Contradictions in the Bible

rrobs · Sep 21, 2019

sojourner said:
Candler is a great seminary. I can’t figure out, though why you think they have little regard for the texts? That’s what they teach, for Pete’s sake! They are correct, though, that the texts have no authority but that which we ascribe to them.

I think they’re full of wisdom and truth, but they’re not infallible and they do present contradictions. While they’re not God’s words, I believe them to be inspired.

Yes they teach them, but they have no faith in them. As such they are, inn fact, useless.

Heb 4:2,

For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it].

Your position is a little too much like “God said it; I believe it; that settles it.”

Yes, if God says it, that does settle it for me. I've already quoted two verses that say the scriptures are in fact God's communication to man.

The reason that’s a dangerous position is because — as you surely know — everything in the Bible is up for interpretation. The texts don’t generally just “say what they say” — that’s not their nature. So to tout one’s particular (perhaps uninformed) interpretation as “God’s words” is disingenuous.

Are the scriptures really open for interpretation?

2Pet 1:20,

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

This whole argument about interpretation could be laid to rest if people simply understood that the Bible requires no more interpretation than the daily newspaper. While there are admittedly some verses that are problematic, by and large the vast majority do simply say what they mean and mean what they say. How are you going to take John 3:16 in any other way than God gave His son to us so that we need not perish, that we could have everlasting life? About 99% of the scriptures are just like that. The only question is whether or not an individual believes the simple assertions.

Subduction Zone · Sep 21, 2019

rrobs said:
Granted, you've found no evidence. I, and many others, have. You might find it later.

No, I know from experience that you have not. If you could you would have posted it. In fact you probably do not understand the concept of evidence. If you are a creationist that is almost a given.

Subduction Zone · Sep 21, 2019

rrobs said:
Yes, if God says it, that does settle it for me. I've already quoted two verses that say the scriptures are in fact God's communication to man.

I am sorry but the Bible does not say that. At best it only says that some "scripture" is God's communication to man. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the word of God. The Bible does not even define "scripture" nor can the phrase refer to the entire Bible if one understands the various verses in context.

sooda · Sep 21, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
No, I know from experience that you have not. If you could you would have posted it. In fact you probably do not understand the concept of evidence. If you are a creationist that is almost a given.

Scripture has been redacted, amended, combined many times.. Its a mistake to forget that it was also shaped by the politics of the time.

sojourner · Sep 21, 2019

rrobs said:
Perhaps I misunderstood your stance on the scriptures. Of what value are they to you? What do they add to the quality of this life and hope for the future?

The texts are the collected, written, and codified Tradition of God’s people. They were written by (largely) anonymous, human authors. I believe these authors were inspired by God, but did not take word for word dictation. I revere them as vessels of spiritual truth. I revere them as having been set apart to transmit that truth through the community of the faithful. They have been touched by God, because we have been touched by God. The quality they add is the preserved tradition and spiritual truth they contain. They add the hope that this life is sacred in all times and places, being, as it is, held within the infinite love of the Divine.

rrobs · Sep 21, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
I am sorry but the Bible does not say that. At best it only says that some "scripture" is God's communication to man. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the word of God. The Bible does not even define "scripture" nor can the phrase refer to the entire Bible if one understands the various verses in context.

What do those verses say then? Why do you change the first word, "all," in 2 Tim 3:16 to "some?"

Subduction Zone · Sep 21, 2019

rrobs said:
What do those verses say then? Why do you change the first word, "all," in 2 Tim 3:16 to "some?"

This illustrates my point. 2 Timothy perhaps should not even be in the Bible. It was not written by Paul. It is merely a commentary and hardly valid. It does not even define what is meant by "scripture". The New Testament as we know it today did not exist at that time.

rrobs · Sep 21, 2019

sojourner said:
The texts are the collected, written, and codified Tradition of God’s people. They were written by (largely) anonymous, human authors. I believe these authors were inspired by God, but did not take word for word dictation. I revere them as vessels of spiritual truth. I revere them as having been set apart to transmit that truth through the community of the faithful. They have been touched by God, because we have been touched by God. The quality they add is the preserved tradition and spiritual truth they contain. They add the hope that this life is sacred in all times and places, being, as it is, held within the infinite love of the Divine.

Well, I think we are more on the same page as not. I would summarize the Bible as follows; one man screwed up God's original plan and another man straightened things our again. I think the subject of the scriptures from Genesis 3:15 on is Jesus Christ and how he'll accomplish the mission God gave him. Within that incredibly broad framework I think the scriptures are perfectly understandable, coherent, and accurate. It is literature par excellence.

What, if anything, do you see the scriptures say regarding the future? Do you see a new heaven and new earth?

sojourner · Sep 21, 2019

rrobs said:
Yes they teach them, but they have no faith in them. As such they are, inn fact, useless

Faith is a bias that is purposely not part of the exegetical process. It obfuscates the work.

rrobs said:
Yes, if God says it, that does settle it for me

How do you know God said it? What’s the evidence?

rrobs said:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

First, not all of the Bible is prophecy. Second, yes, interpretation is best undertaken as a communal effort. That’s why teams of scholars exegete the texts.

rrobs said:
This whole argument about interpretation could be laid to rest if people simply understood that the Bible requires no more interpretation than the daily newspaper.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. For example, what meaning is behind a talking snake in the garden?

rrobs · Sep 21, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
This illustrates my point. 2 Timothy perhaps should not even be in the Bible. It was not written by Paul. It is merely a commentary and hardly valid. It does not even define what is meant by "scripture". The New Testament as we know it today did not exist at that time.

Is there an official list somewhere that contains the verses that should be in the Bible? If you don't like 2 Timothy, why can't I say I don't like Exodus 20:13, "thou shalt not kill." In my society I'd make it perfectly legal to kill anyone who bothers me (tongue-in-cheek of course!

).

sojourner · Sep 21, 2019

rrobs said:
Are the scriptures really open for interpretation?

Absolutely they are! The texts are multivalent. They are ancient, of different cultural product, and written in foreign languages for other intended audiences. The beg for interpretation.

You went to Candler for two years and don’t know this??

Subduction Zone · Sep 21, 2019

rrobs said:
Is there an official list somewhere that contains the verses that should be in the Bible? If you don't like 2 Timothy, why can't I say I don't like Exodus 20:13, "thou shalt not kill." In my society I'd make it perfectly legal to kill anyone who bothers me (tongue-in-cheek of course! ).

There isn't. But you misunderstand 2 Timothy. It was talking about an undefined "scripture" it was not talking about the Bible since it did not exist at that time. As I said, you do not understand the verses that you cite.

sojourner · Sep 21, 2019

rrobs said:
Well, I think we are more on the same page as not. I would summarize the Bible as follows; one man screwed up God's original plan and another man straightened things our again. I think the subject of the scriptures from Genesis 3:15 on is Jesus Christ and how he'll accomplish the mission God gave him. Within that incredibly broad framework I think the scriptures are perfectly understandable, coherent, and accurate. It is literature par excellence.

What, if anything, do you see the scriptures say regarding the future? Do you see a new heaven and new earth?

I don’t play the dispensation game. We co-create our own bright future as we live into a life within the Divine.

sojourner · Sep 21, 2019

rrobs said:
Is there an official list somewhere that contains the verses that should be in the Bible? If you don't like 2 Timothy, why can't I say I don't like Exodus 20:13, "thou shalt not kill." In my society I'd make it perfectly legal to kill anyone who bothers me (tongue-in-cheek of course! ).

“Should” is too strong. The canon was intended as nothing more than a “suggested reading” list of stuff that’s ok to read in church. It neither serves as a limiting criterion for other texts, nor does it “stand closed” of its own volition. The canon is a baseline tool — or at least that’s what it was designed to be.

sojourner · Sep 21, 2019

rrobs said:
Well, I think we are more on the same page as not. I would summarize the Bible as follows; one man screwed up God's original plan and another man straightened things our again. I think the subject of the scriptures from Genesis 3:15 on is Jesus Christ and how he'll accomplish the mission God gave him. Within that incredibly broad framework I think the scriptures are perfectly understandable, coherent, and accurate. It is literature par excellence.

What, if anything, do you see the scriptures say regarding the future? Do you see a new heaven and new earth?

You know, there is some merit in a simplistic approach. It can keep us from overanalyzing and obsessing over minutiae. However, the danger is that our approach, then, may become myopic and superficial, and we miss opportunities to gain a deeper understanding. We also run the risk of misinterpretation in our haste to be simple. For example, if we take the time to exegete the texts, we’ll probably come up with something vastly different from what you state here.

rrobs · Sep 21, 2019

sojourner said:
Faith is a bias that is purposely not part of the exegetical process. It obfuscates the work

Well, it seems you have complete faith in that observation, making it highly obfuscatory.

People misunderstand faith as meaning believing something without understanding. The term blind faith is closer to what most people think of faith.

I would have faith that my best friend, whom I've known all my life to be reliable and honest, would repay me the $100 I loaned him. On the other hand I'd have no faith that the stranger I just met on the street would pay me back. In other words, faith is trusting someone or something you understand and know to be reliable.

How do you know God said it? What’s the evidence?

I suppose none that would satisfy the world of academia.

1Cor 1:25a,

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men;

First, not all of the Bible is prophecy. Second, yes, interpretation is best undertaken as a communal effort. That’s why teams of scholars exegete the texts

There are plenty of scholars that understand the word prophecy to have meant that which is forth told as well as that which is foretold. Just look up G4396 in Strong's Concordance. I'll even do it for you.

G4396 προφήτης prophetes (pro-fee'-tees) n.
1. a prophet, one who speaks for Yahweh or for a false god.
2. (also) one who foretells events.
3. (by analogy) an inspired speaker.
4. (by extension) a poet.

No need for attending the cemetery, er seminary, for that tidbit of knowledge.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. For example, what meaning is behind a talking snake in the garden?

Ever heard the phrase, "that guy is a real snake in the grass?" The "guy" is an actual human being. We just want to point out how sinister he might be. We all use figures of speech in everyday conversation when we want to emphasize something. Can we not afford the same privilege to God?

By the way, thanks for the conversation!

rrobs · Sep 21, 2019

sojourner said:
Absolutely they are! The texts are multivalent. They are ancient, of different cultural product, and written in foreign languages for other intended audiences. The beg for interpretation.

You went to Candler for two years and don’t know this??

Of course they told me that, but, as I showed you before, the scriptures themselves are clear in that I am not to devise my own private interpretation. I simply rejected the Candler doctrine in favor of the scriptures themselves.

Subduction Zone · Sep 21, 2019

rrobs said:
Of course they told me that, but, as I showed you before, the scriptures themselves are clear in that I am not to devise my own private interpretation. I simply rejected the Candler doctrine in favor of the scriptures themselves.

But you do not even know what is "scripture" and what is not.

You claim to have a reliable faith in the Bible. Do you know of any reasonable test for the Bible? Most Christians do not. To be a proper test there has to be a possible way that it can fail if it is wrong. Otherwise all you have is an ad hoc explanation and no evidence for your beliefs. What reasonable test could make your interpretation of the Bible be shown to be wrong?

rrobs · Sep 21, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
There isn't. But you misunderstand 2 Timothy. It was talking about an undefined "scripture" it was not talking about the Bible since it did not exist at that time. As I said, you do not understand the verses that you cite.

Wouldn't 2 Timothy refer to the entire OT? They were certainly extant when God inspired Paul's letter to Timothy.

As far as the NT is concerned, they all make the claim, in some way or another, that they are in fact words from God. For example, In Ephesians 1:1 Paul declares himself to be a delegate of Jesus Christ at God's behest. Is that not enough to establish his credibility as a spokesman for God? In that book he goes on to say that God gave him revelation which he wrote down for anybody else who wanted to know. I mean, that idea is all over the place! You don't have to look very hard to find it.

sojourner · Sep 21, 2019

rrobs said:
People misunderstand faith as meaning believing something without understanding. The term blind faith is closer to what most people think of faith.

I would have faith that my best friend, whom I've known all my life to be reliable and honest, would repay me the $100 I loaned him. On the other hand I'd have no faith that the stranger I just met on the street would pay me back. In other words, faith is trusting someone or something you understand and know to be reliable

I meant “faith” as in “beliefs.” I probably should have used that term instead.

rrobs said:
I suppose none that would satisfy the world of academia

Thanks for your honesty. So, would you say that your belief is just that, and not a knowledge based in fact?

rrobs said:
There are plenty of scholars that understand the word prophecy to have meant that which is forth told as well as that which is foretold

You’re the only other person here whom I’ve known to assert that. Thank you. I haven’t parsed out the text, but it would be interesting to know what the writer meant, specifically, by “prophecy” in this context.

rrobs said:
Ever heard the phrase, "that guy is a real snake in the grass?" The "guy" is an actual human being. We just want to point out how sinister he might be. We all use figures of speech in everyday conversation when we want to emphasize something. Can we not afford the same privilege to God?

Sure we can — with the proviso that we not torture the figure of speech into something concrete, as so many do. The trick in this case is to know what the imagery is.

rrobs said:
By the way, thanks for the conversation!

You’re welcome!

Contradictions in the Bible

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Veteran Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006