain inconsistencies in the Bible. But that's never done in preaching, and I think that was at least partly what Blzebub was trying to get at.
You never hear a preacher saying "the Bible says this, but in certain circumstances you must do completely the opposite." Oh no! They keep any inconsistencies or relevant contexts well hidden from their stupid flock.
You never hear a preacher saying "it's morally wrong to work on the Sabbath, unless you're a Greek".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2009 10:23 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2009 2:08 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 58 of 161 (532279)
10-22-2009 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by purpledawn
10-22-2009 4:38 AM


Re: Errors
Show me that the song writer deviated unintentionally. If the song writer knowingly chose to write the position of the dead man differently to accommodate the song, then it isn't an error.
Show me that the prices listed were errors. If the authors wrote down the story that was circulating at their time, they aren't errors.
Show me that Ezra's bad editing was unintentional. If he left the horses in on purpose, it isn't an error.
Good grief! Just read my first post again. It begins with a post snipped from a different thread, from a christian poster. In it, he suggests quite strongly that the bible is all true, and cannot be disputed:
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?
I point out that there are inconsistencies in the bible, such that it would be impossible (and occasionally dangerous) to agree with everything in the bible. I haven't actually got around to posting dangerous advice from the bible, because you've done your best to derail the thread by continually changing the subject, and making silly excuses for the inconsistencies. Jumped Up Chimpanzee can see this, and I'm sure any other fair-minded person could as well.
Show me that the prices listed were errors. If the authors wrote down the story that was circulating at their time, they aren't errors.
Exactly! What the price discrepancy shows is that the bible is not "the inerrant word of god". It demonstrates that "the authors" (men, not god) "wrote down the story that was circulating at their time" (circulating among other men). That's not the word of god, and it's not inerrant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2009 4:38 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2009 2:05 PM Blzebub has replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 59 of 161 (532283)
10-22-2009 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by iano
10-22-2009 9:31 AM


Re: A personal favorite..
Whether or not a soldier is a volunteer (and they very often aren't) is neither here nor there. What's here or there is my point that an authority forbidding killing and that same authority commanding killing is not a contradiction. At least not when their commanding a killing positions the authority as the moral agent and the person doing the killing as a mere instrument of killing.
Well, I admire your logic, but not your biblical/christian morals. I think killing other humans is wrong in nearly every circumstance, other than possibly voluntary euthanasia, and even there, it's dodgy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by iano, posted 10-22-2009 9:31 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by iano, posted 10-22-2009 4:14 PM Blzebub has replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 60 of 161 (532291)
10-22-2009 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by purpledawn
10-18-2009 11:27 AM


Re: Supposed Inconsistencies
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.
By the way, here's what the "righteous" Lot did with his daughters, before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah(!!!):
quote:
Genesis 19:4-8 (King James Version)
4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2009 2:19 PM Blzebub has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024