Biblical Contradictions

Pah · Sep 28, 2004

Mister Emu said:
We are all biased.

well, "Duh"!!! Me too, I'm sorry to say.

-pah-

Mister Emu · Sep 28, 2004

well, "Duh"!!! Me too, I'm sorry to say.

I was refering to Mr. Spinkles, whose comments I took as him believing he was not biased.

Pah · Sep 28, 2004

Mister Emu said:
I was refering to Mr. Spinkles, whose comments I took as him believing he was not biased.

And I'm agreeing with you!

-pah-

Feathers in Hair · Sep 28, 2004

Mister Emu said:
We are all biased.

*raises hand* Wait, not me! Oh, wait. *looks down* I'm human, so I am...

Don't you just hate it when you work up a good steam of righteousness and remember that?

Cheers to all of us who admit we are biased! :jam:

Jayhawker Soule · Sep 29, 2004

Mr_Spinkles said:
How is it biased to doubt the prophesying powers/miracle accounts of authors who contradict each other/themselves and appear to fabricate stories and borrow things from other legends, ...

This is nothing but argumentum ad hominem. Furthermore, can you show me evidence of gMark fabricating stories and/or borrow things from other legends?

Mr_Spinkles said:
..., and when scientifically no one has ever been shown to have miraculous/prophesying power?

Two points: (1) the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, and (2) not all biases are created equal.

Mr_Spinkles said:
As for a reference where you might find "the Synoptics prophesying the exact date of the destruction of the Temple", I assumed there was such a reference when you said: But I must have misunderstood you. :embarassed:

Perhaps you were driven by your bias to jump to an unwarranted conclusion.

true blood · Sep 29, 2004

The fact of the matter is that no athiest who presents a contridiction of the bible and then a believer corrects the passage or "brings it to light" it will absolutely mean zilch to the athiest. He'll just move on to the next contridiction one after another, totally devoid of spiritual understanding yet spending energy to oppose something he or she claims not to exist.

linwood · Sep 29, 2004

The fact of the matter is that no athiest who presents a contridiction of the bible and then a believer corrects the passage or "brings it to light" it will absolutely mean zilch to the athiest.

Not true, there are a couple of threads here where I`ve accepted Christian interpretation of text I previously couldn`t harmonize.

Doesn`t anyone want to have a go at the one I posted in this thread?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=31034#post31034

Pah · Sep 29, 2004

true blood said:
The fact of the matter is that no athiest who presents a contridiction of the bible and then a believer corrects the passage or "brings it to light" it will absolutely mean zilch to the athiest. He'll just move on to the next contridiction one after another, totally devoid of spiritual understanding yet spending energy to oppose something he or she claims not to exist.

I really do love some of those "corrections". The one that comes to mind with a chuckle is that Judas's rope broke and he burst his gut when he fell. There was actually one apologicist who, when touring the Holy Lands, found a tree with a branch over a cliff and said (paraphrasing) "Here is the place" See, the Bible's right and all it took was this local guide (who charged exhorbitant fees) to show me. hehehe

What errors and disharmonies do is show is that there is considerable doubt, outside of some Christians, about the authorship (or God's influence) of the Bible. To this group of Christians, it is a danger of losing their faith. Other Christians seem to have no trouble understanding the message of the Bible in spite of a lack of belief in inerrancy.

-pah-

Jayhawker Soule · Sep 29, 2004

true blood said:
The fact of the matter is that no athiest who presents a contridiction of the bible and then a believer corrects the passage or "brings it to light" it will absolutely mean zilch to the athiest.

What is the difference between "brings it to light" and 'offers baseless rationalizations'? What criteria would you suggest the atheist use to evaluate these explanations?

true blood · Sep 30, 2004

Put aside your "religion" and consider the bible for what it says it is suppose to be. The scripture is suppose to be a magical tome if there ever was any and there are key instructions given in it on how to read and understand it. If the bible contains God inspired words, then indeed one must actually follow the instructions given in it to understand and rightly divide the word of truth, because God made it that way. If you do not follow the directions on how to read this magical tome there is no way at all possible (if indeed it is magical) you will comprehend it because it would contain God inspired words of wisdom and understanding unsearchable yet unatainable to those who fail to read it the way he instructed it to be read. Therefore it does not matter how academic or if you have some type of degree in theology or anything of the sort IF one does not follow the instructions to rightly divide the word of truth. It is impossible.

true blood · Sep 30, 2004

linwood said:
Not true, there are a couple of threads here where I`ve accepted Christian interpretation of text I previously couldn`t harmonize.

Doesn`t anyone want to have a go at the one I posted in this thread?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=31034#post31034

Please explain what you have accepted. Give me a "contridiction" and then show me how you have rightly divided the word of truth. Or have you accepted some other "christian perspective" that you personally never really worked out on your own?

Mr Spinkles · Sep 30, 2004

Deut. 32.8 said:
This is nothing but argumentum ad hominem.

I considered this carefully, and I'm not so sure. If I attacked you personally, then I would agree that's ad hominem....but the Bible and its authors themselves are the very subject of this debate--they are not opponents with whom I am debating. Do you really think it's fallacy to examine the credibility of the authors who wrote something, when the historicity of that very something is the topic of the debate?

Furthermore, can you show me evidence of gMark fabricating stories and/or borrow things from other legends?

Here is some evidence that suggests Mark fabricated and/or borrowed things from previous legends, from: http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm

In 2 Kings 4:27-37 a distraught parent of an only child comes to Elisha just as in Mark 5:22-24 (which continues in verses 35-43) a distraught parent of an only child comes to Jesus,pleading for help.

In both stories someone tries to discourage the parent from bothering Elisha and Jesus.
In both stories it is unclear to some people in the story whether the child is dead ,dying or asleep.
In both stories the child is in a house some distance away.
In both stories a second source comes from the house and confirms that the child is dead.
In both stories Jesus and Elisha continue anyway to the house.
In both stories the parent precedes Elisha or Jesus
In both stories Elisha and Jesus seek a high degree of privacy by turning people out of the house before their miracle .
The story in Mark is such an obvious rewrite of the story in Kings that if I remind you that Jairus in Mark 5 falls at Jesus's feet, you can guess what the parent in 2 Kings 4 did.

The name Jairus has 2 meanings. 1 is 'he enlightens'. The other is 'he awakens'. Is not 'he awakens' a remarkably apt name for someone in a resurrection story, where Jesus says that the child is not dead but sleeping?

As confirmation that Mark used 2 Kings 4 for his stories of the feeding of a crowd, and the raising of a dead child, Mark 5:42 says that after the miracle, the parents were 'amazed with great amazement' (exestesan ekstasei megale), while 2 Kings 4:13 we have 'amazed with all amazement' (exestesas... pasan ten ekstasin tauten) - a very similar phrase.

Deut said:
Two points: (1) the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence,

Refine this to "absence of evidence is not necessarily proof of absence" and we'll be in agreement.

Deut said:
(2) not all biases are created equal.

I think I see what you're saying here...but correct me if I'm wrong: the assumption that the Bible is not inerrant and some of it may not be accurate is a bias, but it is not as strong a bias as one in which everything in the Bible is assumed to be historically accurate word for word. That makes sense.

Perhaps you were driven by your bias to jump to an unwarranted conclusion.

Maybe it was my bias that I can understand what your bombastic strings of words mean half the time.

Pah · Sep 30, 2004

true blood said:
... If the bible contains God inspired words, then indeed one must actually follow the instructions given in it to understand and rightly divide the word of truth, because God made it that way. If you do not follow the directions on how to read this magical tome there is no way at all possible (if indeed it is magical) you will comprehend it because it would contain God inspired words of wisdom and understanding unsearchable yet unatainable to those who fail to read it the way he instructed it to be read. Therefore it does not matter how academic or if you have some type of degree in theology or anything of the sort IF one does not follow the instructions to rightly divide the word of truth. It is impossible.

What you have presented is a circular argument with a shacky premise.

The indication error (even at the scribal or translation level) gives is that, in fact, the Bible is not the word of God but a work of man. Would God be makingi all those errors? Would God allow the
errors to stand? Why would God appear to have adopted a laissez faire (wrire it and forget it) in relation to his word?

There are no original autographs and even had some been preserved they would not point to , in any totally convincing way, a verifiable fact that God wrote them. What is left is a hodge-podge of versions at odds with each other.

-pah-

linwood · Sep 30, 2004

.. If the bible contains God inspired words, then indeed one must actually follow the instructions given in it to understand and rightly divide the word of truth, because God made it that way. If you do not follow the directions on how to read this magical tome there is no way at all possible (if indeed it is magical) you will comprehend it because it would contain God inspired words of wisdom and understanding unsearchable yet unatainable to those who fail to read it the way he instructed it to be read. Therefore it does not matter how academic or if you have some type of degree in theology or anything of the sort IF one does not follow the instructions to rightly divide the word of truth. It is impossible.

My BS meter is blinking like mad.

It`s a book...It has words....sentences...in a language I can understand.

If it makes no sense to the reader then it was written poorly.

Still no one to harmonize my Judas problem?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=31034#post31034

true blood · Oct 1, 2004

I find no contradictions in the inerrant word of God. Yes, there are some appearing to contradict, but working it out and studying the scriptures exactly how the scriptures explain they must be studied to reach the rightly-dividing of the word of truth, I have reached the understanding and wisdom that is freely given. You skeptics and your arguements have been going on for centuries. Always out to find the "magic bullet" that will convince everyone that the Bible contains at least one error. Laughable. None have succeeded. Proof is impossible. It's a new century, now begins another 100 years of trying.

Lin- What good would it do for you if I "harmonized" a "contridiction" for you? Will you be at rest? The Scripture teaches that YOU, yourself, must be the workman, a workman not ashamed...rightly dividing the word of truth. What benefit is it too you or anyone else if someone else gives their own meaning of a passage? Sure, the bible is a book, with words and yes you can read and speak them aloud...but...if their truely is a God and this "book" contains the "words of life" then it is more then possible that in order to grasp them and eat them up, a reader absolutely must read and study it the way God instructs it to be. Any other way and it would appear to be "rubbish" and full of myths and contridictions...appearing like any other book.

Mr Spinkles · Oct 1, 2004

In 2001, according to http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_poll4.htm , 41% of Americans thought the Bible was totally accurate, down from 58% in 1997. In the Middle Ages, I think that figure in most Western countries was somewhere around, oh, I dunno, 100% (the rest of them were either killed or kept their mouths shut).

Even lots of Christians do not think the Bible is inerrant, and most of them probably believe the Bible contains more than one "magic bullet" error. Still, for those Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. who dogmatically hold on to the a priori premise that their particular religious (collection of) book(s) is inerrant, the idea that even one contradiction exists that cannot be explained away as "well, the translator must not have gotten it right" is laughable.

linwood · Oct 1, 2004

There is more than one "magic bullet" to show the Bibles errancy.

"Faith" in it`s divine inspiration has been steadily declining for decades since I`ve been paying attention.

Apparently my Judas puzzle is one of those "magic Bullets"

No one seems to be able to harmonize it

In another thread here there are people working Biblical gymnastics in a manner that would make Paul Hamm collapse from the strain.
It`s funny.

Solve the Judas puzzle.

Mister Emu · Oct 1, 2004

Solve the Judas puzzle.

Would you accept it, or would you call it "Bible Gymnastics".

Well, I believe I already know the responses I will get from ths but here we go

Luke is writing Acts. He was not only a doctor, but an excellent researcher. The records of transactions in the Temple would list the field as one "Judas bought" because the priests would have refused the blood money and therefore considered the money still to be Judas'. Nevertheless, something had to be done with it.

It was this field where Judas went to hang himself. And that is what he did. However, it was Passover -- a double Sabbath. That means the body hung there in the sun for at least a couple of days. When we read in Acts that he fell headlong, causing his insides to burst out -- who on earth would understand this happening in the fall of a living being? NO ONE, who falls from any height, has the result of his intestines BURSTING out. That happens when the body is swollen with decomposition and then falls.

If one pays attention to the implications of what the Scriptures are saying then it is quite clear that Judas had been dead for a couple of days, probably in the sun, when he was either cut down (no one would have done that on the Sabbath) or the rope or tree branch gave way, causing the fall which burst open his rotting belly.

Luke had the records. Matthew had the eyewitness. Put together it becomes reasonably clear about what happened to Judas.

Posted by "tuppence" at http://www.freejesus.net/home/viewtopic.php?t=4004&start=0

Linus · Oct 1, 2004

I have also heard that when Judas was said to have "fell headlong" and when his intestines burst out it was a metaphor symbolizing Judas' fall from grace and betrayal of Christ. Not saying it's true or definite, but I think it could be an explanation. What do you think about that?

linwood · Oct 2, 2004

Would you accept it, or would you call it "Bible Gymnastics".

Thats a bit unfair Mr.Emu since it is at least 2 of your harmonizations I`ve accepted in the past

The records of transactions in the Temple would list the field as one "Judas bought" because the priests would have refused the blood money and therefore considered the money still to be Judas'. Nevertheless, something had to be done with it.

Thats quite good, actually the best solution I`ve heard.
I`ll accept that....highly possible.

That means the body hung there in the sun for at least a couple of days. When we read in Acts that he fell headlong, causing his insides to burst out -- who on earth would understand this happening in the fall of a living being? NO ONE, who falls from any height, has the result of his intestines BURSTING out. That happens when the body is swollen with decomposition and then falls.

Thats gymnastics.

I can`t accept that the author of acts didn`t think it worth mentioning Judas hanging himself.
I`ll read the passages yet again but from memory it seems to me that falling down and bursting was the implied cause of death.

If one pays attention to the implications of what the Scriptures are saying then it is quite clear that Judas had been dead for a couple of days,

Please point these implications out to me.

Biblical Contradictions

Uber all member

Emu Extraordinaire

Uber all member

World's Tallest Hobbit

-- untitled --

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Uber all member

-- untitled --

Active Member

Active Member

Mr

Uber all member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Mr

Well-Known Member

Emu Extraordinaire

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member