Biblical contradictions.

Finding words like "butthead" and "flames" in posts are a good indicator of possible guideline violations. Things haven't gotten out of hand here yet, but neither does any fruitful discussion appear to be taking place. Please follow the forum guidelines. Future posts to this thread should be on-topic or I will close it. Thanks!--Percy

Diamus,Rules 1 and 2 are not being followed in this thread. Discussion is not on topic, and respect for others is not being demonstrated.You're free to decide you do not want to participate here, but the guidelines were put in place to prevent flame wars and keep discussion focused. If that's not what you're looking for in a discussion then you might want to try other boards.In the future, please either email me your concerns about how this board is moderated, or post them to the Suggestions forum.--Percy

No harm, Diamus. You are right that I intervened early, but once you've seen enough threads you can tell where they're going.I did want to respond to this, though:

---

Diamus writes:
What do you think pays for this web site sir? Us...the users, the ones who provide the hits to the sites that in turn pay your superiors and/or you.

---

Well, as I've said in past posts, EvC Forum is an ultra-megalith among websites, dwarfing all other sites combined. While I count myself a lucky individual to be working for so large and enlightened an organization, in my own defense, you just wouldn't believe what goes on around here! It seems like anyone can do whatever they want and that no one's in charge. The janitor is as likely to update the website as the president. I've seen the librarian doing accounting and the errand boy doing the research. I'm on call day and night not just for the website but to do the bidding of any of the other employees. On top of it all, there are romantic involvements with people in the same department, there's two munchkins running around wreaking havoc, and I haven't seen a paycheck in years. Honestly, in all this mahem it's a wonder anything gets done.And to add insult to injury, I have to pay the webhosting company out of my own pocket! Can you believe that! --Percy (EvC Forum Administrator)

I realize I'm about to make myself very unpopular, but you appear to be in violation of rule 5 of the guidelines which requires providing attribution when posting material not your own. The specific contradictions you provided are posted all over the net so it's not necessary to provide a link, but you should at least give Dan Barker credit.--Percy

Let's see if we can pick our way through this, assuming KJV for the Bible.The KJV of the Bible contains errors and contradictions.The Word of God is without errors and contradictions.Therefore, the KJV version of Bible is not the Word of God.But the Word of God *is* contained within the original manuscripts.Therefore, either the KJV was not translated from original manuscripts, or the translation is in error, or both.Hmmm. So how do you know when you have a manuscript that contains God's original words? And how do you know when it's been interpreted and translated properly?--Percy

The particular Bible used isn't a concern to me. I simply chose the one favored by most Creationists. If you don't like that one pick another.What are the errors in Genesis that have led Creationists to erroneously conclude the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

quote:

---

Whether one accepts science as the road to ultimate truth...

---

Science is tentative, so obviously it cannot be the road to ultimate truth.--Percy

So how old *is* the earth, and by what evidence do you arrive at your conclusion?--Percy

Schraf asks:

---

How do you recognize the original or "correct" word of God, and how do you recognize a translational error that has changed meaning, or not changed meaning?

---

Jet replies:

---

Through painstaking and persistant study, research, and prayer, coupled with faith in God and guidance by the Holy Spirit.

---

This is just a way to approach any difficult question, not an answer. Do you have a method or any criteria?--Percy

Jet writes:

---

I think your are punching the air here. I fully described my "method" and "criteria" in my post. What part did you not understand?

---

Hmmm. Not sure what you're missing here. You say you fully described your method and criteria in your post, but your post consisted of a single sentence which I quoted in my reply and here quote again:

Through painstaking and persistent study, research, and prayer, coupled with faith in God and guidance by the Holy Spirit.

How is this a description of the criteria and method you would use in deciding, for example, whether a manuscript contains the word of God?I think it's fine if you follow your heart and the promptings of the Holy Spirit, but that's a personal and therefore subjective approach, and each individual will arrive at their own answers.To be scholarly you must have a set of objective criteria and a method for applying them. If I understood your subsequent posts it sounds like you may believe a scholarly approach is doomed to find the wrong answers. But if you're determined to follow a spiritual path to answers, then how can Creationism be considered scientific?--Percy

So while you await your own personal version of the revelation on the road to Damascus, how will you in the meantime decide whether a manuscript contains the word of God? When your revelation comes, how will you tell it from a non-revelatory thought? How will others, once you decide you've experienced a revelation, know the difference between someone who has had a revelation and someone who just thinks he has?When you rely on revelation for your answers then all you get is a lot of different opinions, as currently embodied in all the sects and religions that exist today. Seekers of ultimate truth rely upon religion, but each religion, indeed each sect of each religion, has its own ultimate truth. Relying solely on spiritual inputs will never result in any concensus.--Percy

Nice sermon, but I still have all the same questions. How do you know what God is telling you? How can you tell the difference between your own thoughts and a revelation from God? How do you properly interpret God's word in the Bible so as to eliminate error and bias?

Jet writes:

---

"If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough and often enough the people will believe it." Adolf Hitler-Darwinian Evolutionist

​

"If I can send the flower of the German nation into the hell of war without the smallest pity for the spilling of precious German blood, then surely I have the right to remove millions of an inferior race that breeds like vermin." Adolf Hitler-Darwinian Evolutionist

---

So it's your view that when an evil person accepts a particular theory that that theory becomes discredited? Wasn't Timothy McVeigh a Creationist?--Percy

Since you concede the fallacy of guilt by association, why are you continuing to use it?This is a science discussion. If the source of some of your evidence is God then you need to give him a scientific foundation. As I keep repeating, my interest in this debate stems from the Creationist threat to science education. I'm not really concerned about someone going to a school board and saying they know the Biblical account is correct because God answered their prayers and that therefore Creationism should be taught in science class.--Percy

Percy writes:

---

Since you concede the fallacy of guilt by association, why are you continuing to use it?

---

Jet writes:

---

O.K. You lost me on that one. Unless, of course, Percy could possibly be guilty of actually using a strawman tactic.

---

I'm referring to your "Adolf Hitler...Darwinian Evolutionist" signature. How would you feel if evolutionists closed with quotes signed with "Timothy McVeigh...Creationist"?As for the rest, I've rarely seen so many fallacies crammed into a single paragraph. What dream world are you living in?

---

Archeology has proven the Bible correct over, and over again...

---

The Bible is full of both history and myth. Much of it is about real places and real events, much of it is not. There is no evidence consistent with the six days of Creation, and no geological evidence of a world-wide flood ever, let alone within the last 10,000 years.

---

The fallacy of evolution will finally be dismissed as the total bunk that even many scientists are now admitting that it is.

---

Creationists have been making this silly claim for the past 50 years. If there were any truth to it Creationism would long ago have become a staple in the science class and we wouldn't be having this debate.

---

If evolution had any real validity in science, then nothing could threaten it.

---

It isn't evolution that is threatened but science education. The threat occurs when Creationists bring their arguments not to journals and conferences but to school boards and state legislatures.

---

But as it is, the more studies that are done, and the more that science advances, the more ridiculous evolution is shown to be.

---

Any studies in particular that you're thinking of?

---

I suppose if I was an evolutionist, I would feel threatened too.

---

As I've said several times now, it isn't evolution that is threatened, but science education.--Percy

Getting back to the original question, if science is based upon building frameworks of understand around bodies of information and evidence, while your approach is based upon revelation, prayer and reflection, then how can you claim your views should be taught as science?--Percy

You're ignoring the issue about your signoff. I raised the issue because I felt it was offensive and inflammatory. You've had, and still have, the opportunity to justify it, during which period you may continue to use it, but if you choose not to respond to inquiries then I must ask you to remove or modify the signoff or risk suspension of posting privileges.--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator