Bible Contradictions

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]forbes wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Yes, and those scientists are generally called ‘creationists’. They sometimes go to jail because of other stuff they don’t believe in (such as Kent Hovind).

Seriously though ‘all the time’? Are you uncertain of the medium you are expressing these thoughts on?

If not, why the inconsistency?

62

[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]

  1. Its important because if one thing is wrong, especially an important thing, then how can we trust any of it? Jesus’ sacrifice may not have happened.

  2. Technically the original text, but translations obviously have to be made in order so that other people can read it too. Other wise only the Greek’s can be saved. I will admit that I don’t know this one.

  3. How? I believe God preserved it. For he (the Lord) says in Revelation 22:18-19

Rev 22:18 I testify to the one who hears the words of the prophecy contained in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
Rev 22:19 And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book.
Rev 22:20 The one who testifies to these things says, â??Yes, I am coming soon!â?? Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!

63

[quote]Makavali wrote:

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

There it is. Provide proof.[/quote]

You want proof that the Catholic Church thinks the original is infallible and inerrant?

I’ll get you that information, after I make a correction to my statement. Infallibility only refers to an active agent. So, even though the Bible is not fallible, it is not infallible either.

Plus the Council of Trent, Carthage, and Hippo. See, the Catholic Church believes that the Bible is inerrant.

64

[quote]pat wrote:
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.[/quote]

You have to make clear the distinction between the original and translations.

And, this is an always interesting subject:

25Moreover, I gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live:
26When they set aside every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very giftsâ??that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am the Lord. [NJPS]

65

[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.
[/quote]

Tradition.

I did a CTRL+F on your post and the only time “heaven” is written was by you.

66

[quote]forbes wrote:
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.[/quote]

You’re just being ridiculous with a statement like that.

It’s widely documented that George Washington lived and was the first president of the United States, it’s irrefutable. However, there’s no evidence showing that there was a person named Jesus performing miracles at any time. All that’s known, and I use the word known loosely when saying this, is that there was a person named Jesus who was ordered to receive punishment by Pontius Pilate while under the reign of Tiberius and that he’d followers. And that’s only from one account, Tacitus.

67

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:

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.[/quote]Somehow this sounds so much better coming from you than it would have one of the 100 times I was tempted to say it. There was a book written a very long time ago by some guy who was not a Christian if I remember right called “Science is a Sacred Cow” where he basically said what you’re saying. This is not my preferred line of discourse though.

68

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

[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…[/quote]
I wasnt referring to anything specific, just my experiences. Profit, notoriety, funding, publish or perish, and a litany of other things seem to be bastardizing what science should truly be, the pursuit of truth, like you said. And peer review can help, but even that is so skewed and bastardized it makes me sad.

69

[quote]forbes wrote:

[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.[/quote]

LOL. No, really?

Now your story is “Impossible thing was magically poofed away”?

Seriously, just save yourself the humiliation instead of believing in mythology and explaining the lack of evidence with “well it just disappeared”. Please.

70

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:

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.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/diet_performance_nutrition_supplements/big_fat_fiasco

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.[/quote]Somehow this sounds so much better coming from you than it would have one of the 100 times I was tempted to say it. There was a book written a very long time ago by some guy who was not a Christian if I remember right called “Science is a Sacred Cow” where he basically said what you’re saying. This is not my preferred line of discourse though.
[/quote]

For some reason this has been irking me lately. Probably because part of my research is running into an old boys club of brain “experts.” The dudes really tick me off and if you have anything that suggests they may be even slightly wrong about anything you are either ignored or ridiculed. That is NOT what science should be.

71

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

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

There it is. Provide proof.[/quote]

You want proof that the Catholic Church thinks the original is infallible and inerrant?

I’ll get you that information, after I make a correction to my statement. Infallibility only refers to an active agent. So, even though the Bible is not fallible, it is not infallible either.

Plus the Council of Trent, Carthage, and Hippo. See, the Catholic Church believes that the Bible is inerrant.[/quote]

Great, you proved some people believe something.

Care to address the actual post and prove that the original bible is, in fact, inerrant?

72

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

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

There it is. Provide proof.[/quote]

You want proof that the Catholic Church thinks the original is infallible and inerrant?

I’ll get you that information, after I make a correction to my statement. Infallibility only refers to an active agent. So, even though the Bible is not fallible, it is not infallible either.

Plus the Council of Trent, Carthage, and Hippo. See, the Catholic Church believes that the Bible is inerrant.[/quote]

Great, you proved some people believe something.

Care to address the actual post and prove that the original bible is, in fact, inerrant?[/quote]

Honestly, and Im not saying this to dodge any question, but…

We are all biased. You are biased that God doesn’t exist and divine revelation are just some people experiencing auditory or visual hallucinations.

I of course believe the opposite and I will not bullshit you for one second that I am not biased in finding ways to support and defend my Lord.

Thing is no one can prove anything. Nothing in the realm of science can be proved. Everything is based off of interpretations, and if these interpretations are biased, then that will affect what you see and believe.

73

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

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

There it is. Provide proof.[/quote]

You want proof that the Catholic Church thinks the original is infallible and inerrant?

I’ll get you that information, after I make a correction to my statement. Infallibility only refers to an active agent. So, even though the Bible is not fallible, it is not infallible either.

Plus the Council of Trent, Carthage, and Hippo. See, the Catholic Church believes that the Bible is inerrant.[/quote]

No, I want proof that it is infallible and inerrant.

“So, even though the Bible is not fallible, it is not infallible either.”

Wow.

74

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

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

There it is. Provide proof.[/quote]

You want proof that the Catholic Church thinks the original is infallible and inerrant?

I’ll get you that information, after I make a correction to my statement. Infallibility only refers to an active agent. So, even though the Bible is not fallible, it is not infallible either.

Plus the Council of Trent, Carthage, and Hippo. See, the Catholic Church believes that the Bible is inerrant.[/quote]

Great, you proved some people believe something.

Care to address the actual post and prove that the original bible is, in fact, inerrant?[/quote]

No, I don’t. Because my faith does not hinge on the Bible being inerrant, so I do not know how to prove, properly, the Bible is inerrant. I can say that it is an article of faith (meaning I have to believe it because it is Dogma) that the Bible is inerrant. Biblical inerrancy also means that I do not have to reason that it is inerrant, God has revealed it to the Church that it is so.

However, since the Bible is based on my faith, and my faith is no based on the Bible, my faith does not hinge on the Bible, but encompasses it. I have said I think Biblical exegesis is waste of my time and others. I’m glad when someone finds some archeological fact proving an event in the Bible happened, but I’m not to worried about it, just another cool thing to add to my collection of events that are true in the Bible.

And, I’ll state it bluntly. If the NT was thrown out today, I’d still be a Catholic.

Before it was written, it was taught orally. As it is, most my general Biblical knowledge comes from the Mass and the LOTH’s. I think if more people relied on the Mass to hear the Bible, attendance would go up and knowledge of the Bible would go up.

However, since you asked me to prove inerrancy, I’ll give you something to chew on.

The Bible being inerrant means that it is without formal error. By formal error is meant a mistake or untruth in the objective meaning of the words. And, by objective truth, meaning not subjective and the truth or meaning truly contained in the words.

So, not what you think they are supposed to mean, but what they actually mean.

And this seems like a good proof on the inerrancy of the Bible:

http://www.northforest.org/CatholicApologetics/Inerrancy.html

75

[quote]forbes wrote:

  1. Its important because if one thing is wrong, especially an important thing, then how can we trust any of it? Jesus’ sacrifice may not have happened.
    [/quote]

I think this is the response I was more aiming for (no offense brother Chris). I just don’t get this point of view. People were supposed to have transcribed the bible, right? We all agree that people are fallible. Some would say that we are cursed with original sin.

So why does the bible have to be perfect? How is God ‘less’ if the bible has some errors in it?

You say because we can’t ‘trust’ it - but we can’t just trust it anyway. What I mean is that we can’t just trust a text that claims to be God inspired without other reasons for doing so - if we could then we would face a contradiction with the book of mormon, the koran, the vedas, etc, etc.

[quote]forbes wrote:
2) Technically the original text, but translations obviously have to be made in order so that other people can read it too. Other wise only the Greek’s can be saved. I will admit that I don’t know this one.
[/quote]

Here’s another issue - I think everyone agrees that the bible (new testament at least) was not written during the events. They were written after the fact. Meaning the relied on memory. Why assume that the memory was perfect?

[quote]forbes wrote:
3) How? I believe God preserved it. For he (the Lord) says in Revelation 22:18-19

Rev 22:18 I testify to the one who hears the words of the prophecy contained in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
Rev 22:19 And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book.
Rev 22:20 The one who testifies to these things says, â??Yes, I am coming soon!â?? Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!
[/quote]

This doesn’t actually say how - this just punishes those who ‘add’ to the book of revelation (not the entire bible, since it wasn’t compiled at the time). Further, we don’t actually know anything about the authors - they could have been punished!

So the question of how remains, in my mind.

76

Brother Chris and Forbes (and anyone else): How do you respond to the Joshua Challenge?

77

[quote]Pangloss wrote:
Brother Chris and Forbes (and anyone else): How do you respond to the Joshua Challenge?[/quote]

What was it again?

78

The Joshua Challenge

Let’s pretend for a second that you are part of Joshua’s army. You might want to reread the book of Joshua to get a better glimpse of what that would be like. In any event, you live in the time of miracles. Your people are the chosen people of God.

God has continually worked his will to help and harm your people. You grew up with stories of God flooding the earth, while sparing Noah, and stories of God helping Moses get his people away from the Pharaoh.

God has even helped your commander-Joshua-with his conquests of the ancient world (or through your eyes-the present).

In the midst of one of these conquests, you are standing with Joshua and his army. They have just defeated the male warriors of the Amorites and started to destroy their town. They are mercilessly slaughtering the remaining villagers, the women and children. Some of the Amorites are still resisting, but most are begging for their life.

All of Amorites are terrified at the unwelcomed and impossible to stop prospect to come. Joshua, as ordered by God, shows no mercy to any of them. He kills husband, wife, brother and sister all in the name of God. The Amorite villagers plead and cry with Joshua, to spare their lives. They beg for the life of their children, all to no avail.

So finally Joshua comes to you, drenched in blood, and he hands you his sword. He points to a remaining Amorite child. A three year old, who has just witnessed the butchering of his father, his brothers and sisters. He’s watched through tears as Joshua dismembered his relatives. He cries while he watches you walk over to him, with Joshua’s sword still drenched in blood.

His eyes shift to his mother, who is still alive for the moment. She can not help him, although she’s begging for his life. Save him and take her life, she pleads. The child is pleading with you as well and begging with you for his life. His face is twisted in horror. He says he doesn’t want to be an Amorite anymore and that he won’t be bad-he promises.

So what do you do?

Do you:

  1. Refuse to kill the child and stop Joshua from killing the child? Will you risk your life for the three year old?

  2. Summon the faith and courage to hack the child to death. Either quickly or slowly, depending on how much vengeance you feel God needs satisfied.

  3. Refuse to kill the child and let either Joshua or another soldier do it.

  4. Refuse to believe that Joshua speaks for God-be prepared to have enough courage to sacrifice yourself to stop Joshua.

Would you kill this child that’s begging, crying, and pleading with you? Yes or no?

I would say no.

That’s the Joshua Challenge.

79

"Thus says the Lord of hosts, â??I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3 â??Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey,â?? (1 Samuel 15:2-3).

The Amalekites, who were descendents of Esau, had been longtime enemies of Israel. They fought against Israel at Rephidim (Exodus 17:8). Apparently, they "entertained a deep-seated grudge against them, especially as the rapid prosperity and marvelous experience of Israel showed that the blessing contained in the birthright [Jacob and Esau] was taking effect."1 They were a constant threat to Israel. Therefore, God said to Moses in Exodus 17:14 â??Write this in a book as a memorial, and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.â??

God lawfully has the right to execute judgment upon anyone. The Bible says that all people have sinned against God and are under his righteous judgment. Therefore, their execution is not an arbitrary killing nor is it murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of life. For example, we can lawfully take a life in defense of our selves, our families, our nations, etc.

When God authorizes the nation of Israel to wipe out a people, it is a lawful execution due to their rebellion and sin against God. Furthermore, such an extermination can be seen to be merciful by delivering the young into the hands of the Lord and possibly saving their souls by not giving them time to become “utterly sinful”.2 Additionally, further generations that would have arisen from the perverse culture, are likewise prevented from coming into existence and spreading their sin.

Finally, one of the reasons that the Lord is so strong in the Old Testament and orders the killing of people is to ensure that the future messianic line would remain intact. The enemy, Satan, began his attempt to destroy God’s people in the Garden of Eden, by also trying to corrupt the world (which led to Noah’s Flood), by trying to destroy Israel with attacking armies, and by encouraging Israel to fall into idolatry by exposure to other cultures as well as intermarrying women from those cultures.

The result of both the idolatry and the interbreeding would have been the failure of the prophecies that foretold of the coming Messiah which specified which family line the Messiah would come through. The Messiah, Jesus, would be the one who would die for the sins of the world and without that death there would be no atonement. Without the atonement, all people would be lost. So, God was ensuring the arrival of the Messiah via the destruction of the ungodly.

As for me, with the mind that I have now, I would hand the sword over to someone else and let their judgment lead them to their decision.

80

[quote]forbes wrote:
God lawfully has the right to execute judgment upon anyone.[/quote]

?

Why is that?

So God can be ‘good’ and still torture people? What exactly is the difference between God and Fat Tony, who demands that I pay him or he’ll torture me? God is essentially fat tony, only more powerful.

Killing babies and children is not wrong then, it is only wrong if God doesn’t want those particular babies and children dead. Is this your stance?

[quote]forbes wrote:
The Bible says that all people have sinned against God and are under his righteous judgment. Therefore, their execution is not an arbitrary killing nor is it murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of life. For example, we can lawfully take a life in defense of our selves, our families, our nations, etc. [/quote]

And the ‘sinning’ and ‘wronging’ against God is arbitrary. If God says that it’s wrong to like the color yellow and you like the color yellow, you can be lawfully killed.

This morality is not arbitrary to you?

[quote]forbes wrote:
When God authorizes the nation of Israel to wipe out a people, it is a lawful execution due to their rebellion and sin against God. Furthermore, such an extermination can be seen to be merciful by delivering the young into the hands of the Lord and possibly saving their souls by not giving them time to become “utterly sinful”.2 Additionally, further generations that would have arisen from the perverse culture, are likewise prevented from coming into existence and spreading their sin. [/quote]

So you have no problem with the slaughter of women and children, then?

[quote]forbes wrote:
Finally, one of the reasons that the Lord is so strong in the Old Testament and orders the killing of people is to ensure that the future messianic line would remain intact. The enemy, Satan, began his attempt to destroy God’s people in the Garden of Eden, by also trying to corrupt the world (which led to Noah’s Flood), by trying to destroy Israel with attacking armies, and by encouraging Israel to fall into idolatry by exposure to other cultures as well as intermarrying women from those cultures. [/quote]

I’m not sure how this correlates - are you suggesting that Satan could have actually corrupted the world regardless of God’s intentions?

[quote]forbes wrote:
The result of both the idolatry and the interbreeding would have been the failure of the prophecies that foretold of the coming Messiah which specified which family line the Messiah would come through. The Messiah, Jesus, would be the one who would die for the sins of the world and without that death there would be no atonement. Without the atonement, all people would be lost. So, God was ensuring the arrival of the Messiah via the destruction of the ungodly. [/quote]

So an intermixing of races can be bad?

[quote]forbes wrote:
As for me, with the mind that I have now, I would hand the sword over to someone else and let their judgment lead them to their decision. [/quote]

While I respect that decision - it speaks of a love of humanity - I do think it demonstrates the problem with the Bible’s morality.

Don’t you?

After all, you are essentially saying that you would not do the ‘holy’ and ‘righteous’ thing…