Squaring circles: direct biblical contradictions

quote:

---

I was asking YOU a question. Not a question posed to you regarding Blzebub.

​

Care to answer it?

​

{ABE} The reason for my question is based on your continued assertion that it is the scribes who translated the original whom created any errors.

---

I did answer. I said "Nope".Where did I assert that the scribes who translated the original created any errors?Have you read the thread?

---

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

Message 39
Message 45
Message 52
Need any more?{ABE} you apparently don't give our current copies of any bible the benefit of doubt for being "exact copies". Which is why I asked if you feel the only people who "know the real truth" are those in posession of the originals. If the current copies aren't legit, why follow them AT ALL? What good are they?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

If I didn't make it clear before that I think that line of reasoning is preposterous and obviously incorrect, may I do so now?However, if we accept that it is the case for the sake of your argument for one moment, then it immediately sets up a conflict with assertions elsewhere in the bible, which say that "god is a god of love".

Er, you've made an error! See 2:error
n.
1. An act, assertion, or belief that unintentionally deviates from what is correct, right, or true.
2. The condition of having incorrect or false knowledge.
3. The act or an instance of deviating from an accepted code of behavior.
4. A mistake.
5. Mathematics The difference between a computed or measured value and a true or theoretically correct value.
6. Abbr. E Baseball A defensive fielding or throwing misplay by a player when a play normally should have resulted in an out or prevented an advance by a base runner.

I chose not to bother with them, because they are valueless, empty questions. Here they are again: If god is perfect, and the bible is god's word, then the bible must be inerrant (without error). If the bible is god's word, yet contains errors, then god is not perfect.You still haven't answered my implicit question in Message 69. Do you really, seriously, believe that in Lot's time (or any other time), a righteous man would offer his two daughters to a mob for the explicit purpose of gang-rape? If this is your belief, please provide evidence to support it.

I didn't respond to every point in your message for a number of reasons. Firstly, unfortunately I don't have a great amount of web-time, so I can't go into every single point that is raised. Secondly, I think you've tried to cloud the whole issue by raising too many points anyway. Thirdly, you referred to points you had raised in discussion with Blzebub, to whom I have left the option of responding.However, I did choose to comment on the point that YOU raised under this topic about contexts, because I think that it was a valid point to raise under this topic - but apparently YOU now think that is going off topic!

In Message 39, Message 45, and Message 52; I did not assert that the scribes who translated the original created any errors as we can see from the quotes you provided.

quote:

---

you apparently don't give our current copies of any bible the benefit of doubt for being "exact copies". Which is why I asked if you feel the only people who "know the real truth" are those in posession of the originals.

---

What "real truth" are you talking about?If by truth you mean knowing whether there are unintentional errors in our translations, then I would say that those who can read the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that Bibles are translated from would be the people who could actually tell if our current Bibles have unintentional errors. I can't tell.If you're talking about unintentional errors in copies of the original, then I would say no one really knows that answer. The originals are gone. Did the church fathers edit the New Testament?

quote:

---

If the current copies aren't legit, why follow them AT ALL? What good are they?

---

That's a choice that each individual makes for themselves and is beyond the scope of this discussion.Edited by purpledawn, : Typo

---

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

quote:

---

If god is perfect, and the bible is god's word, then the bible must be inerrant (without error). If the bible is god's word, yet contains errors, then god is not perfect.

---

The Bible isn't deemed the word of God because it's inerrant. So if God is not perfect, and the Bible is God's word, then the Bible can have errors.Is that what you're trying to prove to yourself, that God isn't flawless? If you're arguing against what you called the Christian concept of a perfect God, you're going about it the wrong way.Before you can claim that an error in the Bible means God is not flawless, you need to connect God to the production of the Bible.Like I asked in Message 50:
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?Until you can clarify (with evidence) the characteristics of a flawless god, you really can't connect errors within a written work of man to God's flawlessness.BTW, the Bible writings don't support the idea of a flawless god. That's just looking at the simple reading of the text.

quote:

---

You still haven't answered my implicit question in Message 69. Do you really, seriously, believe that in Lot's time (or any other time), a righteous man would offer his two daughters to a mob for the explicit purpose of gang-rape? If this is your belief, please provide evidence to support it.

---

What we think of it today is irrelevant. In the story, Lot was not chastised for offering his daughters to the mob. The angels of God were right there with him.We're looking at whether the Bible supposedly contradicts itself, not whether the Bible contradicts what we believe to be right and wrong today.Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

---

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

quote:

---

The condition of having incorrect or false knowledge.

---

So which verse had incorrect information?
Please show evidence that the information was incorrect at the time of writing.

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. 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. 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?

No I don't. The entire premise of this thread was set out quite clearly in my first post, containing this statement from a christian:

quote:

---

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 is what the thread is supposed to be about. A clear "mission statement" which sets out the rationale for belief: the bible is the word of god, and cannot be questioned. You appear to agree with my own opinion, which is that the bible was written by men, and contains numerous errors. So I don't understand why you are arguing with me.But your position is obscured slightly by your simultaneous insistence that the errors I have pointed out aren't errors at all!The most recent defence of Lot's "righteousness" is certainly one of the most outlandish opinions I have ever seen from a religious apologist: I think that if your argument reaches the point where it relies on an extremely unlikely (and frankly rather silly) premise, such as this suggestion of yours that in Lot's time, offering ones daughters to a rapacious mob was viewed as a righteous act, then the onus is on you to provide some evidence to support this premise, and not on me to refute it.

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.Anyway, at least two of you now seem to acknowledge that the writings in the bible are questionable. Which is a start, I suppose.

At least one of the two different threshing-floor prices must have been incorrect at the time of writing, and indeed at any other time. The price was already paid, and is an immutable fact (whatever the price actually was).

"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. Now? It didn't have anything to do with this thread. In fact, the doctrine of inerrancy is a very recent deal.

quote:

---

This is what the thread is supposed to be about. A clear "mission statement" which sets out the rationale for belief: the bible is the word of god, and cannot be questioned. You appear to agree with my own opinion, which is that the bible was written by men, and contains numerous errors. So I don't understand why you are arguing with me.

---

Actually he said his rationale for justifying any of his beliefs. As I've said before, he isn't making a blanket statement like you are. Also notice he didn't mention a perfect God or that the Bible is without error or that God actually wrote the Bible. That's why I said: Before you can claim that an error in the Bible means God is not flawless, you need to connect God to the production of the Bible.You are the one asserting that an error or contradiction in the Bible means God is not perfect (flawless). You haven't shown evidence to support that contention.Yes, the Bible was written by men. I don't know about numerous errors, but odds are there are some true errors. I'm arguing with you because you're making unsubstantiated claims and aren't backing them up with any rational reasoning for your end conclusion.Just like the deal with Lot.

quote:

---

The most recent defence of Lot's "righteousness" is certainly one of the most outlandish opinions I have ever seen from a religious apologist:

---

I'm not defending Lot's righteousness. You supposedly want to discuss contradictions that in your mind means God is not perfect, but you are actually comparing the Bible writings with today's morality. You not actually dealing with what is written. You are casting your own judgment on the actions of the characters.In the story of Lot, he is not chastised for offering his daughters. The story doesn't deem him unrighteous for that action. It probably has something to do with the culture of the time, but the fact is the story doesn't make an issue of it. Now a later author has a certain point to make concerning righteousness and he doesn't make an issue of it either. You also have to remember that the average person in that time probably didn't have a Bible and by 100-160 CE, the author of 2 Peter was probably talking to Greeks who are not as familiar with the OT stories.

quote:

---

I think that if your argument reaches the point where it relies on an extremely unlikely (and frankly rather silly) premise, such as this suggestion of yours that in Lot's time, offering ones daughters to a rapacious mob was viewed as a righteous act, then the onus is on you to provide some evidence to support this premise, and not on me to refute it.

---

This is rich coming from the guy who won't provide evidence for his own assertions. My attempt was to get you to think of the period the story was set in, but to no avail. It is irrelevant though, because the story itself does not deem him unrighteous for the offer. I don't see that it deems him unrighteous for what his daughter's did either. Bottom line: The actual story does not contradict what the author of 2 Peter was telling his audience. We may find the action repugnant and immoral, but that doesn't mean the verses contradict.Learn the difference between contradictions/inconsistencies between dogma/tradition and what's written in the Bible and contradictions/inconsistencies between Bible writers.Edited by purpledawn, : Typo

---

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