The Big Thread of Holy Book Contradictions, Errors, etc.

[Prodigy54321]

Every so often we wind up arguing about..

1) Whether or not the Bible inerrant.
2) Whether or not the Bible is unique in this respect.

and we never really have a good clear discussion on any of the supposed contradictions, errors, etc...but hopefully we will get somewhere in this thread.

IMO, when we are dealing situations where we are considering that there may be supernatural explainations, we can never actually prove that there is a contradiction or error. You can always just say "God must have a reason for putting that in there (or putting it in there that way)". There can be speculation on any reason for an apparent contradiction or error..so I seriously doubt that you can convince a theist that ANYTHING is actually a contradiction or error.

but anyway..feel free to post any passage(s) in any holy book that you feel is either a contradiction or error, or even just a morally reprehensible passage or idea (no siegfriedandroy, I don't care that we have no right to judge something as morally reprehensible)

a theist (can't remember who or where..NotReady maybe?) said that the Quran is filled with blatant errors...I do not know much about Islam or the Quran, so here's your chance to back that up as well...I would guess that these instances can be explained with much the same logic that christians use to defend the bible..but I could certainly be wrong...

please don't just post random crap from Skeptics Annotated Bible..there are links on their site that have very good explainations of some of the supposed contradictions and errors..

so please, only post something if you cannot find a response that seems reasonable to you.

Atheists, this is your chance to try to show the theists that their holy book is ridiculous just like all other holy books.

Theists (Christians I'm guessing), this is your chance to defend your holy book as well as show that the Bible is unique in its accuracy (by attacking the Quran's or other holy books' accuracy obviously)

I'll post a couple general things in a moment to get started...and I'll post specific things later on.

**please quote what you want to discuss (include location) as well as the version of the holy book if possible**

enjoy /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Prodigy54321]

This is probably going to be the most general discussion..

I want to talk about the story of creation in Genesis.

for our purposes, I think it is just best to link to skepticsannotatedbible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html) section on the story of genesis..I believe that just about all of the possible errors and contradictions are pointed out.

The whole story is filled with error after error or how the universe came into existence, the nature of the universe, the earth, etc.

I hope that you can admit that this is true if the story is supposed to be literally true..I doubt, however, that any of you are young earth creationists or biblical literalists with respect to genesis at least...if you do believe the genesis story to be literally true, please explain..it would surprise me.

I would appreciate it if you would express your opinions on it, and we can go from there.

There are many explanation of specific parts of genesis as well as explainations of the story of creation as a whole..how it is meant to be taken allegorically, etc..

a general question is..how do we know that we should take this story allegorically, rather than literally?

I know that this thread is supposed to be more specific, but I see no other way of handling this one...it seems to me to be a case where christians have just abandoned giving specific reasons for such errors because the evidence is just too strong..so they have decided that this whole thing is now just allegory.

curiously, in Islam, there seems to be support within the Quran (Quran 3:7 for example) for taking passages that are shown to be erroneous allegorically..I have not heard of such a thing within the Bible

feel free to share your thoughts on the subject.

[Prodigy54321]

Does anyone know of any evidence to support the possibility that errors in the Bible (or other holy book) were as some point in history found and removed from the book.

this seems nearly logistically impossible to me considering just how many Bible's there were/are..and I can't see a way that it could actually happen..but maybe I'm mistaken.

just a thought

EDIT: I'll be back in the next couple days to go into specific stuff..

get to work.

BTW, us atheists can give explaination for supposed errors too...there are no agendas here, right? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Wubbie075]

[ QUOTE ]
a general question is..how do we know that we should take this story allegorically, rather than literally?

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy.. if it flies in the face of all scientific evidence it is allegory (i.e. young Earth)

If it is a behavioral law you wish you continue following (and of course impose upon everyone else) it is literal truth (i.e. homosexuality)

And finally, if it is a behavioral law that is no longer important to you or your sect, it can be conveniently ignored (i.e. being stoned to death for wearing clothes made from different types of thread)

[vhawk01]

Prodigy,

You are lucky Wubbie got in here before you started off your thread with 4 posts by yourself. Thats right up there with being the only kid at your 10th birthday party!

[peritonlogon]

This will be my only contribution to the thread, a link to the The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. There are no doubt more contradictions, but he points out quite a few in the second part.

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Paine/AOR-Frame.html

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
a general question is..how do we know that we should take this story allegorically, rather than literally?

I know that this thread is supposed to be more specific, but I see no other way of handling this one...it seems to me to be a case where christians have just abandoned giving specific reasons for such errors because the evidence is just too strong..so they have decided that this whole thing is now just allegory.

curiously, in Islam, there seems to be support within the Quran (Quran 3:7 for example) for taking passages that are shown to be erroneous allegorically..I have not heard of such a thing within the Bible

feel free to share your thoughts on the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is problematic for someone like me - my approach is to treat the entire book as a story-with-a-message, rather than a catalog of historical facts/events. Of course, I then make the claim that all the jesus bits "really happened" - I dont think I can justify this to anyone rationally. However, I dont think any other interpretation is capable of being justified rationally either, except for the strict literalist one - which fails the test of reality. This is why I think choice of religion is not a rational thing, even though belief in god can be. I am left hoping I am right, but expecting I am wrong.

[madnak]

Why do you hope you're right? Why are you so attached (almost pathologically, it seems to me) to Christianity? What on earth would be the horror for such a rational person as you in finding out that Buddhism, not Christianity, is the "real" religion?

[bunny]

Pathological seems a strong word (and hard to justify I think given I actively seek out criticism of my position). I wouldnt be horrified if I found out another religion was true and the one I had been embracing was false, I would convert with a certain sense of relief.

All I mean by hoping I am right is that I prefer to have true beliefs than false ones. So I hope this is the case here, but doubt it is - since my usual methods for determining truth (logic and the scientific method) are not especially helpful.

[madnak]

Well, maybe less pathological than other Christians, but you know my views.

Is Christianity the absolute best possibility you can imagine? If not, then wouldn't you hope to be wrong, and for the most desirable possibility to be the actual reality?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Is Christianity the absolute best possibility you can imagine? If not, then wouldn't you hope to be wrong, and for the most desirable possibility to be the actual reality?

[/ QUOTE ]
Again the hope I was expressing was the hope I have true beliefs rather than false ones. It wasnt specifically "I hope christianity as I interpret it is true because that's the best way the world could possibly be."

I guess I do hope the world is nicer than it seems in some sense but I dont really place much confidence in that being true.

[moneyfaucet]

That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two.
-Daniel 5:30

"Darius the Mede is a figure unknown by that name outside the Book of Daniel. Most secular historians view his presence in the book as simply a mistake of a much later author, who has perhaps inadvertently placed the Persian King Darius I at an earlier date than he actually reigned.

Among writers trying to maintain an early date for the Book of Daniel, there are three main interpretations of the identity of Darius the Mede. The first, proposed by H.H. Rowley in Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel, concludes that Darius is just another name for Cyrus the Great, who captured Babylon on October 15th, 539 BC Another view, promoted by John Whitcomb (though first proposed by Babelon in 1883) in his 1959 book, Darius the Mede says that Darius is another name for the historical figure of Gubaru (sometimes spelled as Ugbaru). This view is popular with more conservative segments of Christianity. The third view sees Darius as another name for Astyages, the last Mede king who was ultimately deposed by Cyrus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel#Identity_of_.22Darius_the_Mede.22

[txag007]

From skepticsannotedbible:

[ QUOTE ]
Genesis 1:1 - 2:3
The creation account in Genesis 1 conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know?

[CORed]

The Christian Bible is the only holy book I have any familiarity with, so I'll stick to it. To judge the accuracy of it, we have to look no further than the story of Noah's Ark. How anybody above the age of 10 can believe that this story is an account of something that actually happened is beyond me. The whole thing is clearly impossible.

[David Sklansky]

"The creation account in Genesis 1 conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite."

"How do you know?"

From technical scientific methods that are mainly at this point not even slightly contoversial. Certainly you don't claim that the science is faulty. If the order is in fact different than science says it would require not only that God did things out of that order but that he purposely left fallacious clues, scientifically speaking, to throw us off. Is that the possibility you are throwing out there?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Prodigy,

You are lucky Wubbie got in here before you started off your thread with 4 posts by yourself. Thats right up there with being the only kid at your 10th birthday party!

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured it'd kind of be like that through most of this thread...

NotReady went on one of his "Show me one error in the Bible" things a couple weeks ago so I promised to make this thread eventually

[madnak]

The problem is it's been done (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/). And of course, the theists are capable of reading through all that and seeing no valid contradictions - how are you going to convince them?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
From skepticsannotedbible:

[ QUOTE ]
Genesis 1:1 - 2:3
The creation account in Genesis 1 conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know?

[/ QUOTE ]

txag, statements like this make me sure that you could never be convinced that anything is the bible is innacurate...

suppose that the Bible says that some guy named Bob Shipitcrucial died at 40 years of age...and we discover hundreds of accounts of Bob Shipitcrucial's life that all say that he died at 60 years of age...

would you consider this a biblical error?

the reason I ask is because I would consider it more likely that these hundreds of other accounts are somehow wrong and the bible is right about Bob...

than that birds came before fish for instance

if you are willing to assume that the overwhelming evidence that suggests that the story of genesis is not literally true must be wrong, then you are beyond even slight skepticism and reasonable evaluation.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is it's been done (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/). And of course, the theists are capable of reading through all that and seeing no valid contradictions - how are you going to convince them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure that I can't..

but as I said a couple posts above...the last time that NotReady started his "Show me one error in the bible" argument..I promised to make this thread

I hate knowing that he feels like he's won /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is it's been done (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/). And of course, the theists are capable of reading through all that and seeing no valid contradictions - how are you going to convince them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure that I can't..

but as I said a couple posts above...the last time that NotReady started his "Show me one error in the bible" argument..I promised to make this thread

I hate knowing that he feels like he's won /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I suppose I can see that. Still, even though there are many contradictions in Genesis that are actually debatable, txag seemed to think that one was the best to argue.

It would be nice if NotReady went through every listed problems and tried to refute them all. I'd start arguing with him using only his own quotes, because I'm convinced that in the process of defending the Bible in its entirety he would begin to contradict himself. But see, just as it can be "justified" when the Bible contradicts itself, I'm sure NR would be able to justify his own contradictions, and we'd end up back at square 1.

There are three types of Christians; those who don't understand SAB (or the Bible itself), those who, on seeing SAB, begin to doubt, and those who understand the SAB and refuse to acknowledge it.

Most Christians these days fall into the first two categories, which makes SAB very useful, but the hardcore apologists typically found on philosphy message boards usually fall into the third category. Thankfully many of them will at least acknowledge that using only human reason to evaluate it, the Bible appears highly illogical and contradictory.

But they think there's something beyond human reason, and that something works as an infinite loophole - if there's any chance that the contradictions aren't valid (and there's always that chance, no matter what, because we don't claim absolute certainty about anything) then that chance prevents the attacks on the Bible from having any weight.

[Prodigy54321]

romans 1:3

NAS

[ QUOTE ]
concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,

[/ QUOTE ]

King James

[ QUOTE ]
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

[/ QUOTE ]

there are others to a similar effect, but I don't believe any others include something like "according to the flesh"

--Joseph would have to be the father of Jesus for Jesus to be a biological descendent of David..right? (correct me if I'm wrong on my genealogy)

I've always been confused about why the Bible sometimes seems to suggest (like here) that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph (other passages do not necessarily stress "biological" as this one seems to)..

..yet Christianity maintains that Jesus was not the son of Joseph, but rather God/holy ghost/whatever.

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is it's been done (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/). And of course, the theists are capable of reading through all that and seeing no valid contradictions - how are you going to convince them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure that I can't..

but as I said a couple posts above...the last time that NotReady started his "Show me one error in the bible" argument..I promised to make this thread

I hate knowing that he feels like he's won /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I suppose I can see that. Still, even though there are many contradictions in Genesis that are actually debatable, txag seemed to think that one was the best to argue.

It would be nice if NotReady went through every listed problems and tried to refute them all. I'd start arguing with him using only his own quotes, because I'm convinced that in the process of defending the Bible in its entirety he would begin to contradict himself. But see, just as it can be "justified" when the Bible contradicts itself, I'm sure NR would be able to justify his own contradictions, and we'd end up back at square 1.

There are three types of Christians; those who don't understand SAB (or the Bible itself), those who, on seeing SAB, begin to doubt, and those who understand the SAB and refuse to acknowledge it.

Most Christians these days fall into the first two categories, which makes SAB very useful, but the hardcore apologists typically found on philosphy message boards usually fall into the third category. Thankfully many of them will at least acknowledge that using only human reason to evaluate it, the Bible appears highly illogical and contradictory.

But they think there's something beyond human reason, and that something works as an infinite loophole - if there's any chance that the contradictions aren't valid (and there's always that chance, no matter what, because we don't claim absolute certainty about anything) then that chance prevents the attacks on the Bible from having any weight.

[/ QUOTE ]

hopefully he'll show up at some point...

I told him that I would be making this thread since he always goes back to his..how the Bible is inerrant and unique in that respect argument..

so I hope he can back that up.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It would be nice if NotReady went through every listed problems and tried to refute them all.


[/ QUOTE ]

It wouldn't be nice for me - I have a few other things to do before I die.

I've looked at many alleged contradictions and errors and have yet to find anything of consequence. All the ones I've seen are dealt with on the net. I believe anyone genuinely seeking the truth can easily discover it for himself. If you are serious about truth and not just trying to prove debate points, and have any real issue with Biblical error I'm willing to discuss it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

so I hope he can back that up.


[/ QUOTE ]

There's no way I can back it up if you mean prove everything in the Bible is true. This is your thread. I thought you were going to show an error or contradiction.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

so I hope he can back that up.


[/ QUOTE ]

There's no way I can back it up if you mean prove everything in the Bible is true. This is your thread. I thought you were going to show an error or contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean show that any supposed errors or contradictions that are brought up are not actually errors or contradictions

I don't expect you to prove everything to be true

[ QUOTE ]
This is your thread. I thought you were going to show an error or contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

so far I have brought up one general question about people's opinions on genesis and one specific contradiction..

would you care to address either of them?

EDIT: I will bring up more in the future, I just don't want to flood the thread with them when none have been addressed yet.

you have also stated the other holy books such as the Quran have many errors and contradictions...

I think that those can be "explained" using much the same logic that christians use to explain supposed errors and contradictions in the bible..

so go ahead and give those supposed errors and contradictions in the Quran and I'll try to find their explanations

I don't mean to make you or any other christians take the time to defend the Bible, but you and others have issued informal challenges to "find an error or contradiction in the bible"...so I figured you were open to refuting claims of supposed errors or contradictions.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It would be nice if NotReady went through every listed problems and tried to refute them all.


[/ QUOTE ]

It wouldn't be nice for me - I have a few other things to do before I die.

I've looked at many alleged contradictions and errors and have yet to find anything of consequence. All the ones I've seen are dealt with on the net. I believe anyone genuinely seeking the truth can easily discover it for himself. If you are serious about truth and not just trying to prove debate points, and have any real issue with Biblical error I'm willing to discuss it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're not willing to discuss the points unless the situation is to your advantage. You aren't willing to accept a consistent interpretation (that is, consistent in tone and structure), you aren't willing to make falsifiable claims, you aren't willing to accept scientific assumptions as a basis. It's impossible "discuss" points under such circumstances.

Already it's been pointed out that the Bible suggests the birds came before fish, etc. Now if you're willing to take the statements of the Bible at face value, and to accept scientifically established truth, I already have you. You accept scientifically established truth, therefore you accept that fish came before birds. You accept the Bible at face value, therefore you accept that birds came before fish. Birds came before fish and fish came before birds. That's a straight contradiction.

In order to discuss something meaningfully, there must be standards for interpretation. At minimum, you must be able to specify when the work is to be taken literally and when allegorically, which parts of the work come from man and which from God, and finally what the method of interpretation is.

If you can interpret things however you like, of course nobody can find any "contradictions." I can defend the Dianetics by that standard - does that lend validity to the Dianetics? Really, seriously, use a method for the Bible according to which L. Ron Hubbard doesn't hold up - because it's absolutely incredible to defend the Bible according to standards under which it's very reasonable and likely that DC-8 space planes and body thetans exist. How are you doing anything meaningful by "defending" the Bible according to those standards? Would you accept such standards in the verification of a historical work, for instance?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You aren't willing to accept a consistent interpretation (that is, consistent in tone and structure), you aren't willing to make falsifiable claims, you aren't willing to accept scientific assumptions as a basis. It's impossible "discuss" points under such circumstances.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a place in the Bible where Jesus is call the Lamb of God. Do you think the author meant for us to understand that Jesus was a four footed animal that went baa?

Do you think I can find a science textbook that says something like "The sun rises in the east?".

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

so far I have brought up one general question about people's opinions on genesis


[/ QUOTE ]

It seems whenever I say the Bible has no errors about history concerning people, places and events the opposition brings up Genesis. When I then say that it isn't a contradiction or error when a miracle is involved just because science says it can't happen naturally, I get accused of shifting interpretation method.

So I'll try again. The first few chapters of Genesis are not a science textbook, nor are they really a history textbook. In the 4th century A.D. a very great theologian named Augustine struggled with how to interpret these chapters of Genesis. His difficulty did not stem from any opposition by science, because science as we know it didn't exist at the time. His difficulty had to do with the nature of the text, the subject matter itself. He suggested that the days of Genesis were not literal, 24 hour periods, and he was under no pressure from evolutionists or modern geologists. Christianity has held various views about the age of the earth, the order of creation, and other matters contained in the first few chapters of Genesis. Both old earth and young earth believers have existed side by side at least since Augustine. In the 19th century young earthers changed their tone, largely due to the widespread acceptance of evolution by chance.

As far as I'm concerned the creation accounts of Genesis and Noah's flood are miraculous occurences and are not intended to be statement of hard science. If you want to say that I'm allegorizing in order to avoid Bible error, fine, I've taken my position.

So other than the "errors" mentioned, the Bible has no historical error concerning people, places and events. The number of facts which have been thought wrong and later proved correct are many. Those facts which have nothing to do with difficulty of interpretation or miracle have never been falsified. That's what I was talking about concerning Bible error.

As far as the Koran and other "holy" books, I have no desire to attack them. I've never alleged "many" errors in the Koran, mainly because a lot of it is lifted directly from the Old Testament, and few facts as described above are mentioned otherwise. The one I've heard of is it claims that Christians believe that Mary was part of the Trinity. Though there was an obscure sect in the middle east during Mohammed's day that believed this, as far as I know no other Christian group or theologian even hinted at this doctrine. It seems obivious that the Prophet had very little acquaintance with Christianity and was ill-informed about it. It seems incredible that an angel would tell him something like this. Beyond that I know of no other factual errors in the Koran, but I haven't studied it.

I don't feel it's necessary to attack the Book of Mormon. I've looked at it myself enough to discount it as any more than an obvious scam perpetrated by Joseph Smith that became far more successful than he had imagined possible. Anyone who is interested can find the information on LDS for themselves, there's a wealth of material on the net.

[alphatmw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You aren't willing to accept a consistent interpretation (that is, consistent in tone and structure), you aren't willing to make falsifiable claims, you aren't willing to accept scientific assumptions as a basis. It's impossible "discuss" points under such circumstances.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a place in the Bible where Jesus is call the Lamb of God. Do you think the author meant for us to understand that Jesus was a four footed animal that went baa?

[/ QUOTE ] all christians understand 'lamb' is a metaphor, but many of the contradictions, especially to christian fundamentalists, are contradictions in part of the bible that they take literally true.

[Prodigy54321]

so now you are not open to providing us with the explainations that you find to be sufficient for supposed errors and contradictions?

telling us

[ QUOTE ]
All the ones I've seen are dealt with on the net. I believe anyone genuinely seeking the truth can easily discover it for himself."

[/ QUOTE ]

is very cowardly...if we don't see the evidence your way, it is because we are not genuinely seeking the truth..

I made it a point to tell people not to post random crap that has reasonable explainations on the internet..I asked people only to post ones that they could not find a reasonable answer for..

no one is forcing you to sit down and give us the explanations that you find adequate (no rush BTW)..but since you frequently use the inerrancy of the Bible as evidence for your beliefs, I'd say that it would be a good thing if you did.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

so now you are not open to providing us with the explainations that you find to be sufficient for supposed errors and contradictions?

telling us

Quote:
All the ones I've seen are dealt with on the net. I believe anyone genuinely seeking the truth can easily discover it for himself."



is very cowardly...if we don't see the evidence your way, it is because we are not genuinely seeking the truth..


[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense. The quote you gave was from my post where I declined to deal with "all" alleged Bible errors. I still so decline and not because I'm a coward but because I have a definite, fixed life span.

[ QUOTE ]

no one is forcing you to sit down and give us the explanations that you find adequate (no rush BTW)..but since you frequently use the inerrancy of the Bible as evidence for your beliefs, I'd say that it would be a good thing if you did.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've said this before but I might as well say it again. Post one error or contradiction and at least one link to a Christian site that deals with it and explain why you find the explanation inadequate or wrong. I do this because of the sheer volume of alleged errors. I have no desire to "prove" the Bible is the Word of God to anyone who doesn't care whether or not it is.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

so now you are not open to providing us with the explainations that you find to be sufficient for supposed errors and contradictions?

telling us

Quote:
All the ones I've seen are dealt with on the net. I believe anyone genuinely seeking the truth can easily discover it for himself."



is very cowardly...if we don't see the evidence your way, it is because we are not genuinely seeking the truth..


[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense. The quote you gave was from my post where I declined to deal with "all" alleged Bible errors. I still so decline and not because I'm a coward but because I have a definite, fixed life span.

[ QUOTE ]

no one is forcing you to sit down and give us the explanations that you find adequate (no rush BTW)..but since you frequently use the inerrancy of the Bible as evidence for your beliefs, I'd say that it would be a good thing if you did.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've said this before but I might as well say it again. Post one error or contradiction and at least one link to a Christian site that deals with it and explain why you find the explanation inadequate or wrong. I do this because of the sheer volume of alleged errors. I have no desire to "prove" the Bible is the Word of God to anyone who doesn't care whether or not it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, the specific one a few posts above about Jesus as a "of the flesh" descendant of David...I have found no explanation of it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

OK, the specific one a few posts above about Jesus as a "of the flesh" descendant of David...I have found no explanation of it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, I wrote a reply to that but I can't find it now. Must have accidentally dumped it. I hate when that happens.

I've never researched that issue before as a Bible contradiction. The answer I gave was off the top of my head and simply involved the position that Joseph was the legal father of Jesus so that the promise to David that the Messiah would be in his line was fulfilled.

If you still maintain that's a contradiction I'll do some further research as there are probably linguistic considerations, but I don't think that issue is going to qualify for me as a contradiction as I don't think the Bible is claiming that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus and at the same time stating that He was born of a virgin.

I will point out that this again falls in the area of miracle and deals with the nature of God and man's sin nature which are all doctrinal questions. Are you conceding that the Bible has no factual errors concerning mundane matters like people, places and events?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never researched that issue before as a Bible contradiction. The answer I gave was off the top of my head and simply involved the position that Joseph was the legal father of Jesus so that the promise to David that the Messiah would be in his line was fulfilled.


[/ QUOTE ]

I accept this rationale as reasonable for other passages about the lineage with regards to David...

I chose this one specifically because of the "of the flesh" part..it indicates that Jesus is not only a descendant of David because Joseph was, in effect, his father, but that he is a descendant of David biologically..I can't really see any other way of taking it.

that's really the only part that is still unanswered for me.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you conceding that the Bible has no factual errors concerning mundane matters like people, places and events?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, not that I won't at some point..but we haven't even scratched the surface of supposed errors of that kind..

the explanations given for moneyfaucet's subject are certainly not proven to be valid..it just offers some possibilities...even the christain explanations don't give a single explanation, they give a few possibilities

at it's current state, I would agree that that supposed error is nothing to change your beliefs over...it is simply a possible error that is not proven to be an error or to be accurate.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I chose this one specifically because of the "of the flesh" part.


[/ QUOTE ]

What specific book, chapter and verse?

I have found some net sites that use the argument I gave - Joseph basically adopted Jesus making him His legal father. Remember, Joseph was told by an angel that Mary was pregnant and therefore not to divorce her, and subsequent verses show that both Mary and Joseph considerd Joseph to be His father.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I chose this one specifically because of the "of the flesh" part.


[/ QUOTE ]

What specific book, chapter and verse?

I have found some net sites that use the argument I gave - Joseph basically adopted Jesus making him His legal father. Remember, Joseph was told by an angel that Mary was pregnant and therefore not to divorce her, and subsequent verses show that both Mary and Joseph considerd Joseph to be His father.

[/ QUOTE ]

romans 1:3 (there are others that do not include the "in the flesh" part..tell me if you would like me to find them for you)

I know..I don't have a problem with what these verses say considering that Joseph was basically the adopted father of Jesus..so Jesus could be considered to be the descendent of David in at least a liberal sense..

[vulturesrow]

I need to doublecheck this, but I believe a blood lineage to David can be traced through Mary's genealogy. I could definitely be wrong here, I'll get back to you. Also, more to come on allegorical vs literal interpretation.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You aren't willing to accept a consistent interpretation (that is, consistent in tone and structure), you aren't willing to make falsifiable claims, you aren't willing to accept scientific assumptions as a basis. It's impossible "discuss" points under such circumstances.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a place in the Bible where Jesus is call the Lamb of God. Do you think the author meant for us to understand that Jesus was a four footed animal that went baa?

Do you think I can find a science textbook that says something like "The sun rises in the east?".

[/ QUOTE ]

Science books, even the best of them, are full of errors. Some of them are even rife with contradictions, particularly poorly-written primers. There are very few books that don't include errors or contradictions.

You are saying the Bible is one of them.

If I claimed that science books didn't contain errors, you'd have a point. I make no such claims.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Science books, even the best of them, are full of errors.


[/ QUOTE ]

So your position is that if a science book says "The sun rises in the east" it's making an error?

[RED FACE]

Don't you think it's possible "of the flesh" is used to point out that he wasn't his son "of the spirit" because then Jesus would've had the same sinful spirit the rest of humanity is born with. This is why the virgin birth is an important doctrine. If Jesus had a sinful spirit then he could only die for his own sins and not mine or yours.

[Prodigy54321]

the discrepancy between Matthew and Luke's dates for Jesus's birth.

both from King James Version

Matthew 2:1
[ QUOTE ]
1Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

[/ QUOTE ]

Luke 2:1-7
[ QUOTE ]
1And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

5To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

7And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.


[/ QUOTE ]

the problem is that Herod died something like 8+ years before Quirinius was the Governor of Syria

actually this has got me very confused now..I googled Luke 2:1 info and found Luke also talkes about this time (I think) as if ti was during the time of Herod (Luke 1:5)
..SAB says that as well /images/graemlins/confused.gif

I also found this googling..I haven't read the whole thing yet..but he explains the problems with this part of Luke..

Richard Carrier (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Luke)

I don't quite understand this, but I'm going to search around for info..

if you have any info or any opinion on this, I would appreciate it.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think it's possible "of the flesh" is used to point out that he wasn't his son "of the spirit" because then Jesus would've had the same sinful spirit the rest of humanity is born with. This is why the virgin birth is an important doctrine. If Jesus had a sinful spirit then he could only die for his own sins and not mine or yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh..wasn't the son of who's spirit?? Joseph's?

are you saying that Jesus was the physical son of Joseph (in the flesh), but not of his spirit, but rather he was of God's spirit...

that would actually be fine with me, but I don't believe that most christians believe that Jesus was even the physical son of Joseph, since Mary is supposed to be a virgin.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

romans 1:3


[/ QUOTE ]

1Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,
2which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures,
3concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,

I think it's obvious Paul is talking about the lineage of Christ, that He is descended from David according to the flesh. Another poster pointed out that Mary was also in David's direct line.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Science books, even the best of them, are full of errors.


[/ QUOTE ]

So your position is that if a science book says "The sun rises in the east" it's making an error?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it's a pet peeve of mine. Well, actually in this case it could be argued that the sun does rise in the east relative to the observer, but still. I'm annoyed that my science books says endergonic reactions never happen spontaneously in a closed system, because they do happen spontaneously, it's just very rare - the second law of thermodynamics is a probabilistic law, not an absolute one. A system will tend toward entropy, but the free energy of a system can spontaneously increase at random. It's only that it's much more likely to decrease...

I guess some would call my position too hard. I suppose an introductory text, or one written for the layman, might justfiably use idioms and slight misrepresentations to get a point across, but that wouldn't change the fact that the misrepresentations are factual errors. I believe that actual scientific literature - research papers, etc - should be rigorous and precise. This is unfortunately not always the case, and in many cases it's hard to say what's "true" in science.

However, there is sufficient rigor to establish quite a lot, more than most people will ever feel the need to examine. The point is that if they do examine it, they will find rigorous approaches. Now, if all we had was a basic textbook full of errors, then we'd have to independently verify its claims before trusting it, certainly. I don't think any scientist would take an intro textbook too seriously.

And in many cases there are even typos and unintended errors in textbooks. You'd be surprised at the rate of factual errors in certain books - I believe they did some studies on encyclopedias recently and found them to be woefully inaccurate.

WOW! It's a good thing scientists don't have a "holy book," isn't it? We'd be in real hot water if someone tried to examine it.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's obvious Paul is talking about the lineage of Christ, that He is descended from David according to the flesh.

[/ QUOTE ]

but Christ ISN'T descended from David according to the flesh /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Another poster pointed out that Mary was also in David's direct line.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no knowledge that this is true..is there evidence for this..linky or soemthing?

if it IS true, then it seems like a reasonable explanation to me.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, actually in this case it could be argued that the sun does rise in the east relative to the observer, but still.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the whole point. Saying the sun rises isn't a factual error when made in a certain context. The Bible is not a science textbook. It isn't factually incorrect to say the earth is flat when made in a certain context. If the chapter had the heading "Facts of Astronomy" and then stated something like "The earth is not a sphere or a box, it's flat", it would be a factual error. But when made in a context that is obvious with reference to the observer, it is correct. I think the earth is flat relative to me. I think the sun rises. I also know the earth is a sphere and the earth rotates on its axis. Both statements are true, non-contradictory and non-ambiguous (in context).

[dknightx]

Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary's genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38. Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:

"Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says 'son of Heli'] should be understood to mean 'son-in-law of Heli.' thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word 'son' is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either 'son' or 'son-in-law' in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David--Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon's line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah's sin"

[RED FACE]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think it's possible "of the flesh" is used to point out that he wasn't his son "of the spirit" because then Jesus would've had the same sinful spirit the rest of humanity is born with. This is why the virgin birth is an important doctrine. If Jesus had a sinful spirit then he could only die for his own sins and not mine or yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh..wasn't the son of who's spirit?? Joseph's?

are you saying that Jesus was the physical son of Joseph (in the flesh), but not of his spirit, but rather he was of God's spirit...

that would actually be fine with me, but I don't believe that most christians believe that Jesus was even the physical son of Joseph, since Mary is supposed to be a virgin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I'm saying the "of the flesh" doesn't mean "physically" but rather it means, "worldly" and should be thought of in juxtoposition with, "of the spirit".

You said you saw no other way to read the implication of "of the flesh" other than physical but I think the bible often uses "flesh" and "spirit" in opposition to one another in many passages and that is what is happening here.

Yes, not the son by Josephs spirit but by the spirit of God.

I think the whole point of "of the flesh" is to say, "not of the spirit"-of Joseph.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I have no knowledge that this is true..is there evidence for this..linky or soemthing?


[/ QUOTE ]

I did a google on this. There are a lot of sites that make this claim. I haven't researched it so I can't say if it's clear or not, though it is plausible. One site said Joseph and Mary were first cousins, which was not taboo in those days, but I can't vouch for that.

But I don't think it's important to the issue we're discussing.

[ QUOTE ]

but Christ ISN'T descended from David according to the flesh


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is primarily to affirm that Christ came as a human being. It has nothing to do with sex or biological issues. Whether Christ was a human being was an issue at the time, especially with the Gnostics. Paul is simply emphasizing that He was a real person and that He was in David's line.

[bunny]

This is one example of a contradiction regarding people, places and events. I've read a couple of defenses of it but not any that made sense to me. (One defense even suggested it was a copying error, which hardly seems to support the claim of inerrancy).

Ezra 2:5
The children of Arah, seven hundred seventy and five.

Versus

Nehemiah 7:10
The children of Arah, six hundred fifty and two.

There are many similar discrepancies between the two books and some of them are very significant (over a thousand difference between one of the tribes) which makes the "they were talking about two different instants within a long period" defence less reasonable.

Do you have an answer to this? The ones I've read seem very speculative and question-begging.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, actually in this case it could be argued that the sun does rise in the east relative to the observer, but still.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the whole point. Saying the sun rises isn't a factual error when made in a certain context. The Bible is not a science textbook. It isn't factually incorrect to say the earth is flat when made in a certain context. If the chapter had the heading "Facts of Astronomy" and then stated something like "The earth is not a sphere or a box, it's flat", it would be a factual error. But when made in a context that is obvious with reference to the observer, it is correct. I think the earth is flat relative to me. I think the sun rises. I also know the earth is a sphere and the earth rotates on its axis. Both statements are true, non-contradictory and non-ambiguous (in context).

[/ QUOTE ]

But they are contradictory. The sun might be said to rise, but the earth certainly isn't flat, except "relatively speaking." A science book might talk about "flat ground" as a convenience, a way to communicate a concept. However such a science book is sacrificing rigor and accuracy in order to do so. In communicating an idea, it may be useful to "fudge" things in order to clarify. But that's still fudging.

And of course the situations aren't analogous anyhow. Actually I'd say that most textbook writers would agree very much if I said "Your textbook is useful now, but it wouldn't be very useful 2000 years from now. The examples would be outdated, the concepts would be obsolete, and the language would be confusing." I think many textbook writers would actuall agree that only a fool would use their textbook 2000 years in the future. Even if the "fudging" and use of inaccurate idioms was clear in its original context, it's no longer clear and must be thrown out.

(But again, fudging is fudging is fudging. Scientists are happy to do it - they aren't writing the word of God, they're trying to express concepts from one human to another, within an accepted cultural context in which it can be reasonably assumed that most readers can correctly interpret most of the text, which is hardly taken to be holy writ and is primarily illustrative rather than informative. They also acknowledge that in order to fully understand the related concepts, a student must turn to a variety of other equally valid sources and understand that there's a margin of error even when all sources agree.)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you have an answer to this? The ones I've read seem very speculative and question-begging.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. I found
this (http://www.tektonics.org/af/eznehnumb.html)

which is interesting but not conclusive. I will amend my statement in the future to include something like "There are certain numerical discrepancies in the Bible which are not yet explained but which are not sufficient to cause me to reject Christianity. So to that extent our copies of the Scriptures are not 100% error free".

So now there's a whole section of apologetics with which I no longer have to deal. Thanks for saving me some time in the future.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
So now there's a whole section of apologetics with which I no longer have to deal. Thanks for saving me some time in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're welcome. Do you agree with the author of the link you posted that issues like this should be of concern to apologists?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you agree with the author of the link you posted that issues like this should be of concern to apologists?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. For some reason God has allowed error to exist in Scripture that we can't completely defend. Or there is no God. Your choice.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you agree with the author of the link you posted that issues like this should be of concern to apologists?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. For some reason God has allowed error to exist in Scripture that we can't completely defend. Or there is no God. Your choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you didnt mean the word error. You realise you're going to be quoted, dont you? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you didnt mean the word error. You realise you're going to be quoted, dont you?


[/ QUOTE ]

I meant every word. Perhaps there is an explanation. I'll let you know if I ever find it.

[bunny]

Sometimes I struggle to understand where you're coming from. It seems strange that you would call it an "error" I would have thought you'd concede it was an unexplained discrepancy at most. Nonetheless, if you do find a compelling explanation I'd be interested to hear it.

When you say you wont defend numerical discrepancies like this - do you still stand by your earlier claim that if a historical contradiction was demonstrated in the bible you would abandon christianity? (Or is that a misrepresentation?)

[RED FACE]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you agree with the author of the link you posted that issues like this should be of concern to apologists?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. For some reason God has allowed error to exist in Scripture that we can't completely defend. Or there is no God. Your choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the texts in question but isn't it possible that the authors simply decided to give the total without giving a full break down of the constituents as suggested here. (http://thebereans.net/contra-r18.shtml)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

When you say you wont defend numerical discrepancies like this - do you still stand by your earlier claim that if a historical contradiction was demonstrated in the bible you would abandon christianity?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if I would or not. That's the kind of thing that can't be answered in advance. I don't think I could defend Christianity any longer. I'm not sure I can now. Perhaps on a limited basis. I've always considered inerrancy as one of the cornerstones.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you agree with the author of the link you posted that issues like this should be of concern to apologists?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. For some reason God has allowed error to exist in Scripture that we can't completely defend. Or there is no God. Your choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the texts in question but isn't it possible that the authors simply decided to give the total without giving a full break down of the constituents as suggested here. (http://thebereans.net/contra-r18.shtml)

[/ QUOTE ]
There are many possible solutions to the discrepancy but they all seem fairly arbitrary/speculative and some are question-begging. This one seems strange to me as it seems to imply they only counted some of the people - kind of a half-hearted census, yet with a completely accurate grand total.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the texts in question but isn't it possible that the authors simply decided to give the total without giving a full break down of the constituents as suggested here.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is very interesting that the totals are exactly the same. Hmmm, hope springs eternal.

I've been through so many of these, every time the explanation made perfect sense when examined thoroughly. I should learn not to be so hasty, more entish I guess.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

When you say you wont defend numerical discrepancies like this - do you still stand by your earlier claim that if a historical contradiction was demonstrated in the bible you would abandon christianity?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if I would or not. That's the kind of thing that can't be answered in advance. I don't think I could defend Christianity any longer. I'm not sure I can now. Perhaps on a limited basis. I've always considered inerrancy as one of the cornerstones.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is possible to claim inerrancy even in the face of discrepancies like this - one of the defences I saw maintained that both of these books drew on other non-divine sources. Their point being the biblical text accurately reported what was written, possibly inacurately, elsewhere. I found this unsatisfactory, but there was some kind of textual evidence to back up their claim - I'm afraid I'm hazy on the details...

[David Sklansky]

'Yes. For some reason God has allowed error to exist in Scripture that we can't completely defend. Or there is no God. Your choice"

Let me help you out a little here. Whether there is a God has nothing to do with whether there are errors in the bible. Or whether evolution produces new species. Of course if you could somehow show that evolution can't be right or that the Bible was perfect, you automatically win your arguments. So it tempts some theists down those paths.

But if there is a god the job he expects from you does not involve those technicalities, (nor does it involve you clinging to a narrowly defined subset of a subset of Christianity.) I've been telling you that for years now.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you agree with the author of the link you posted that issues like this should be of concern to apologists?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. For some reason God has allowed error to exist in Scripture that we can't completely defend. Or there is no God. Your choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

YOUR choice. And I would wonder how MUCH error there would have to be to meet whatever threshold for belief you have?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you agree with the author of the link you posted that issues like this should be of concern to apologists?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. For some reason God has allowed error to exist in Scripture that we can't completely defend. Or there is no God. Your choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an earth-shaking concession, even if you did subsequently retract it. Frankly, few people would be able to admit such a thing even if they were utterly cornered, so I respect your ability to do so.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
From technical scientific methods that are mainly at this point not even slightly contoversial.

[/ QUOTE ]
Like what?

[txag007]

I'm only asking you to explain the science to me.

[David Sklansky]

I don't know the details of why scientists say that stars are older than the earth. Are you doubting that their methods are not debatable excluding a god trying to fool them?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

one of the defences I saw maintained that both of these books drew on other non-divine sources


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give me a link for that? I once had an apparent contradiction alleged in Acts involving different descriptions of Paul's conversion, and one of the simple solutions was that one of the accounts wasn't stated by the author of Acts, but was him quoting someone else describing the conversion so that his statements can't be considered inspired. Luke was simply recording statements made by a witness who may have got the story slightly wrong.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But if there is a god the job he expects from you does not involve those technicalities,


[/ QUOTE ]

So what is the job and how do you know?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know the details of why scientists say that stars are older than the earth. Are you doubting that their methods are not debatable excluding a god trying to fool them?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. I just find it interesting that you say the methods are not even slightly controversial, and yet you don't know the details of the methods.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, few people would be able to admit such a thing even if they were utterly cornered, so I respect your ability to do so.


[/ QUOTE ]


Thanks. I'm very serious about the reliability of Scripture. I don't think accepting inerrancy is a touchstone of the faith in general. For instance, a Christian I much admire, C.S. Lewis, was not inerrantist. He even thought Christ made a mistake. I think Lewis was wrong, but I also am fairly confident he was a genuine Christian.

But don't put me in the atheist camp yet. I think I overreacted a bit and will explain why in a minute. I do want to say that I've had many experiences when some error or contradiction was alleged, and when I didn't see the immediate solution, I had severe doubts. So far, I've found adequate, usually obvious, explanations for the alleged difficulty.

The Bible is a hard book, and there are many difficult sections. There are some statements that still mystify even very accomplished theologians. And my faith is often weak and vascillating. In this instance, I jumped to a couple of conclusions that I think were unwarranted, and then I went to a site called Tektonics to see their take on the issue. That site is really well done and I can highly recommend it. Some very sharp people deal with many of the difficult passages and doctrines of the Bible. But we're all fallible and I'm beginning to think they dropped the ball on this one. I was somewhat shaken by their article on this passage. The author said he had no explanation for the discrepancies and he thought it was a serious problem. I believe now that article is not the best I've seen on Tektonics, and I have a couple ideas on reasonable explanations for the issue involved.

And I do still believe in the importance of Scripture reliablility. I'm not saying I would cease to be a Christian or believe in God, but I can't see how I would continue to defend it vigorously. I'm planning some further research on this issue and may post later.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know the details of why scientists say that stars are older than the earth. Are you doubting that their methods are not debatable excluding a god trying to fool them?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. I just find it interesting that you say the methods are not even slightly controversial, and yet you don't know the details of the methods.

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't have to know the details.

The fact it is "not even slightly controversial" has little to do with Sklansky saying so. It has do with the fact that 99% of all respected scientists (within their fields), are in agreement on these subjects.

[txag007]

I'm not disputing it; just asking someone to explain it to me.

[Lestat]

Even if someone on here were an expert in these fields, it's beyond the scope of an internet forum to explain the entire processes of carbon dating, astromony, biology, and evolution. It requires years of college education and then probably hands-on experience in the field.

[NotReady]

OK, this is my take on the Ezra/Nehemiah issue.

From

this (http://www.biblequery.org/ezra.htm)

site I found:

[ QUOTE ]

Q: In Ezr 2:1-70 and Neh 7:7-72, how does this relate to inerrancy?
A: Some critics of inerrancy see the discrepancies between these lists as one of the most serious challenges to the inerrancy of the Bible. Actually it does no such thing. First a "red herring" that is an incorrect answer, then a common Christian answer, and finally the most probable answer.
Incorrect answer: Both lists are correct, but the lists are different because they were made at slightly different times. By the time the later list was compiled, a few more people had come, some had left, and the offerings were different.
However, the total number of additional people coming and people leaving had to match exactly, since the overall totals are identical.
Common answer: While we do not possess the original manuscripts, inerrancy [allegedly] means the two lists had to be identical in the original manuscripts. However, a combination of simple copyist errors, and a change in the alphabet around that time, which produced more copyist errors, is responsible for the differences in numbers that should have been common between the two lists. (Nothing prevents one list from having details the other list does not have.)
However, 22 differences out of 50 numbers is a large number of differences, even with the writing change that occurred about that time.
Most probable answer: Nehemiah inerrantly copied the list that was available to him (and that list had errors). It was accurate enough to give a representation of how many returned, but Nehemiah’s qualification cautions us that this list is not guaranteed to be without error. This is analogous to the Bible inerrantly recording the Pharisee’s errors, Jephthah’s rashness, and Abraham’s foolishness, without explicitly telling us whether or not we are to believe and do those things too.
Why did the Bible not tell us the precise numbers of everyone in Nehemiah’s time? Probably because it is not important. 1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 2:9 tell us we are not to devote ourselves to endless genealogies.


[/ QUOTE ]



Nehemiah 7 says:

[ QUOTE ]

Then I found the book of the genealogy of those who came up first in which I found the following record:


[/ QUOTE ]

It seems clear that the list in Nehemiah wasn't compiled by Nehemiah, nor does anything in the Bible indicate that the list was inspired. It also seems unlikely that the list was Ezra's because of the differences. For me, that settles the issue. It's amazing to me how many times I've doubted Scripture because of issues like this and then found how simple or obvious the solution was. I'm a bit angry with Tektonics for not including this fact in their article. Yeah, that's it, it was their fault.

So why do the lists differ at all? Keeping in mind that the Nehemiah list isn't itself part of inspired Scripture, then it must have been done by someone independently of Ezra. Since they agree on the total number, but the totals from each list do not add up to the total number of people, that suggested one possibility to me. The breakdowns in the list look like this:

the sons of Parosh, 2,172;

the sons of Shephatiah, 372;

And so on. So if you are trying to count the sons of Parosh, for instance, how do you know who they are? Whatever means was used, a certain number was assigned to that category, then a certain number to the next, etc. But suppose there were some you couldn't classify. You don't know which group these people belong to, but you count them in the general count, because they are part of the overall group returning to Jerusalem. But then you don't note that there were some you couldn't classify. That would account for both discrepancies, the ones between the lists(the two counters may have used different criteria to classify) and the fact the breakdowns don't add up to the total.

I don't offer this explanation as anything other than speculation. I don't know if that alone would be enough for me, though it might, especially, for instance, if Nehemiah had done the actual counting but at a different time than Ezra. At any rate, the non-inspired nature of Nehemiah's list is decisive for me. I've seen other instances of this type difficulty and I think it's reasonable.

And now, I need a vacation.

[txag007]

I'm not asking you to explain the entire process; just asking someone to explain how they know the Bible is wrong on this point. I thought someone here would be able to do this; guess I was wrong. I'm through.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
So why do the lists differ at all? Keeping in mind that the Nehemiah list isn't itself part of inspired Scripture, then it must have been done by someone independently of Ezra. Since they agree on the total number, but the totals from each list do not add up to the total number of people, that suggested one possibility to me. The breakdowns in the list look like this:

the sons of Parosh, 2,172;

the sons of Shephatiah, 372;

And so on. So if you are trying to count the sons of Parosh, for instance, how do you know who they are? Whatever means was used, a certain number was assigned to that category, then a certain number to the next, etc. But suppose there were some you couldn't classify. You don't know which group these people belong to, but you count them in the general count, because they are part of the overall group returning to Jerusalem. But then you don't note that there were some you couldn't classify. That would account for both discrepancies, the ones between the lists(the two counters may have used different criteria to classify) and the fact the breakdowns don't add up to the total.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least it clarifies that amongst his/her/it manifold attributes, gods seems to fail somewhat as a communicator.

[lastchance]

A) Bible likely written by multiple sources, none of them Jesus/Prophets based on historical analysis of the writing in the Torah in Old Testament. This is only created after oral tradition (which is obviously mutable). New Testament obviously not written by Jesus.
B) Trinity comes from council of Nicea centuries after Jesus dies.
C) Jesus never says he is divine, council of Nicea creates it that way.

Some of the historical critiques of the Bible are just as devastating as the scientific ones.

[David Sklansky]

"So what is the job and how do you know?"

Your job is to stick to issues like ultimate chance and ultimate right and wrong. If there is a god he made me smart enough to see that.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you agree with the author of the link you posted that issues like this should be of concern to apologists?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. For some reason God has allowed error to exist in Scripture that we can't completely defend. Or there is no God. Your choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or there is a God and you picked the wrong scripture....
Or there is a God and the scripture (and Jesus) is a fable written by men...

[BPA234]

The fossil record.

[BPA234]

Also explained above. The fossil record disproves the Bible's order of creation.

Personally, having read the bible several times, I think there is great value contained in the texts. But, to ignore and close mindedly defend the obvious contradictions and inexplicable parts, of which there are a fair number, is a mistake that reduces the credulity of the book as a whole.

To take this a step further, I would argue that the inability to recognize and accept the bible's inaccuracies, requires one to jettison the greatest attribute that humans possess; our ability to think and reason. Further, as a proponent of literal interpratation of the bible, you are advocating intellectual bankruptcy.

To attempt to explain, as many believer's do, that the inaccuracies are simply God's paradox, is bad enough. But, to answer the question of biblical inaccuracy with an attack on the scientific record, is just pathetic.

[madnak]

Well, I admire the fact you don't just sweep it under the rug. At the same time, I see the "weakness" of your faith as a strength, and find it troubling that you're trying to do away with it.

[txag007]

I didn't attack the scientific record.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> ...just asking someone to explain how they know the Bible is wrong on this point. I thought someone here would be able to do this; guess I was wrong. I'm through. </font>

What else do you want to know txag? There are various scientific methods that show the earth to be closer to 4 billion years old and not the 10,000 years as the bible indicates. Various scientific methods of analyzing fossil records show that birds didn't come before insects. Various astromony methods that show the earth couldn't have been created before any light or stars, etc., etc.!!

You first question how we can know such things not being an expert in these fields. It's then pointed out to you that we don't have to because, because there are others who are experts in these exact fields who study this stuff and know. You then come full circle and claim you weren't looking for our expertise, just someon to explain how they know the bible is wrong on these things. Aaarggh!

I think you purposely display such stubborness and ignorance in order to frustrate people who try and correspond with you. I'm convinced you're not really interested in the answers to these questions and are happiest in your ignorance. Ignorance really is bliss for some people I guess.

[Prodigy54321]

txag, someone pointed out in another thread that you often try to force people into doing enormous amounts of research..and if they don't, you make it seem like you have won...when, in fact, there is no such dilemma.

you are doing a similar thing here...there is absolutely no way that someone here is going to take the enormous amount of time needed to teach you all about how our solar system developed and how life on earth has developed..as well as personally evaluate all of the evidence for these things...

the fact is that most of us (including me) are not experts in any of these fields..so I doubt that we could provide you with a detailed evlatuation of the evidence even if we had the time to do it.

still, there is no dilemma here...trusting the collective opinions of the great majority of scientists IS sufficient for believing that it is overwhelmingly likely to be true.

If there were to be a worthy amount scientists who doubt these things, then of course we wouldn't be so confident..the fact is that there is little to no debate over most of these issues.

do some research yourself if you want to be sure...if you want links to information about these things, then ask..I'll be glad to to a little searching for you.

[BPA234]

Semantics aside, called out on the subject of erroneous information in the bible, your response is to challenge the assertions of posters citing the scientific record. You attempt to draw a corrolary with their lack of scientific expertise and "belief" in science to your "belief" in the bible; implying, at minimum, argumental equality.

As I said before, I think this is a lame approach. Particularly since there is a giant, freaking Dinoasaur in the room and you are the only one who claims we all can't see it.

[BPA234]

How about a trip to his local museum of natural science?

[bigpooch]

Well, obviously there are contradictions in the bibles we
have because the authors, editors and redactors were merely
men. As bunny noted, it's hard to reconcile the numbers in
Ezra and Nehemiah and many other difficulties.

As a theist, I don't subscribe to biblical inerrancy for
pretty clear reasons. Some that believe in a form of
biblical inerrancy may fall victim to bibliolatry.

On the other hand, in Hebrews 4:12,

"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any
double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and
spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and
attitudes of the heart."

How much of the bible is the "word of God" in this sense?
It's difficult to know, but the bible is clearly one of the
most influential works of literature in Western civilization
and that doesn't make it inerrant, just merely important.
The bible still speaks a potent word to us today.

There was a famous rabbi, Yeshua bin Yosef of whom it is
said:

"He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is
the Word of God." - Rev 19:13

and ("Logos" is the Greek for "Word")

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God,
and the Logos was divine./
He was with God in the beginning." - John 1:1-2


The Word of God isn't merely words written in the book,
although much of it is inspired.

The Living Word is "the one whom God appointed as judge of
the living and the dead." - Acts 10:42.

It is best to focus on the Incarnate Logos. Of course,
there is profit in studying the TaNaKh (Jewish scriptures):

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching,
rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," -
2 Timothy 3:16

[vhawk01]

And of course the obvious rebuttal: If you know that some parts are in error, how do you know which? How do you know that the passages that are most important to you and the ones that you most base your faith on aren't just typos? Maybe Jesus said burn the other cheek?

[bigpooch]

It's a process, not an "instant revelation" in most cases.

Just as in any well developed theory, some details may be
wrong or inaccurate but the main ideas are important.

Sometimes we can't help but be on the shoulders of giants;
it's a long journey to look at manuscripts, study koine
Greek, and see how everything fits. Still, we have to
question everything, if we are genuinely seeking truth.

It is noble to examine if beliefs are consistent with
Scripture:

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the
Thessalonians, for they received the message with great
eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if
what Paul said was true." - Acts 17:11

[vhawk01]

The problem is in your comparison to 'any well developed theory.' The biggest thing the Bible has going for it is its inerrancy...this is definitely not true of any scientific theory I know of. If you take away the whole 'perfect word of God' thing then its really just another book, no? Maybe the best book, maybe not, but it sure loses most (all) of its power.

[txag007]

I think that if you examined the fossil record yourself, you'd be surprised at what you would (or wouldn't) find.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that if you examined the fossil record yourself, you'd be surprised at what you would (or wouldn't) find.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not surprised one bit...I HAVE BEEN surprised at points because I misunderstood specifics of evolution...or I found adequate answers to things that I was surprised by...at the moment, there is nothing that I feel must be reconciled much further for me to consider evolution to be overwhelmingly likely to be true....

for many specific details of evolution, I do not really have a strong grasp of how likely they are to be true...and thus, I do not have a strong conviction on these topics...

but whether fish or birds came first is not one of them.

I guess you are such an expert that I should trust you over all those EVILutionists?

EDIT: you are tempting me to make a thread.."The Big Thread of Criticisms of Evolutionary Theory"

[Lestat]

This is getting silly. Sometimes I think txag is merely trolling. Here are his 5 posts in this nested part of the thread:
<font color="blue">

1).Like what?

2). I'm not disputing it; just asking someone to explain it to me.

3). I'm not asking you to explain the entire process; just asking someone to explain how they know the Bible is wrong on this point. I thought someone here would be able to do this; guess I was wrong. I'm through.

4). I didn't attack the scientific record.

5). I think that if you examined the fossil record yourself, you'd be surprised at what you would (or wouldn't) find.
</font>

He is obviously doing little more than instigating. Every time someone answers his question, he either ignores it or asks a new silly question to take attention away from the previous one. Whatever he's doing, he certainly isn't saying much.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know the details of why scientists say that stars are older than the earth. Are you doubting that their methods are not debatable excluding a god trying to fool them?

[/ QUOTE ]
The stars are older than the earth since the early universe contained only hydrogen, then helium and it was nuclear fusion in the early stars which created the heavier elements which then formed the earth. Without the first generation of stars (which had no earth-like planets) there would not be iron, etc existing in the universe (and distributed via supernovas) to form the earth.

That's at least one part of the scientific evidence for the stars being older than the earth.

[BPA234]

I have and I am comfortable with what I found and believe that the fossil record is accurate.

How do you reconcile the contradiction between the Bible's order of creation and the existing fossil record?

[txag007]

What is it about the fossil record that makes you think there is a contradiction?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
What is it about the fossil record that makes you think there is a contradiction?

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe the fact that animals came before man, than man is not separate from animals...that we evolved from lower species...the fact that fish came before birds...and so on...as well as other things that are derived from the fossil record...

txag, are you going to make a decent point in this thread or are you just going to keep trying to send us around in circles?

[BPA234]

Your question has already been answered in this thread. But, at any rate, the order of creation in the Bible is not in synch with the order of development shown in the fossil record. As you know, just from reading this thread, there are other contradictions, with that being the case, how do you personally reconcile the contradictions? I am fine with any answer you may have. But I would like one. When I asked a theology professor that question he had an answer that I could respect; although I disagreed.

If you don't want to answer that's fine. But, I would ask that you stop answering a direct question with a question that appears to be designed to frustrate the interaction, rather than further it in any meainingful way.

[She]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is it about the fossil record that makes you think there is a contradiction?

[/ QUOTE ]
maybe the fact that animals came before man, than man is not separate from animals...that we evolved from lower species...the fact that fish came before birds...and so on...as well as other things that are derived from the fossil record...

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you please explain how you have come to these conclusions?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you please explain how you have come to these conclusions?

[/ QUOTE ]

what a strange place to want to take a biology course.

luckyme

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is it about the fossil record that makes you think there is a contradiction?

[/ QUOTE ]
maybe the fact that animals came before man, than man is not separate from animals...that we evolved from lower species...the fact that fish came before birds...and so on...as well as other things that are derived from the fossil record...

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you please explain how you have come to these conclusions?

[/ QUOTE ]

how I came to the conclusions that they are overwhelmingly likely to be true?, or the conclusions that they are in conflict with the bible?..

if it is the former...you must be a txag gimmick account...do you really expect me to personally explain it to you? do you have any idea of how much work and how long it would take to do that?..not to mention the fact that, as I have already said, trusting the opinions of qualified individuals is fine, even if you have a relativelylow understanding of the subject...

there is plently of information about evolutionary theory in the internet....nevertheless, if it is the former, I would be glad to point you in the direction of information on those subjects.

[BPA234]

Try these links.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/About.html

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Learning.html

[txag007]

What is it about the fossil record that makes you think those things are true?

[txag007]

Not trying to frustrate you; just trying to get you to tell me where the contradictions are.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
you must be a txag gimmick account

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
What is it about the fossil record that makes you think those things are true?

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF?!?! are you serious txag??..stop running around in circles

type one of them into google and look at the evidence yourself...I'm not teaching you all about evolution..I have enough trouble learning about it myself...

and as I have already pointed out...evne if I knew ZERO about the evidence, I could sill rationally believe that these things are overwhelmingly likley to be true because that is the opinion of the great majority of experts in those fields..

txag, you used to actually make arguments.. have you just given up and resorted to trolling now?

EDIT: If your plan was to piss me off, you've succeeded..I'm done entertaining this crap

[jogsxyz]

"The God of Abraham, God of Isaac, an God of Jacob."

If God is the one and only God, isn't He also the God of the Egyptians and Rameses? Why are only the Hebrews His people?

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
[The stars are older than the earth since the early universe contained only hydrogen, then helium and it was nuclear fusion in the early stars which created the heavier elements which then formed the earth. Without the first generation of stars (which had no earth-like planets) there would not be iron, etc existing in the universe (and distributed via supernovas) to form the earth.

That's at least one part of the scientific evidence for the stars being older than the earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

The stars were on day two.
The earth was on day three.
It's in Genesis 1.1-10.

[BPA234]

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/ScotchmoorFirst.html
I know that you are familiar with Genesis and there are contradictions between the two records (specifically the order of creation), so how do you reconcile the contradictions?

Please either answer the direct question or disregard.

[txag007]

Why are you mad at me because you can't explain your own beliefs?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you mad at me because you can't explain your own beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

comments like this must make you feel very good about yourself...it seems that's all you are trying to do these days--make baseless, snooty remarks, introduce false dilemmas, and make unreasonable demands that help you avoid self-reflection...because maybe, just maybe, you will start to realize that you have been duped.
--(and yes, that did make me feel good)

FYI, I explained in many posts above how one COULD come to a rational belief that those are overwhelmingly likely to be true, without personally examining ANY evidence.

I HAVE examined much of the evidence (albeit at an elementary level since I am not well learned in the necessary fields)..and I DO have good reason for those beliefs...but your demands are unreasonable...even if I just LINKED you to the sufficient information on those topics, it would take you at least in the realm of months (and probably years..at least that's how long it has taken me) to read through all of the information...and there is still a mountain of information left.

as I said before, there is plenty of information out there...google it or go to talkorigins.org or something if you want to know the reasons for my beliefs

if you have any problems with the theories, then bring them up and ask questions...there is plenty to pick at in various parts of evolutionary theory..but again...there doesn't seem to be much of it as far as coming to those specific conclusions is concerned...

[txag007]

Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a is an overview of the creation account, while chapter 2 (beginning with 2:4b) is a closer look at the sixth day. No contradiction.

[jogsxyz]

Billy Graham admitted that he does not take the story of creation literally.

[txag007]

This is your thread. You proposed the contradiction. Why should I have to do all that research just to find it?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a is an overview of the creation account, while chapter 2 (beginning with 2:4b) is a closer look at the sixth day. No contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that this is true, but I still see contradictions..

NAS Genesis 1:25-26
[ QUOTE ]
God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."


[/ QUOTE ]

NAS Genesis 2:18-19
[ QUOTE ]
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.


[/ QUOTE ]

KJ 1:25-26
[ QUOTE ]
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


[/ QUOTE ]

KJ 2:18-19
[ QUOTE ]
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


[/ QUOTE ]

none of the explanations of this seem reasonable to me...they say that in the second account, we're not supposed to take that chronologically..it is just an account of what happened, but in no particular order..

I'm not buying that.

also, from what I understand, the New American Standard holds to a more strict translation....this version includes more "then"s and such in the second account..as it does in this case

anyone have any info on the translation or these parts?..I can't find any.

even if the "then" is not a suitable translation, I still see not reasonable explanation, but if the "then" is correct, I can't see arguing the typical christian rationale.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
This is your thread. You proposed the contradiction. Why should I have to do all that research just to find it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have given specific info on all of my proposed contradictions...

you are demanding too much..and what you demand is unnecessary.. if you have a critism, then we can discuss it..

If you have nothing to contribute, then just stop trolling..some of us are trying to have reasonable discussions here.

just because I'm a nice guy...here is the information you have requested

talkorigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html)
evolution.berkeley.edu (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46)
evolution wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

human evolution wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution)

gate.net (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html)

biology and evolution (http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html)

books: evolution (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-3888880-4296037?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&amp;field-keywords=evolution)

books: dawkins (just the ones about evolution of course) (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/002-0049390-7034442?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&amp;field-keywords=dawkins)

books: human evolution (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-6790968-3850565?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&amp;field-keywords=human+evolution)

and many other books on more specific subjects

evolution of birds (http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/evolution/)

human evolution (http://www.ecotao.com/holism/huevo/index.html)

and many many more and many of the link contained within each site.

when you are ready to discuss something, feel free to come back

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

anyone have any info on the translation or these parts?


[/ QUOTE ]

Try this (http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html)

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

anyone have any info on the translation or these parts?


[/ QUOTE ]

Try this (http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

thank you

at the very least it does (as with most explanations of these types of things) show a POSSIBLE explanation...

his argument for this explanation wasn't very convincing though..

I saw no partular reason to suggest that what he proposes is true, rather, only that it is possible, no matter the likelihood...and it seems to take quite a twisting of meanings, intentions, and assumptions to come to these possible explanations. (still, as I said, it is plausible)

this seems to be a running theme with these supposed contradictions..that there are possible explanations for them..but the explanations are rarely more than baseless postulation...and they can only be viewed as likley to be correct if we assume that there is no true contradiction..

nevertheless, it IS a way to reconcile apparent contradictions to a believer who could no preiously see any explanation.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I saw no partular reason to suggest that what he proposes is true,


[/ QUOTE ]

If you spend some time on that site you will find much information concerning things like Ancient Near East literary syles and other matters pertaining to language usage, etc. Atheists who believe the Bible is erroneous before they even open it, if indeed they ever open it, are quick to find differences in methods and styles between ANE and modern Western appraoches - well, gee, what a surprise.

Think about this one thing. It's probable that the same guy wrote Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, and it's obvious he was educated to some level, and if not a genius, certainly no dummy. Do you really think he would blatantly condradict himself within the space of a few paragraphs? Isn't it far more likely that he was using his style and writing for people who understood his style and the idea of a contradiction never occurred to him?

My position on this kind of thing is to require an obvious and inexplicable contradiction because of the translation and cultural differences. It has to be very clear that the Bible can only mean X and non-X at the same time. It has to be more than "I, as an enlightened member of Western Civilization, wouldn't express it that way and therefore there's a contradiction". If your standard is like that you're welcome to it but we will never agree there's a real contradiction.

[Lestat]

I've said before that I'm surprised there aren't more blatently obvious contradictions in the bible. I mean, whoever wrote it was much smarter than I. I'm sure I would've been caught centuries later in much more incrimminating things. Like I might've called the stars grains of sand that God threw up into the heavens and caused to glow. Or made some reference to the earth being flat, etc.

So I give them credit on that. Most current contradictions can be called ambiguious, whereas I would've outright incrimminated myself much worse than that had I been the writer centuries ago.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I mean, whoever wrote it was much smarter than I.


[/ QUOTE ]

Some were apparently a lot smarter than their contemporaries as well.
Bible Scientific Foreknowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge)

Of course, they had a major advantage. They were informed by the Creator Himself. Quite an edge.

[David Sklansky]

"Of course, they had a major advantage. They were informed by the Creator Himself. Quite an edge."

Haven't read it. But why can't both sides of this argument get it through their thick skulls that whether or not the quoted statement is true is infinitely more relevant than whether the bible has contradictions?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
"Of course, they had a major advantage. They were informed by the Creator Himself. Quite an edge."

Haven't read it. But why can't both sides of this argument get it through their thick skulls that whether or not the quoted statement is true is infinitely more relevant than whether the bible has contradictions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps they don't really expect to come up with the video clip of the folks being channelled by His Divinityness so they cling to the concept that the inerrancy of the book would act as some sort of proof and thus rises to the level of your infinite relevancy. Or the other side, if there are errors in the selected writings it acts as a poor-mans video, 'only a divine dork could write this nonsense'.

Seems irrelevent to me, since any errors can be explained as poor penmanship, or needing interpretation, or whatever it takes.

So, yeah, the argument is a bit minor, but until the video shows up the debate will continue.

luckyme