why are there errors in the bible and yet people follow it?

[outhouse]

Huh ?

If you really think the people who later compiled all the books were not aware of mistakes and contradictions within these collections, I have seriously underestimated you.

 

[captainbryce]

I personally reckon your listening skills are due for some practice if that is what you got out of Investigate Truth's posts.

Investigate Truth (I.T) is saying the time of Adam was 6000 years ago, but refuting that Adam was the first man. Since Adam was not the first man, I.T is essentially refuting the idea that the story of Adam tells us anything about the physical creation of humanity.

Well then you reckon incorrectly. I am aware that this is what IT is saying. My point is, it is not consistent with science OR scripture. What part about that did you not understand?

 

[captainbryce]

Excuse me for thinking you knew what a question is. My mistake. FYI, expecting a reply is NOT, I repeat NOT, the same as asking a question. Ask your teacher.

In this particular case, I believe it was. :yes:

Nope, which is why I haven't brought it up to you, only what you've said in post 93. If you can't follow along, fine, but don't assume no one else can either.

I am following you just fine. You ARE bringing an argument up to me. An argument that I've decided not to participate in. Can you follow that?

No, you didn't want to hijack the thread at all. You just wanted to put your 2 cents in and then run for the hills.

You're entitled to your opinion. But I'm still not interested in it! I answered your question already. Faulty assumptions were (which I pointed out), and they were never addressed by you. Until you or anyone else can address the fact, I can rest my case there.

Yet again in post 110, instead of letting the issue drop so as not to take the thread off topic, you continue to do just that. Proclaiming, of course, this is just what you don't intend to do.

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm not interested! Again, until you can reconcile the fact that your entire premise is based on a false assumption (one that was pointed out and not yet justified) my point stands. It doesn't necessitate either of us trying to slander each other's beliefs (or lack thereof) which seems to be what you really want. It's okay for you to be agnostic. I don't mind, really! But that doesn't mean that I have a desire to justify my beliefs to you. The OP question was about why there are errors in the bible. The example given was not an error, but a faulty understanding of scripture. I merely pointed that out! But you want to get into a religious debate for some reason.

And recall CB, it was you who opened the one-on-one between us (see post 93), not me.

Yes, I opened it intentionally to answer the question (that you so desperately needed an answer to when you didn't get a response) and to stomp on your delusions. Because you once again drew some faulty conclusions about why some religious folks on here didn't reply to you, and I decided to give you a reality check and educate you as to the REAL reasons why nobody replied to it.

I did, in fact see it. However, when you said,

" If none of them can, then OP's question is perfectly valid and your assumptions about other people should perhaps be given more weight than they currently have as it stands."
​

I could only conclude that you forgot you had already replied. Why else would you make such an odd remark?

The remark was intended to explain to YOU why nobody responded TO YOU in post #87. I was perfectly aware at that time that I had already explained away the alleged "error" in post #47.

In any case, it hasn't escaped me that you've ignored my most salient remark.

Good for you! Thumbs up on your attention to obvious details!

So, how about it, what ya got to say about people who follow the Bible despite its errors? THE THREAD TOPIC.

If and when you want to point out an actual error to me, I'd be happy to explain the "followers" to you. I'm still waiting for someone to produce an example of a legitimate biblical error. Or is it still your contention that Genesis 1:14-15 represents an error?

Want to join the conversation or simply stick to your own: "There ain't no errors in the Bible and I'll prove it"?

A) That's a straw man argument. I never intended to prove that there are NOT errors in the bible. It's not my job to make your argument for you! I don't have to prove a negative. If you want to claim that the bible is erroneous, then YOU should provide some evidence of that. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

B) Until you or someone else on here can provide an example of a biblical error that people follow despite the fact that the erroneous nature of it is well known, the "conversation" is over, because I've demonstrated that the premise of the question is based on a fallacy!

 

[captainbryce]

Did you even read my post? Which part of it said "God created these human-like apes only thousands of years ago"?

So, in this sense, each day of the six days as the Bible stated is 1000 years, corresponds to 6000 years. so, for example in Day 5 it refers to creation of the beasts. In many instances the Bible refers to people as beasts. So, in this sense the people of the past as a general in comparison with people of our new time, were as primitive as beasts. On the six day, 'human' is finally created, meaning that finally after 6000 years of successive revelations, that beast would start to be advanced and mature enough to be called human.

 

[captainbryce]

On the contrary. I already said a Day as in 24 hours is not intended!
Like I referred to the verse in Peter, a Day for this case is 1000 years, as is written in NT.
We cannot assume, that a Day as 1000 years is an analogy, unless you have a good reason, which I don't see.

I don't have to "justify" it. It IS an analogy (actually a simile) based on the construction of the sentence.

A simile compares two different things in order to create a new meaning. In this case, we are made explicitly aware that a comparison is being made due to the use of “like” or “as” (He’s like a shell of a man).

Metaphor, Simile and Analogy: What?s the Difference? | Copyblogger

Now, would you care to show us how the phrase "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" is NOT a simile?

The text says ‘one day is like [or as] a thousand years’—the word ‘like’ (or ‘as’) shows that it is a figure of speech, called a simile, to teach that God is outside of time (because He is the Creator of time itself). In fact, the figure of speech is so effective in its intended aim precisely because the day is literal and contrasts so vividly with 1000 years—to the eternal Creator of time, a short period of time and a long period of time may as well be the same.

2 Peter 3:8 "one day is like a thousand years

It's neither 12 nor 24 hrs.

You are right, because the specific number of hours mentioned is not given. What IS given is how long a period of time this "day" represents, and it is merely the hours of daylight (however long that happens to last). In no case (outside of northern Alaska on the equinox) does it mean 24 hours. And that was the only point I was making.

Both is against science.

But "day" being a word that represents more than one thing is NOT against science. And the first usage of the word means "hours of daylight".

Religion and Science must agree.

I agree. And from my perspective, they do! :yes:

How can science whose source is God, be different than religion? If a Religion is against Science, the Religion is False. Simple as that.

I'm not arguing that. I happen to think that both are true, and the only thing that makes one or the other "false" is man's inability to properly interpret them.

What we should consider is the verse in Gen 1:5. No one other than Bible can define what is intended by Day and Night in Genesis.

The Book itself is defining 'Light' means 'Day'. Night means Darkness:

That is ONE definition of the word day. There are many!

The Day is a Period that guidance is on earth as Light of Guidance. Night is the period of the absence of the Divine Prophet. As Jesus said:


"As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world." John 9:4-5

Yes, in THAT particular example you would be correct. "Day" is defined by the context of scripture! In that passage, it represents the light of Jesus' guidance. In the Genesis passage previously discussed, it means "hours of daylight". Again, you have to read it in context.

In Genesis it is said: "And the evening and the morning were the first day."
The terms 'Morning' and 'Evening' are reference to coming of Divine Prophets and Leaving. During which is 'a Day of revelation' (Light o guidance)

That is your interpretation. But that certainly does not follow what is being described in Genesis. Only by taking various books of the bible out of context could you draw THIS conclusion. In the context delivered in Genesis, "evening and morning" merely refer to the end of one "day" (whatever period of time is representative of day in this case) and the beginning of another. It has nothing to do with prophets coming or leaving.

The Bible is not a science Book to talk about physical creation or people lived before Adam. Religion has its own role, science its own role.
The Bible chooses to 'look' at a cycle of humanity from the Days of Adam.

I agree with that. But there are still certain declarations that the bible makes about "the beginning" that are either true or untrue. And once you start incorporating people who lived before Adam, you are now contradicting scripture, denying the word of God.

But as science has proved, there were people living before Adam thousands and thousands years before.

Science has proved no such thing because science doesn't even know when Adam lived. You cannot use science to prove something about Adam when science can't even be used to justify the existence of Adam, let alone WHEN he existed. You are proceeding under the assumption that the first human (Adam) lived 6,000 years ago. But science rejects that notion because there is archaeological evidence of human civilizations that predate when Adam supposedly walked the earth. Science proves that Paleo Indians flourished in North America 14,000 years ago (8,000 years BEFORE Adam according to you). They had elaborate beliefs reflected in their art, burial customs and ceremonial objects. Meanwhile, there is no scientific evidence of this "Adam" or that all modern humans are descended from the one pair of Adam and Eve. Yet, that is exactly what the bible teaches. Now, don't you think if Genesis was meant to tell the story of human origins from the beginning, it would have actually started at THE BEGINNING? How do you reconcile what science says about the origins of man with what the bible says about the origins of man by clinging to the notion that Adam existed only 6000 years ago? That makes no logical sense!

It did not ended. It was perished, in a spiritual sense.

"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store" 2 Peter

The Noah story is also Figurative. The 'Ark' is the symbol of covenant and faith. Those who entered it were saved. Different pairs of animals symbolized, different tribes and sects. Those who perished, were among the ones that did not enter the Faith of God and died 'Spiritually'. (Those who were perishing)

Okay, if you choose to believe that Noah's Ark is a made-up story that isn't true, that's fine. But that's not what I believe because there is no indication in scripture that it is a fake story, nor is there any reason for me to reject such scripture just to reconcile the bible with science. That's called picking and choosing!

The idea is in Science. the Primitive people lived thousands of years before Adam. But the Bible does not talk about them, their generations, prophets, as it was totally a different human cycle, with its own ways of life.

That's an interesting IDEA, but the fact remains it is still inconsistent with what the bible actually teaches. If what you are saying is true, then the bible is lying. If the bible says Adam and Eve were the first humans, and you say there were humans who lived before them, then you are calling God's word a lie. Why would God create other humans BEFORE he creates us, then give no mention of them in scripture? Because the "beasts" that Genesis 1 is talking about are animals, not humans.

Do you believe that these primitive humans were created in the image of God? Do you believe that they had souls? Do you believe that Adam evolved from them, or did God create Adam separately and breathe life into him?

Bible is not a science Book to talk about everything. It talks about revelations of God starting from the Days of Adam.

But it also talks about what happened BEFORE Adam! It doesn't just start at Adam. It isn't until the 6th creation day that Adam is mentioned. If Genesis was supposed to be a story (a made-up story not based in real fact as you apparently believe) that was a revelation starting from the days of Adam, why start it from "the beginning" of creation instead? Your reasoning doesn't make any sense and it is inconsistent with scripture.

Because it considers Adam, as a start of a Human Cycle, From a spiritual and civilization point of view (Not physical).

But Genesis doesn't start at the human cycle, it starts IN THE BEGINNING.

That's true. But in our view the Final Judgement already happened in 1844.

Okay, well then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not familiar with the tenets of your religion. The only thing I can say (based on some of your reasoning) is that I don't find it to be justified by scripture (or science).

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So, in this sense, each day of the six days as the Bible stated is 1000 years, corresponds to 6000 years. so, for example in Day 5 it refers to creation of the beasts. In many instances the Bible refers to people as beasts. So, in this sense the people of the past as a general in comparison with people of our new time, were as primitive as beasts. On the six day, 'human' is finally created, meaning that finally after 6000 years of successive revelations, that beast would start to be advanced and mature enough to be called human.

Hi captainbryce,

I see. Perhaps I should explain that more clearly.
When I said in my post 'creation of human' or as creation of beast on the 5th day as Bible says, by this I do not mean 'Physical Creation'


But the Creation of human in terms of spiritual qualities and capacity to understand that has been a gradual process, in which God once in a while has sent a Divine Prophet through His guidance improved these qualities.
From a theological point of view, and as far as we are speaking about the Missions of the Prophets, the capacity to understand and spiritual qualities, are what makes the difference between beasts and human. Now in this sense, and as history clearly shows about life and understanding of the people of the past, who has been all the time in war with each other, tribes against tribes, kings against kings, and nations against nations, slavery, the Bible often called them the Beasts, and until the 6th day, they are considered as the creation of the beasts, until finally on the sixth day, they have reached to a point that can be said the guidance of God would bring them to the station of human.

 

[captainbryce]

Hi captainbryce,

I see. Perhaps I should explain that more clearly.
When I said in my post 'creation of human' or as creation of beast on the 5th day as Bible says, by this I do not mean 'Physical Creation'


But the Creation of human in terms of spiritual qualities and capacity to understand that has been a gradual process, in which God once in a while has sent a Divine Prophet through His guidance improved these qualities.
From a theological point of view, and as far as we are speaking about the Missions of the Prophets, the capacity to understand and spiritual qualities, are what makes the difference between beasts and human. Now in this sense, and as history clearly shows about life and understanding of the people of the past, who has been all the time in war with each other, tribes against tribes, kings against kings, and nations against nations, slavery, the Bible often called them the Beasts, and until the 6th day, they are considered as the creation of the beasts, until finally on the sixth day, they have reached to a point that can be said the guidance of God would bring them to the station of human.

Your explanation gets more and more convoluted. But at the end of the day, I still don't see any of these ideas being consistent with scripture. However, as long as you can reconcile them to your own understanding, then that's all that matters. I believe that the bible is the true word of God. I do not believe that he meant to confound us by obscuring the meaning of scripture or requiring us to extrapolate doctrines that weren't plainly expressed in his word. Again, these are areas where we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Your explanation gets more and more convoluted. But at the end of the day, I still don't see any of these ideas being consistent with scripture. However, as long as you can reconcile them to your own understanding, then that's all that matters. I believe that the bible is the true word of God. I do not believe that he meant to confound us by obscuring the meaning of scripture or requiring us to extrapolate doctrines that weren't plainly expressed in his word. Again, these are areas where we will have to agree to disagree.

Yes, I think let's agree to disagree.
Your understanding of the Bible comes from a 'prejudgment'. Even if not all of it, is, but it is for the most part comes from the way christian Leaders have been interpreting these verses.

What I am discussing would be something totally new in your view.

But let me give you an example. The way Baha'is read the New Testament, is very similar the way Christians read Hebrew Scriptures.
So, for example, if you discuss 'Immanual' sign in Isaiah with Jews, and tell them that is Jesus the Messiah, because He was born of a virgin, then They surely in their view, you are bringing it out of context, and they would tell you, You are interpreting our text different that what we have heard.

So, you would be able to match the verses of Hebrew Scriptures with the NT, and see them as fulfillment of the Prophecies.
In the same way, Baha'is can match the verses and the years of Prophecies with what has happend in the 19th century and to them it is fulfillment of the Prophecies.

 

[outhouse]

Okay, if you choose to believe that Noah's Ark is a made-up story that isn't true, that's fine. But that's not what I believe because there is no indication in scripture that it is a fake story, nor is there any reason for me to reject such scripture just to reconcile the bible with science. That's called picking and choosing!

Is it not obvious that it is not literal history?

Do you think the whole world flooded as described?

 

[captainbryce]

Is it not obvious that it is not literal history?

Would I have indicated a belief otherwise if it was? Or, was that meant to be a rhetorical question?

Do you think the whole world flooded as described?

It depends on what you mean by "the whole world". I do believe there was a "worldwide" flood. I do not believe there was a "global flood" however.

 

[Sha'irullah]

It depends on what you mean by "the whole world". I do believe there was a "worldwide" flood. I do not believe there was a "global flood" however.

Never knew a Christian to admit this

 

[captainbryce]

Never knew a Christian to admit this

I'm not sure how to take that.

 

[Skwim]

Yes, I opened it intentionally to answer the question (that you so desperately needed an answer to when you didn't get a response) and to stomp on your delusions. Because you once again drew some faulty conclusions about why some religious folks on here didn't reply to you, and I decided to give you a reality check and educate you as to the REAL reasons why nobody replied to it.

Exactly what "question" did I ask? (To help you out I've reprinted my post (#87) below)

Exactly what "delusion" did I exhibit? (To help you out I've reprinted my post (#87) below)

Exactly what faulty conclusions did I come to? (To help you out I've reprinted my post (#87) below)

That everyone has ignored my comments in post 49 is quite telling. I read you loud and clear.

If and when you want to point out an actual error to me, I'd be happy to explain the "followers" to you. I'm still waiting for someone to produce an example of a legitimate biblical error. Or is it still your contention that Genesis 1:14-15 represents an error?

*Sigh* Okay. Contradictions (statements with incompatible truth values) qualify as errors because both cannot be correct. One has to be wrong. 2 + 2 cannot equal both 3 and 4. Either 3 is wrong or 4 is wrong. Get the idea? In the following I'm not going to try to determine which of the contradictory Biblical statements is wrong, because it's enough to recognize that one of them must be in error. And if one of them is in error then, because it appears in the Bible, the Bible contains an error. Following? Assuming you are . . . .

2 Kings 8:26 says “Two and twenty [22] years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign…”

2 Chronicles 22:2 says “Forty and two [42] years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign…”
​

42 ≠ 22

1 Kings 4:26 says “And Solomon had forty thousand [40,000] stalls of horses for his chariots…”
​

2 Chronicles 9:25 says “And Solomon had four thousand [4,000] stalls for horses and chariots…”
​

4,000 ≠ 40,000

A) That's a straw man argument. I never intended to prove that there are NOT errors in the bible.

Sure you did----Do you believe that simply saying stuff makes it so? Ever since you first responded in post 47 to the errors Dani pointed out in his OP that's about all you've done here; tried to prove his examples are not errors. We're not blind CB. It's quite obvious this has been your game since July 31.

B) Until you or someone else on here can provide an example of a biblical error that people follow despite the fact that the erroneous nature of it is well known, the "conversation" is over, because I've demonstrated that the premise of the question is based on a fallacy!

Bad news CB. All you've demonstrated is that to your satisfaction Dani's examples were erroneous, and nothing more. Nothing More.

 

[outhouse]

Would I have indicated a belief otherwise if it was?
.

Please, yes or no?

Do you think the bible has errors, or no errors?

It depends on what you mean by "the whole world". I do believe there was a "worldwide" flood. I do not believe there was a "global flood" however

Is there a difference?


Let me introduce you to some real history. Many credible scholars claim the flood mythology started in Sumer when the Euphrates overflowed in 2900 BC. This flood is attested and did happen. This is where Noahs legend is said to have originated by Israelites. A man on the Sumerian kings list named Ziusudra is said to have gone down the swollen river on a barge and survived this devastating flood and made a sacrifice.

Later Babylonian mythology turned this into a different account and a larger flood.

This leaves us with our later Israelites that used these same legends, in places word for word. At least two different books were compiled together, that is why you see the contradictions in the biblical account as written.

Noah's Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the ninth edition, in 1875, no attempt was made to reconcile the Noah story with scientific fact

By the middle of the 18th century only a few natural historians accepted a literal interpretation of the narrative.


Genesis flood narrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to most exegetes, the Genesis narrative is composed of two different stories (the Jahwist (YHWH) source and the Priestly (Elohim) source) that were interwoven into the final canonical form of Genesis 6-9

the historicity of the ark itself was undermined


Ziusudra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there are numerous story elements that are common to two, three, or four versions. The earliest version of the flood myth is preserved fragmentarily in the Eridu Genesis, written in Sumerian cuneiform and dating to the 17th century BC, during the 1st Dynasty of Babylon when the language of writing and administration was still Sumerian. Strong parallels are notable with other Near Eastern flood legends, such as the biblical account of Noah.


Which now I will test your biblical honesty. If you believe in a flood, you also have to believe there is a exact date in which this flood happened. When you posit a date, I will show you that no civilizations were FACTUALLY disrupted for the date you place forward. This will show you that factually, no world wide flood ever has happened.










Here are some details you need to know. Israelites factually formed from displaced Canaanites after 1200 BC, and at that time they were proto Israelites.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The bible was not written to be perfect, it is supposed to have errors and contradictions, mythology and fiction.

Huh ?

If you really think the people who later compiled all the books were not aware of mistakes and contradictions within these collections, I have seriously underestimated you.

And you really see no difference between an anthology that was "supposed to have errors and contradictions" and one that was suppose to accurately codify and transmit oral tradition and lore?

Clearly I have not underestimated you.

 

[outhouse]

And you really see no difference between an anthology that was "supposed to have errors and contradictions" and one that was suppose to accurately codify and transmit oral tradition and lore?
.

They placed the whole of the OT/NT forward, mistakes and errors and all. Because in context, they did not care about them. It was supposed to be as they placed it forth, which includes errors, mythology, allegory and metaphor, song and poems. They made it the most beautiful epic every created errors and all.

 

[captainbryce]

Sure you did----Do you believe that simply saying stuff makes it so? Ever since you first responded in post 47 to the errors Dani pointed out in his OP that's about all you've done here; tried to prove his examples are not errors.

There is a difference between proving that someone else's alleged errors are not in fact erroneous, and trying to prove that there are "no errors" in the bible. You're confounding two different concepts as though they are one.

We're not blind CB. It's quite obvious this has been your game since July 31.

Apparently you are. Pointing out one person's fallacy (specific errors) isn't the same thing as proving that there are no errors in the bible.

Bad news CB. All you've demonstrated to your satisfaction is that Dani's examples were erroneous, and nothing more. Nothing More.

It sounds like this is good news then (considering that this was my intent all along).

 

[captainbryce]

Please, yes or no?

No

Do you think the bible has errors, or no errors?

Anything that is complied by, translated by, and ultimately interpreted by MEN is bound to have errors of some kind!

In case the above comment wasn't clear....YES, I believe the bible has errors. Your point?

Is there a difference?

Would I have bothered to categorize them differently if there wasn't? :sarcastic

Let me introduce you to some real history.

Thank you for that. Now, let me introduce you to some real science:

An rainbow occurs when light reflected off water droplets in the atmosphere is viewed from a certain angle. The water droplets refract the light into the colors of the visible light spectrum (red to violet).

Isn't it fortunate that we have the internet and forums like these, where we can meet new people and introduce them to brand new concepts that they've never would have known about otherwise?

 

[Skwim]

There is a difference between proving that someone else's alleged errors are not in fact erroneous, and trying to prove that there are "no errors" in the bible. You're confounding two different concepts as though they are one.

Not at all.

Apparently you are. Pointing out one person's fallacy (specific errors) isn't the same thing as proving that there are no errors in the bible.

Correct. However, please let me point out your goal here:

I'd rather focus on debating the actual issue, which is the content of the bible, and determining whether or not it is actually erroneous.

By the by, we're still waiting for a reply to my:

"Contradictions (statements with incompatible truth values) qualify as errors because both cannot be correct. One has to be wrong. 2 + 2 cannot equal both 3 and 4. Either 3 is wrong or 4 is wrong. Get the idea? In the following I'm not going to try to determine which of the contradictory Biblical statements is wrong, because it's enough to recognize that one of them must be in error. And if one of them is in error then, because it appears in the Bible, the Bible contains an error. Following? Assuming you are . . . .

2 Kings 8:26 says “Two and twenty [22] years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign…”

2 Chronicles 22:2 says “Forty and two [42] years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign…”
​

42 ≠ 22

1 Kings 4:26 says “And Solomon had forty thousand [40,000] stalls of horses for his chariots…”
​

2 Chronicles 9:25 says “And Solomon had four thousand [4,000] stalls for horses and chariots…”
​

4,000 ≠ 40,000
​

Which, if you've forgotten, was in answer to your request:

If and when you want to point out an actual error to me, I'd be happy to explain the "followers" to you. I'm still waiting for someone to produce an example of a legitimate biblical error.

Or should I assume that you simply wanted examples of Biblical errors, and that's all? If that's the case then, YOU'RE WELCOME.



So then, to quote the OP, "why are there errors in the bible and yet people follow it?"

 

[danieldemol]

Well then you reckon incorrectly. I am aware that this is what IT is saying. My point is, it is not consistent with science OR scripture. What part about that did you not understand?

:foot: :sorry1:
Actually I apologize for saying that, because I hadn't read the other post from IT and when I did read it, I understood where you may have misunderstood.

I don't believe the Genesis story is referring to the physical evolution of humanity, but rather the moral or spiritual evolution of humanity.

Thus, humans are not referred to being like primitive beasts in a physical sense, but rather in a spiritual sense. It is a symbolic way of saying that the character of man was not refined all at once, but that rather his spiritual education went through stages of development.