Funny how you didn’t phrase it that way the first time and what you are now doing is backtracking.
It is not an illogical question. It is a simple question. If you don’t believe facts exist, just say so.
You know everything. If you think I am as dumb as a rock, I see no way to convince you. I just like pulling your chain. You and castoli are my favorite posters.
I did.
Maybe stop trying to convince in the first place.
I gave up trying to convince you of anything a long time ago. I am here saying what I believe the Bible says and that there are no contradictions. You just seem compelled to attack my thoughts. I am just defending my position and giving a rebuttal to comments you make concerning my comments. If you can refrain from throwing your 2 cents in on my comments, I post here as if you don’t exist.
You could have just said ‘‘yes’’.
Speaking of which, do you believe that Noah (or God) really gathered all those animals and their food to the Ark or do you reckon it is but a story based on other older stories from Mesopotamia?
Many cultures have a flood Mythos.
1 Like
I feel I need to add some rationale to questions about the Bible.
I do, but considering I am discussing this with some very smart questioning people, I revisited my view. I have never heard anyone take my new view, but considering the vast undertaking that would be required to place “every” animal in pairs into the ark, it seemed to need a new look.
Animals vary from all over the globe. Polar bears and walrus from the north pole and penguins from the south pole, the logistics seems too daunting to be plausible. But something was necessary that God do (Genesis 6:6-7). God was angry that His creation was a huge disappointment. He wanted to kill them all. Genesis 6:1-5 gives clues to the anger of the LORD.
The LORD needed a flood that would kill all the men, but Noah and his immediate family (eight people). We must understand that God can do anything and that He is not limited by what we call the laws of physics. Consider Moses parting the Red Sea. Exodus 14:21, “And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.
22 And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.”
God had the capability to totally flood a block of land. Since the people of the earth hadn’t migrated far from a central area, God flooded the block of land that was inhabited by people. There was a circumferencial wall of water that covered the mountains and all areas that man lived. Noah took with him pairs of all the animals is that area of land plus their food to eat into the ark. What would have been an impossible task to accomplish for all the earth, is now reasonably plausible. (he also took seven pairs of clean beasts.)
I am not saying of a certain that this is what happened, only that is a plausible explanation of how the flood would accomplish all that God set out to do. It was a local flood, but a local flood that could only be accomplished by God.
A parallel story, including the overtones that the flood was punishment for immorality.
Like endless boiling water, the flood is pouring forth destruction. Boundless and overwhelming, it overtops hills and mountains. Rising and ever rising, it threatens the very heavens. How the people must be groaning and suffering!
The wikipedia article does a decent job covering it.
I’m sharing it not to suggest anything at all with respect to “did it really happen” or “was this the work of God/gods”.
I simply because the parallels interesting in terms of the stories themselves and the use of those stories later. Both stories written down many generations after the original events, and later used to explain/justify certain moral and social policies.
While I personally would never take that as axiomatic, this does clarify some things for me.
If the Koran is taken as axiomatic, as the ineffable inimitable word of Allah (which it states many many times within it), and ones entire logical system was built with that axiom, it’s clear that person and you would have a number of unreconcilable conflicting views.
So, I guess what I’m wondering is, for all of the “contradictions” in the Bible, do you see them as errors in interpretation and clerical errors rather than, well, actual contradictions?
By “errors in interpretation”, I mean, “it is fundamentally true, so anything that doesn’t make sense to me must be my fault, not the text’s”.
A followup question, but how did you come to take that as an axiom? Why the Bible instead of the Avesta or Koran or the Vedas, or something else entirely?
This is individually based. Most all people who go to church don’t give Bible contradictions a second thought. “If it were so, the preacher would tell us.” Those that do, many will just quit attending.
IMO, most claimed “contradictions” can be demonstrated as an opinion, but you must put in the work to investigate. How many people do you believe are willing to do that? I don’t believe there are any actual contradictions in the Bible. When you get into this process, the answer doesn’t just jump in your face.
That is exactly how I approached accused “contradictions.” Because of my axiom, there is absolutely no one to blame other than myself.
Maybe mostly cultural, but the Bible is all that I knew that anyone who was religious considered the word of God. Just keep in mind that I began my teens in the early 1960’s. All I knew about the middle east was “The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad.”
1 Like
You never saw the 1956 Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston as you were growing up, lol?
No. My family never went to the theater to see movies. On weekends I would ride the bus with my mother downtown. While she got her hair done, I would see a movie that was playing. The four that I remember most were “Godzilla”, “The 7th Voyage of Sinbad”, “The Longest Day”, and “Jason and the Argonauts”
What I liked most was the “Newsreel” and the episodes of serials (like: King of the Rocket Men) that preceded the main movie.
1 Like
More food for thought
I saw the McClellan argument against the Olivet Discourse. His main point is that the Bible prevents the accuracy of the context of what Jesus said based on Matthew 24:34, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things come to pass.”
Unless you have a KJV, this is an extremely difficult paradox to address. But if you have a KJV (plus working at three power generation stations for 41 years didn’t hurt), we need to find what “generation” means in this context. You are not going to like this…
Matthew 1:1, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” And then proceeds to list 3 groups of 14 “generations” in the genealogy from Abraham to Joseph. Clearly this is not “all the people born and living at about the same time.”
At the electric power generating station we used the second meaning for “generation”
generation, noun
- all the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively
- the production of something.
The Bible is saying that “this generation” is the generation of man. Then there exists no problem.
To add some more weight to my interpretation:
Luke 11:51, “From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.”
Required of man, and specifically all the Israelites from Abraham going forward.
I understand why you are approaching it this way, because your beliefs say you have too, but to me it’s definitely a stretch to do so.
Most translations have Matthew 1:1 as " An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham." (This is NRSV), NIV, ESV are very similar. The majority consensus on the wording is likely more accurate. And you have to look at the context of Matthew 1. The goal of the chapter is to establish that Jesus came from the line of David, not to make a reference to the “age of man”.
Well… sure. In Matthew chapter 1 God is generating the legal claim to the throne of David for Jesus. Surely you don’t believe that is the only thing God is capable of generating. So, God is generating man, much like a steam turbine-generator generates electricity. No problem here.
This means zero to me. My axiom is that the KJV is the Holy pure word of God, without error in its text or its context. I stand on my axiom until it is shown to have a contradiction.
A little about the two main manuscripts that are the foundation of the new bibles: Not only do the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and the Codex Vaticanus (B) disagree with the majority of manuscripts, but they do not even agree with each other. The 8000 changes in B and 9000 changes in Aleph are not the same changes. When their changes are added together , they alter the Majority text in about 13,000 places. This is two changes for every verse. And you want me to put confidence in the new bible translations.
Not exactly correct. I test my belief against accusations like McClellan makes.
I don’t see it so much as an accusation as a difference in interpretation.
How do you respond to criticisms like #3 and #4 here:
Four Reasons Not to Use the King James Version – Oakwood United Methodist Church, Lubbock Texas (oakwoodmethodist.org)
(Note - one and two are BS reasons for not using the KJV)
Some more responses to the KJ-only including criticism of the majority text:
The King James Only Controversy (thegospelcoalition.org)
The accusation of McClellan was that Jesus is a false prophet. How could I look at that any different. I understand that it is his interpretation. But his conclusion includes the accusation.
I regret mentioning Aleph and B, as it now is bringing textural criticism into the discussion. Neither one of use are knowledgeable enough to give this its fair presentation.
I am fully aware of the accusations against the KJV-Only position, and am settled that it is an insufficient argument to weaken my belief.
I will willfully accept a disagreement with me based on the belief that the KJV-Only argument is flawed. But I will say that argument holds no ground in my opinion. In fact, no matter who I am discussing the Bible with, I only consider the KJV as the word of God. I will force that person to use my “axiom” to consider their interpretation. I don’t consider the other translations as the inerrant word of God. I know that might not seem fair, but it is like the mathematical axioms to me. I have no wiggle room.
That’s not a discussion then.
A fundamental flaw with this is that it pretty much says that English is the language of God. What if you were discussing this with someone capable of reading the original Hebrew or Greek? You know, someone who doesn’t need to rely on a translation.
What about versions in other modern languages?
1 Like