A specific biblical contradiction

[GeezyTehSnowman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I would guess that NotReady is familiar with this supposed contradiction and knows more than I do.


[/ QUOTE ]
Tek
<a href="pnm://broadcast.reasons.org/rtbradio/cu20050315.rm?start=00:39:12.0" target="_blank">RTB</a>

[/ QUOTE ]

splendour's gimmick account?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

splendour's gimmick account?


[/ QUOTE ]


Where you been? Everybody knows I'm Sklansky.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I would guess that NotReady is familiar with this supposed contradiction and knows more than I do.


[/ QUOTE ]
Tek


[/ QUOTE ]

That first link is a disgrace to the field of theology, who gave us the brilliant field of hermeneutics in the first place and gave birth to scientific text analysis.

I also note that the author J.P Holding is a man who specializies in debunking alleged contradictions, and that has a certain notoriority for being a fraud both amongst christian peers peers and others and also that he only holds a masters in library science.

Feel free to link other articles by more respected scholars if you wish.

[thesnowman22]

Actually, genesis 2 states that no plant of the filed had yet sprung up because no rain had fallen, which means they were in the ground but not coming up yet.

[tame_deuces]

Ok, that I didn't see but that is a nice observation. However genesis 1 states that: 'The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.'

I would take this as a pretty strong argument that there should in fact be plants around.

Is the general acceptance that this expression: 'When the lord God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth' (which can also mean land) - refers to a specific piece of land with no vegetation? It seems odd, as it even makes a point to state that Adam is moved to the garden of eden in a later verse. And the whole expression seems oddly made up if that is in fact its meaning.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I would guess that NotReady is familiar with this supposed contradiction and knows more than I do.


[/ QUOTE ]
Tek


[/ QUOTE ]

That first link is a disgrace to the field of theology, who gave us the brilliant field of hermeneutics in the first place and gave birth to scientific text analysis.

I also note that the author J.P Holding is a man who specializies in debunking alleged contradictions, and that has a certain notoriority for being a fraud both amongst christian peers peers and others and also that he only holds a masters in library science.

Feel free to link other articles by more respected scholars if you wish.

[/ QUOTE ]
Note the technique though.

1) NotReady deals with specific contradictions with links to a load of old rope that no-one can take seriously.

2) he claims consistancy is a reason to believe the bible

3) when 2) is questioned he refers us to 1)

good hard sales technique, double glazing anyone? or I've got this rather nice bridge if you're interested.

chez

[tame_deuces]

Well, as they would say in the arts and literary sciences, NR's posts tell us a narrative, in this case of someone who believes the bible to be free of contradictions. Hence anyone who seeks to understand if it does, would do bad to rely on him alone.

Thesnowman's post points out nicely that there is some ambiguity here, and it doesn't really have to go further than that - the obvious conclusion from my point and his point would have to be that it could be a contradiction, but not necessarily so, and it requires more study atleast. From NR we get a fairly bad article telling us there can't be one, and suddenly we most likely strawman out of the original question. Your point is a good one imo.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, as they would say in the arts and literary sciences, NR's posts tell us a narrative, in this case of someone who believes the bible to be free of contradictions . Hence anyone who seeks to understand if it does, would do bad to rely on him alone.

Thesnowman's post points out nicely that there is some ambiguity here, and it doesn't really have to go further than that - the obvious conclusion from my point and his point would have to be that it could be a contradiction, but not necessarily so, and it requires more study atleast. From NR we get a fairly bad article telling us there can't be one, and suddenly we most likely strawman out of the original question. Your point is a good one imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and its typical NotReadian logic.

Someone who believes the bible is perfect has reason to believe it contains no contradictions. Therefore NotReady concludes it has no contradictions and claims this lack of contradictions as a reason to believe the bible is true.

That would be a breathtaking enough abuse of logic but it makes the other huge fallacy of confusing contradiction->false with no-contradiction->true

chez

[Splendour]

Is there any room for contradiction here (note 1.)what the bible said vs. 2.)what was said by science at the time the bible said it followed by 3.)what science is currently saying):

Biblical Forecasts of Scientific Discoveries

Not only is the Bible filled with the fundamentals of science, but it is as much as 3,000 years ahead of its time. The Bible's statements in most cases directly contradicted the science of the day in which they were made. When modern scientific knowledge approaches reality, the divine accuracy of the scriptures is substantiated. For example:

Biblical Statement Science Then Science Now
1.) Earth is a sphere (Is. 40:22). 2.)Earth's a flat disk. 3.)Earth is a sphere

1.)Number of stars exceeds a billion (Jer. 33:22). 2.) Number of stars totals 1,100 3.)Number of stars exceeds a billion

1.)Every star is different (1 Cor 15:41). 2.)All stars are the same. 3.)Every star is different.

1.)Light is in motion (Job 38:19-20). 2.)Light is fixed in place. 3.)Light is in motion.
1.) Air has weight (Job 28:25). 2.)Air is weightless. 3.)Air has weight.

1.)Winds blow in cyclones (Eccl. 1:6). 2.)Winds blow straight. 3.)Winds blow in cyclones.

1.)Blood is a source of life and healing (Lev. 17:11). 2.)Sick people must bled. 3.) Blood is a source of life and healing.

For centuries the conjectures of science also were at odds with Genesis 1 concerning the origin and development of Earth and of life on Earth. However, science has progressed beyond these conjectures and now agrees with Genesis 1 in the initial conditions of Earth, the description of subsequent events, and in the order of these events. The probability that Moses, writing more than 3,400 years ago, would have guessed all these details is less than one in trillions. Below is a partial list of other fundamentals of science explained in the Bible:

conservation of mass and energy (Eccl. 1:9; Eccl. 3:14-15).
water cycle (Eccl. 1:7; Is. 55:10).
gravity (Job 26:7; Job 38:31-33).
Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups (Job 38:31). NOTE: All other star groups visible to the naked eye are unbound, with the possible exception of the Hyades.
effect of emotions on physical health (Prov. 16:24; Prov. 17:22).
control of contagious diseases (Lev. 13:4546).
importance of sanitation to health (Lev.; Num. 19: Deut. 23:12-13). control of cancer and heart disease (Lev. 7-19).
In the crucible of scientific investigation, the Bible has proven invariably to be correct. No other book, ancient or modem, can make this claim; but then, no other book has been written (through men) by God.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
1.) Earth is a sphere (Is. 40:22). 2.)Earth's a flat disk. 3.)Earth is a sphere


[/ QUOTE ]

Isaiah 40:22 DOES NOT say that the earth is a sphere...it says "22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth"...there is quite the difference between a circle and a sphere...and there is a reason why the translation of the Hebrew word is "circle" and not "sphere"...it is because it is most commonly translated to mean a planar circle, not a sphere

I have to go out, but I will get to the others later tonight, maybe