Bible Contradictions

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]Pangloss wrote:
This thread won’t end well and is largely irrelevant. Cognitive dissonance will be displayed and reaching for any answer, no matter how improbable, will also be evident.

So, in that vein, my questions are:

  1. Why is it important whether or not the bible is infallible?

  2. By infallible, do you mean the original text? all texts?

  3. Even if the bible was infallible at one point, how could we tell? I suppose this piggy-backs off of the last question, but suppose I wrote a bible and simply included something wrong in it. Would my writing some how auto-magically correct? How would the fallible text I included be omitted from the final product? In short, how is the bible’s infallibility preserved? [/quote]

  4. Because it is inspired by the Holy Ghost and is the word of God.

  5. The original Hebrew and Greek text.

  6. Infallible deals with theological truth. If you made a spelling mistake that doesn’t have a determination on infallibility.

42
  1. Yes, that’s what you believe, but why does that make it important? It seems odd to me that God, who is supposed to be within us (Holy Spirit) needs a book and that somehow because the book has no contradictions, that makes the book divine. Would the bible be less important if the writers had gotten some facts wrong? Also, did God force the writers to transcribe things correctly? Wouldn’t that violate free will?
  2. So everything past the original texts could be corrupted, right? Also, why do you believe the new testament is inspired? When Paul said all scripture is God breathed he was talking about the old testament.
  3. That might be true, but it’s not really relevant to what I wrote (maybe tangentally). Suppose I wrote a bible that said the only way to God is through wine or something like that. That was more in line with the error I was talking about.
43

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
I will address them to the best of my abilities, .[/quote]

I really hope you don’t take the route of “well I just don’t know the answer to that”, this is what my mom does. Basically you begin the search WITH THE CONCLUSION and if something doesn’t jive with that conclusion then you " just haven’t found the answer yet". Nothing will make you question your faith as no objection can be raised that you will seriously look at. If there is evidence contrary to what you believe you assume the evidence is being misinterpreted and “you haven’t found the answer”- The complete opposite of rational thinking.

Science = Evidence → Conclusion
Faith = Conclusion → Evidence
[/quote]
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Breathe. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! I am a scientist and work with scientists every day, and that is just plain bullshit.

it is more like this:
Science = Conclusion → Evidence
Faith = Conclusion

there is a nice post in nutrition where another scientist talks about the fact that a ton (I would say most) scientists make a conclusion, call it a theory, and then do everything they can to find evidence supporting it, all while ignoring evidence to the contrary.

Science in its true and honest form is hard to find these days. If you can find it at all. I fear it is nearly extinct if not extinct already.

EDIT: the laughing was rude, and I should apologize. But when people start worshiping science (almost like a religion) it makes me laugh a little. OK, it makes me laugh a lot.

44

Science is a methodology. It’s probably abductive for the most part. That said, it’s the best method we have for determining truth.

Some scientists don’t practice science correctly, this is true. I would also agree that no one should worship science.

45

[quote]Pangloss wrote:
Science is a methodology. It’s probably abductive for the most part. That said, it’s the best method we have for determining truth.

Some scientists don’t practice science correctly, this is true. I would also agree that no one should worship science. [/quote]

Absolutely science is a method. it has its own fun name, even. The problem is that it seems to be ignored in almost every case I have ever investigated. It is truly sad.

46

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
Absolutely science is a method. it has its own fun name, even. The problem is that it seems to be ignored in almost every case I have ever investigated. It is truly sad.[/quote]

I’m not sure what you are specifically referring to. I would agree that, often, things other then ‘the pursuit of truth’ get in the way, so-to-speak. Meaning that ‘profit’ can make what would otherwise be solid science a little blurry to some scientists.

The peer review process is a good way to deal with that, but at the end of the day, it’s not perfect. Nothing is.

Well, Boddingtons, perhaps…

47

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

  1. Yes, that’s what you believe, but why does that make it important? It seems odd to me that God, who is supposed to be within us (Holy Spirit) needs a book and that somehow because the book has no contradictions, that makes the book divine. Would the bible be less important if the writers had gotten some facts wrong? Also, did God force the writers to transcribe things correctly? Wouldn’t that violate free will?

  2. So everything past the original texts could be corrupted, right? Also, why do you believe the new testament is inspired? When Paul said all scripture is God breathed he was talking about the old testament.

  3. That might be true, but it’s not really relevant to what I wrote (maybe tangentally). Suppose I wrote a bible that said the only way to God is through wine or something like that. That was more in line with the error I was talking about.[/quote]

  4. Why does that make it important? Why is understanding a little more about God’s eternal word, important? Not everyone has the Holy Ghost in them. And God doesn’t need anything. And you mean “books” the Bible is made up of books, it is not a book. The Bible is not Divine, God is Divine. However, it is Divinely inspired. Why would God have to force someone to do something if they willing wanted to do it right?

  5. I wouldn’t say corrupted, but they aren’t perfect. Reading someone’s words isn’t perfect science and neither is translation. Who said I didn’t think that the Old Testament wasn’t inspired by the Holy Ghost? Or, are you saying that Paul is saying that only the Old Testament is divinely inspired.

  6. How could we tell? Through councils that reinforce tradition. Since the first Apostles and presbyters went out and preached the word of God (Jesus) they learned what Jesus did, what he said, &c. Now, they don’t like change so when people came up with stuff that didn’t go along with what they were taught. They rejected it. So, the bishops from all over came together and decided around 380 what was the Bible (they had the Bible before this date, but it wasn’t Canon).

48
  1. Yes, why is it important for it to be infallible? Yes, I’m aware the bible is a collection of books. As to force, humans are fallible - right? So how could God ensure that we would translate his word infallibly?
  2. I’m asking if you think it’s possible that all modern translations could be corrupted in some fashion (an important fashion). If not, why not? I was saying that Paul said that only the old testament was divinely inspired. The new testament wasn’t even written. How do we know that what is known as the new testament is actually the divinely inspired word of God (as opposed to other gnostic texts)?
  3. This seems to be supposition on your part and refuted by the various sects that were around at the beginning of Christianity (such as the gnostics).
49

[quote]Makavali wrote:
When Jesus said this, was he in the Fortress of Solitude or Mesopotamia?[/quote]

Fortress, to let superman know that even heroes need their sins forgiven :wink:

50

I’m having difficulty getting at what I want to get at with #1, so I’ll let it drop.

51

[quote]forlife wrote:
Any contradiction can be rationalized to the point of convincing yourself it really isn’t a contradiction. So why bother?[/quote]

Yes, and scientists do this all the time. Its called Research Bias.

52

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
who cares about the bible

[/quote]

Clearly you do, other wise you wouldn’t have posted :wink:

53

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

  1. Yes, why is it important for it to be infallible? Yes, I’m aware the bible is a collection of books. As to force, humans are fallible - right? So how could God ensure that we would translate his word infallibly?

  2. I’m asking if you think it’s possible that all modern translations could be corrupted in some fashion (an important fashion). If not, why not? I was saying that Paul said that only the old testament was divinely inspired. The new testament wasn’t even written. How do we know that what is known as the new testament is actually the divinely inspired word of God (as opposed to other gnostic texts)?

  3. This seems to be supposition on your part and refuted by the various sects that were around at the beginning of Christianity (such as the gnostics).[/quote]

  4. The translation is not infallible. The original is considered to be inerrant. However, God could make those that translate or teach the Bible infallible by the Holy Ghost, however infallibility is reserved for the Bishops and General Councils in the Catholic Church.

  5. Yes, I am sure and have seen modern translations corrupted. I don’t use them for my faith. We know that they are inspired because of tradtion and general councils in the case of heretics. People don’t change their tradition, so when something new came around, if it didn’t match it was tossed out, if it did match they’d accept it.

  6. That’s fine, but the gnostic’s doctrine weren’t being taught by the Apostles, so people rejected the other sects including gnostics from pure tradition. Basically goes like this, Paul taught us this…this guy says this…this guy is wrong and Paul is right. Bibles were far and few between, so they went off tradition on just about everything.

54

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The original is infallible and inerrant.[/quote]

There it is. Provide proof.

55

[quote]tmay11 wrote:
The very idea of original sin. How is it that we are responsible for the sins of our past relatives and therefore need to be saved by Christ? Would this idea not be considered archaic and perverse in any other setting? ex - Punishing someone for a crime their Grandpa committed.[/quote]

We are not responsible for them. They are responsible for themselves, and we are responsible for ourselves. But when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they knew what was right and what was wrong. In essence, prior to their sin, they were almost like children, in the fact that they did not know right or wrong. Of course, they only knew one wrong, and that was eating from the tree. After though, their minds were opened, and the first clue to their new found knowledge was awareness of their nakedness. Anyways, we share that “knowledge” of good and evil. And since we are bombarded with these choices everyday, we constantly have to choose. Since we mostly choose evil (though this is subjective) then we require sanctification, which God gave through Jesus the Christ.

[quote]
Why does God need to come to earth reincarnate and have himself crucified to forgive our sins? Could he have not just forgiven us? Is there “honor” in being sacrificed when you choose to be? How do you sacrifice yourself to appease yourself?[/quote]

When God makes a command, it will be done. God made it from the beginning that if we sin, we will surely die. This is of course talking about both physical and spiritual death. The point here is that God requires justice for the sins we have committed. Since he demanded death if we sin, then someone has to die. Sounds harsh, but it is the truth. So God can’t just forgive someone. Payment is due somewhere. It is us who deserves this death penalty, but God loves us (I know many people will no doubt laugh at that and claim otherwise, but there’s nothing I can do to change that). God did not nor does not want to see us perish in our sins. So he offered up a sacrifice. Since sin came into the world from man, then it had to be vanquished by a man. No ordinary man can bare all the sins of the world, not even an angel, for angels are susceptible to sin, so God himself can and dies for us.

[quote]
The flood - How do you justify killing everybody on earth minus one single family? Surely all the newborn babies weren’t guilty of committing such crimes as to deserve death…

How do you justify killing all the first born sons because a pharaoh wont do as you please? Not to mention plaguing everyone else with horrendous epidemics. Surely not every single Egyptian was deserving of this.

Can you explain to me the occurrence of natural disasters from the perspective of an omnipotent god?

I realize these are not so much conflicts WITHIN the bible but more so things in the bible that I believe conflict with modern morality. [/quote]

I see where you’re getting at. Now, though you may not like the cold hard answers I will give, you have to accept them for what they are.

One, I am not God and do not know his mind. Its like asking why you do what you do. I don’t know. I’m not you.

Second, we can deduct a few things from scripture. God is a Holy God and he is just. Yes, it seems ironic when a Holy God will destroy even little children. But rest assured, no child ever in history that has died suffers in the after life. ALL children rise up to our Lord where no one can harm them.

Before blaming God, why not blame ourselves? Ya, its tough. But its like blaming your mom for getting into a drunk driving accident, even though she warned you numerous times and even begged you not to drive. We are the ones responsible for our actions. They do have consequences, something people don’t want to realize. Thats why I believe atheists don’t want to come to terms that there is a supreme and Holy God. If God exists then we are responsible for our actions. But if he doesn’t exist, hey lets do whatever we want, cuz when I die…it won’t matter.

Thing is (and I can guarantee this): If everyone obeyed God from the beginning, there would be NO suffering whatsoever. None.

56

Ugh, being facinated by all these religious, theoretical and scientific threads, here’s my take on the Bible. Are there contradictory things in the Bible? HELL YES. Anybody who claims different is, is, well is just wrong. As a piece of literature it’s part of it’s charm in my opinion. I think in order to understand, I think it’s important to understand what the Bible is and isn’t. Two things it is not necessarily is that it is not a history book or a book of facts. This does not mean that there are not historical facts in the Bible, it’s just not it’s purpose.
The Bible is a library, a collection of books. Each have their own purpose and meaning. They have been assembled as divinely inspired literature, each with their own message and purpose.
The Bible seems to mimic life in many ways life is contradictory. For the faithful, there is something to be learned and gained from each book. For the unfaithful, at best it’s a piece of literature at worst it’s a piece of useless fiction.

It’s a big book and it has lots of stuff in it. To take it as a whole can be an entire field of study…Taking the entire thing on in a thread is a daunting task. You can study it for years and not cover it all. But are there contradictions in the Bible, yes. Does that make it invalid, no.

57

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I tried to to bring some of these questions up in another thread, but no one could answer them.

Please prove that Mary was a virgin. Seriously.

Explain why you can’t go to heaven if you have your penis cut off (and in John Bobbit’s case, since it was re-attached does that count?). Deuteronomy 23:1

Here are a few translations:

New International Version (�©1984)
No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.

New Living Translation (�©2007)
"If a man’s testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.

English Standard Version (�©2001)
â??No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

New American Standard Bible (�©1995)
"No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

GOD’S WORDÃ?® Translation (Ã?©1995)
A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the LORD.

King James Bible
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

American King James Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

American Standard Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah.

Bible in Basic English
No man whose private parts have been wounded or cut off may come into the meeting of the Lord’s people.

Douay-Rheims Bible
An eunuch, whose testicles are broken or cut away, or yard cut off, shall not enter into the church of the Lord.

Darby Bible Translation
He that is a eunuch, whether he have been crushed or cut, shall not come into the congregation of Jehovah.

English Revised Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD.

Webster’s Bible Translation
He that is wounded or mutilated in his secrets, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

World English Bible
He who is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh.

Young’s Literal Translation
'One wounded, bruised, or cut in the member doth not enter into the assembly of Jehovah;

Let’s start with those two, and if we actually get a dialog going, then I’ll post a few more - hell, we can go chapter by chapter.

[/quote]

Prove that George Washington was the first president of the United States. How do you KNOW, if you weren’t there?

“Well forbes, we have all sorts of historical documents and writings…”

Well so does the birth of Jesus.

The reason why you can’t grasp this is because you’re a naturalist, thinking that anything beyond our observation is impossible.

As for the circumcision dealio, that was part of the ceremonial law (or law of Moses) which was replaced by the new covenant when Jesus dies and rose again.

Oh and nice picture. Ya, according to the text, this whole Christian thing would seem…silly, wouldn’t it?

Well, in an infinite universe, ALL things are possible :wink:

58

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Now he’s done it!!! LOL!!! Forbes my good man, this may wind up being a major contributing factor in your embracing transcendental Christian epistemology. Hope yer armored up for this one brother.

BTW, I am absolutely not laughing AT you at all. Don’t take it that way.[/quote]

I am armored with the grace of God. I actually think this is more of a learning experience for me, mainly because it forces me to study more (as the scriptures tell us to).

But you may be right, I may have bitten off more than I can chew.

I want other to know that I am by no means an expert, and I will always state when I don’t know the answer to a question. But I will always do my best to find an answer.

59

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How about that flaming sword guarding the tree of eternal life “from every way”? How come THAT hasnt been found now that we can see 100% of the earth?[/quote]

The flaming sword, since I presume it was a divine sword made from God, vanished after it was no longer necessary. I presume the Garden of Eden took a while to decay naturally. When it did, God most likely removed it or destroyed it.

Ya ya I know…how convenient.

Thing is I can say that about may things you believe.

60

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Now he’s done it!!! LOL!!! Forbes my good man, this may wind up being a major contributing factor in your embracing transcendental Christian epistemology. Hope yer armored up for this one brother.

BTW, I am absolutely not laughing AT you at all. Don’t take it that way.[/quote]

I thought forbes was a chick with too much eye make-up.[/quote]

I was before my sex change :wink: