Bible Fails

[PruePhillip]

I do not agree.

What? Are you saying you live a lie?
If these things did not happen then you have no hope in this life.

 

[PruePhillip]

The anachronisms make it tough.. You do know that Timna was 300 kilometers south of Jerusalem???

"Copper was the oil of the time and to control this region would have been a major asset."

The sheer scale of copper production at Timna and Faynan would have required the support of a major polity, scholars studying the Aravah agree.

For one thing, the mines needed external assistance. Separating copper from ore required maintaining charcoal fires at about 1,200°C for eight to 10 hours (using blowpipes and foot bellows). No food was available in the barren reaches of the desert where the mines were: there had to be a procurement and import system, also for wood to make the charcoal. Supplies would have traveled as much as hundreds of kilometers.

Seeds found at Timna: Crops couldn't have been grown in the barren desert, food had to be imported. Erez Ben-Yosef / TV Project
Water was a bit closer, but: "There is no water near the mines. It had to been brought in from the Yotvata oasis 15 kilometers away," Ben-Yosef says.

continued

Did David and Solomon's United Monarchy exist? Vast ancient mining operation may hold answers

Yes, it's all intereting stuff. I called this "skeptics in the gaps" as bit by bit many of the events
of the Old Testament are coming to light.
Here the real issue isn't Edom, it's the fact that a nation of this scale could exist with little
archaeological evidence. They have a new name for this - archaeological transparency.
And it speaks to the fact that Israel was the same.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What? Are you saying you live a lie?
If these things did not happen then you have no hope in this life.

You may not. I have lots of hope.

There is no evidence for a global flood and much evidence that says it is impossible. It would be living a lie to just wave that away, but accepting it changes nothing about believing in God and accepting Christ. Many people that never read the Bible at all have found God. Apparently, finding God is what is important, but you go on adding unnecessary standards as you choose.

 

[PruePhillip]

You may not. I have lots of hope.

There is no evidence for a global flood and much evidence that says it is impossible. It would be living a lie to just wave that away, but accepting it changes nothing about believing in God and accepting Christ. Many people that never read the Bible at all have found God. Apparently, finding God is what is important, but you go on adding unnecessary standards as you choose.

So how can Jesus be Christ? What scientific evidence is there for that?
If you don't believe the flood (I suspect it was local BTW) then do you
believe that Jesus rose from the grave? And if so, do you think YOU
will rise also? It's all thoroughly unscientific.
Jesus himself spoke of the flood and Noah. If he actually said this was
he not a lair also?
If the Gospels say that Jesus was resurrected when he did not then
the authors are liars. It's really that simple. They meant their account
to be taken literally.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So how can Jesus be Christ? What scientific evidence is there for that?
If you don't believe the flood (I suspect it was local BTW) then do you
believe that Jesus rose from the grave? And if so, do you think YOU
will rise also? It's all thoroughly unscientific.
Jesus himself spoke of the flood and Noah. If he actually said this was
he not a lair also?
If the Gospels say that Jesus was resurrected when he did not then
the authors are liars. It's really that simple. They meant their account
to be taken literally.

I said global. That does not rule out local.

I have not said that all of it did not happen. My, you are very defensive and reactionary.

You made a specific claim about the entire work and I responded in that context with a famous example. It does not have to be either or. You demand it be so, but that is itself a belief expressed as a fact and not a fact.

You will have to find your own answers for your questions, but in finding those answers that are yours, you cannot demand they be the answers of others or they are not true Christians. That position has asumptions, some of which you cannot demonstrate and others that are impossible.

If Christianity is based on faith, what is the need to force every word of the Bible to immutability? Is that fear? Would finding one story to be untrue shatter your faith? It is between you and God to know the strength of that faith. I cannot know it truly. I can only ask questions and wonder for myself.

 

[Galateasdream]

While it seems not really significant to me personally, this kind of question seems of interest to commentary writers, so here's a commentary one could look at for verse 9 if it's important to them:
Matthew 27 Pulpit Commentary
I thought #6 reasonable in the list under verse 9 there.
Reminded me of what Paul did in Romans ch 3 starting at verse 10.

The only import is to demonstrate clearly that the bible has errors in it. Theologically, that's kinda huge (at least if we are starting from an inerrentist position), which is why many commentators spend a lot of time trying to find solutions rather than admitting the error.

In the commentary you linked, you'll notice 2 of the 6 proposed solutions are simply accepting the error, and 1 is rejected by the commentary itself as implausible (again highlighting that there is no consensus even amongst those who would 'solve' the problem). The proposed solution of prominence prophet has been dealt with alread in my posts, as has the idea of Zechariah really speaking the prophecy. The only proposed solution offered here is the Targum theory, which is not very plausible given chapter 2 - the link to Grisly's paper I provided has more commentary on this solution.

In short, the most plausible reason for this apparent error is that it is, in fact, an error. Therefore, the bible cannot be inerrent as conservative bibliology states.

 

[sooda]

In Jeremiah's day, about 600 years after Shiloh, God told him to go see Shiloh
and see what became of the chosen people when they disobeyed. The town
was a ruin, destroyed by the Philistines as recorded in 1 Samuel.
But unknown to Jeremiah, underneath the rubble could be found the alter,
the "horns of the alter" and evidence of the Leviticus sacrifices.
No scribe in Babylonian or Greek times excavated Shiloh and wrote 1 Samuel
on the findings - we would have found the excavations.
So sure, this proves the Shiloh story was not made up a 1,000 years later.

Did the Philistines Destroy the Israelite Sanctuary at Shiloh?
cojs.org/did-the-philistines-destroy-the-israelite-sanctuary-at-shiloh
Aug 03, 2016 · On the other hand, the Bible contains several references to Shiloh as a place where people lived after the time when it was supposedly destroyed by the Philistines. For example, in 1 Kings, Shiloh is referred to as the home of the prophet Ahijah (1 Kings 11:29; 14:2; see alsoJeremiah 41:5).

 

[PruePhillip]

One problem is defining

Did the Philistines Destroy the Israelite Sanctuary at Shiloh?
cojs.org/did-the-philistines-destroy-the-israelite-sanctuary-at-shiloh
Aug 03, 2016 · On the other hand, the Bible contains several references to Shiloh as a place where people lived after the time when it was supposedly destroyed by the Philistines. For example, in 1 Kings, Shiloh is referred to as the home of the prophet Ahijah (1 Kings 11:29; 14:2; see alsoJeremiah 41:5).

You will find something interesting in the story of Shiloh
1 Samuel says the Philistines defeated Israel and took
the Ark of the Covenant - which wasn't at Shiloh.
But in Elijah God says He destroyed Shiloh.
You have to connect the dots.
It doesn't effect the statement - Shiloh has distinct
elements of the law of Moses, long before there was
even a King in Israel, let alone a Babylonian exile
group, making up Lord of the Rings style biblical yarns.

 

[PruePhillip]

The only import is to demonstrate clearly that the bible has errors in it. Theologically, that's kinda huge (at least if we are starting from an inerrentist position), which is why many commentators spend a lot of time trying to find solutions rather than admitting the error.

In the commentary you linked, you'll notice 2 of the 6 proposed solutions are simply accepting the error, and 1 is rejected by the commentary itself as implausible (again highlighting that there is no consensus even amongst those who would 'solve' the problem). The proposed solution of prominence prophet has been dealt with alread in my posts, as has the idea of Zechariah really speaking the prophecy. The only proposed solution offered here is the Targum theory, which is not very plausible given chapter 2 - the link to Grisly's paper I provided has more commentary on this solution.

In short, the most plausible reason for this apparent error is that it is, in fact, an error. Therefore, the bible cannot be inerrent as conservative bibliology states.

Certainly the religious leaders thought there was no error when they declared to the people
"Search and look, for out of Galilee arises no prophet."
And they had the bible to thank for that. I am sure many bible reading Jews would have
taken it upon themselves to check that statement, and found it true.
But they were judging the statement, not Jesus.
The scripture is inerrant, they said, therefore Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he
is from Bethlehem but Galilee, not only a different place but a different tribe as well.
And Jesus did not explain that he was born in Bethlehem and his parents are of the
tribe of Judah.

Elsewhere Jesus prayed, "I thank thee, God of heaven and earth, that you have hid
these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto children..."
And it also says somewhere, "God sends strong delusion..."

So "inerrant" ??? I am not sure what definition you are looking for. The bible is FULL
of apparently contradictory or absurd things. But it might be there for a reason.

 

[Galateasdream]

So "inerrant" ??? I am not sure what definition you are looking for. The bible is FULL
of apparently contradictory or absurd things. But it might be there for a reason.

I agree.

 

[sojourner]

Your efforts and info are appreciated, but you may find you would get more rational, open responses talking to walls.

The level of opposition to reason seems a little overwrought.

 

[sojourner]

So I presume Xy means Christianity?
I see it like this - when you read some account in the Gospels
you need to ask, "Did this happen?" It's a straight yes or no.
You can nibble at the edges of the question due to translations
and such, but it either happened or it didn't.
And if it didn't then the document is a lie. And I don't want to
live a lie.

It's not a "lie." It can only be a lie if it's history. It's not history though, it's a mythic story. Scholars have been trying to separate the historic Jesus from the mythic Jesus for a long time.

 

[sojourner]

I suspect that people give post AD70 dates to "explain away" how Jesus
could have known the temple would fall. Thus if a Gospel X has Jesus
warning about the imminent destruction of the temple then people will
say this is a firm indicator that X was written AFTER the temple actually
fell.
It's a shallow, essentially circular argument. It doesn't allow for the
possibility that fact can be stranger than fiction, and not everything is
as it appears in "reality." Furthermore, Jesus said the Jews would
return to Jerusalem and this is happening now - kind of like a 20th
and 21st Century Exodus. And Daniel also said that Rome would
destroy the temple, Jerusalem and the Messiah - and no "scholar"
would dare stretch the truth to saying Daniel was written after AD70.

I don't see how it's circular reasoning to say that a story depicting a historic event was written after that event.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's not a "lie." It can only be a lie if it's history. It's not history though, it's a mythic story. Scholars have been trying to separate the historic Jesus from the mythic Jesus for a long time.

Translation and transcription errors would not be lies either.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Would be a sad thing to wake up one day IMO only to find out too late that the bible was right all this time and humans were wrong.

Also sad would be for you to wake up after death only to find gods you hadn't anticipated with standards you have violated. Whatever our origins, we have been gifted with a sense of reason and, if we allow it to mature, a conscience. It's pretty hard for me to envision any great mind or minds that preferred that you stunt those twin gifts and submit to cries from the past on faith, receiving your "truths".uncritically.

I know how much you like to be able to preach your religion uncontested, and that you consider rebuttals impolite attacks on your religion, but this is an open forum intended to be used in just that way. If you feel free to express your opinions but resent others doing the same, even calling it trolling, then you will find message boarding about these topics not to your liking.

Then again this will be the reality of many because they put their faith in men and not in God.

You put your faith in men - the ones who wrote your book and those who read it to you on Sundays.

I don't. I trust myself. I'm going to rely on my natural gifts. They have served me well to date.

Maybe I'll see you on the other side. If so, I'll be sure to put a good word in for you. "He foolishly sacrificed his right to reason and obey his conscience and allowed others to do that for him, to substitute their reasoning and moral judgments for his own. He was lied to, believed the lie, and once his ability to evaluate evidence was lost, so was he. There was no way back once doubt and cognitive dissonance were sufficiently and irreversibly suppressed."

I believe that you will remember me as one of the only persons that loved you enough to be honest with you and to tell you the truth.

You have no truths, just guesses. For you, truth is whatever you choose it to be, like your religious beliefs.

But for me,it's not truth unless it can be demonstrated to be so. You can't do that with any of your beliefs. They must be believed by faith because they cannot be supported by evidence. Christians frequently tell us that God wants us to have faith. Sorry, but that's bad advice. If something can only be believed by faith, don't believe it.

the fool says in his heart there is no God

You left out the rest of the description of this unbeliever:

"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile, there is none that does good."

See there. We're not just fools, we're also corrupt, vile, and not one of us does good.

I see it otherwise. It's the fool who buys into such hate speech - pure bigotry. You probably don't see it like that, but just substitute black man or Jew for unbeliever, and maybe you can see how ugly that comment is, and why a person would want nothing to do with a world view that teaches hate while calling it love.

It's also the fool that believes that believes in gods without evidence.

As it is written; For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God

Foolishness is believing something because it was written.

has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

Allow me to show you some of the fruits of this particular claim. First, more intelligence bashing:

• "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn." - St. Augustine

• "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." - Martin Luther

• "Since God has spoken to us it is no longer necessary for us to think." - St Augustine

• "The smallest of minds are the easiest to fill with faith" - Pope Leo X

And this is the result. This should be disheartening to all of us:

• "You know, what makes women stupid is college. Because college makes everybody stupid. Because fools say in their heart that there is no God. And it's an atheistic fool system - it's not a school system, it's a fool system - that teaches Humanism and atheism and Agnosticism and godlessness and blasphemy against the Lord Jesus Christ." www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/02/16/christian-hate-pastor-steven-anderson-the-bible-makes-you-smart-college-makes-you-dumb/

• "God almighty hates book lerners (sic)" http://i.imgur.com/zjV1rgy.png

• The Jehovah’s Witnesses Told Them Not to Get a College Degree; Now, They’re Struggling The Jehovah’s Witnesses Told Them Not to Get a College Degree; Now, They’re Struggling

• "While the public school system continues to degenerate into a drug-stupid, sex-oriented, illiterate morass of misfit, Marxist clones, the homeschool movement is producing intelligent, clear-thinking, confident citizens ready to stand in the middle of cascading corruption and declare their allegiance to God and family." Jumping Ship (Part 1) - No Greater Joy Ministries

This is the legacy of biblical teaching on wisdom. Not very wise.

Jesus himself spoke of the flood and Noah. If he actually said this was
he not a lair also?

 

[Muffled]

I believe there isn't any.

 

[Muffled]

In Galatians 6:2, Paul commands us to carry each other's burdens, then in 6:5 says each person should carry his own load ...

I believe there is no failure in that. It works for me.

 

[Muffled]

According to some Christians reading and following the Bible will make people more moral. Observations don't bear that out. Therefore
The Bible fails at being a source for morality.

I believe that is a non sequitur. Morality is still found in the Bible whether people reading it become more moral or not.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I certainly don't think [being meek] is a curse. I was taught meek means to obey God. Perhaps meek means possessing power such as nuclear weapons. You don't want to use it at all, but others know you have it so they won't cause war. It's a peace keeping weapon so we do not have WW III. Meek fits in this regards if Jesus was referring to peacekeepers. If we can build the matter-anti-matter weapon, then I think we should. Be meek. Walk softly and carry a big stick. I don't follow the 700 Club, but they have something like it -- Jesus Was Meek, Not Weak. This meaning sort of fits because it seems Jesus is going to kick Satan's arse at the end of the world aka second coming of Jesus. I just started to read about the end as the Bible says the believers should be ready. Now, I don't know exactly what it means to be ready.

We don't have to guess what meek means. We can consult a dictionary:

• Meek - "quiet, gentle, and easily imposed on; submissive."

And the entire comment was, "Being meek is a curse, not a blessing. Yes, I know that people want to change that to humble, but that's just good manners that will benefit one in life, like showing gratitude, speaking politely, and being clean, and no more worthy of being lauded in a morality speech like the Sermon on the Mount than any of those other things."

And there you went changing the meaning of meek to obeying God, possessing power, and walk softly with a big stick.

Meekness is a poverty of spirit - a failure to stand up for oneself or others when appropriate. If you saw Office Space, you're probably familiar with the character Milton, who was always letting others push him around. If not, take a peak. Being like that is not a blessing, but a curse:

And that is the way one is exhorted to be. Be meek.Be longsuffering. Love your enemy. If he smites you, offer him the other cheek. Submit to kings, husbands and slavers.

These are not words of advice from somebody that is concerned about your well-being, but words intended to convince you to stand down in the face of exploitation. You should be a peacekeeper and just take it. Your reward will come after death if you just accept your lot without resistance or objection now. That's what kings and emperors want out of religion. Here are some people who agree:

• "How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." - Napoleon Bonaparte

• "If you want to control a population and keep them passive ... give them a god to worship" ~ Noam Chomsky

• "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." -Seneca the Younger

Here's some more excellent, free advice that contradicts another biblical failure: Don't love enemies. They mean you harm. Get them out of your life. Accumulate friends, discard enemies.

I also discussed turning the other cheek in that same post. It means what it says, not what you might change it to, and now you know why. When your master or king smites your cheek, your proper response is to offer the other cheek without complaint or resistance. That's what people who don't care about you advise. My advice would be different. Imagine teaching your children to stand there and take a second blow willingly. Toward what purpose?

But that is exactly what you want from somebody you like to smite without repercussion, and consistent with the central message of Christianity, which is to submit and obey or else. You might say that the central message is one of love, but ultimately, the whole message is that you must obey or suffer

Still not convinced? Look at how much effort is made to denigrate those unwilling to submit. Apart from being fit to cast into a lake of fire, according to scripture, unbelievers are lying, corrupt, vile, wicked, abominable, decadent, debauched, godless vessels of darkness in the service of evil, not one of whom does any good, fit to be shunned and to be burned alive forever as enemies of a good god, and the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers. Don't believe me? Here's where:

[1] "The fool says in his heart,'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1

[2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." - Revelation 21:8

[3]"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- 2 Corinthians 6:14

[4] Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ." - 1 John 2:22

[5] "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Luke 11:23

[6] “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” - 1 Timothy 5:8

[7] "They are puzzled that you do not continue running with them in the same decadent course of debauchery, so they speak abusively of you" – 1 Peter 4:4

Then we hear from believers that we are rebellious, immoral, attempting to live inappropriate lives, attempting to avoid accountability, or playing God. All of this is pressure intended to get everybody into compliance submitting to this ideology.

It's completely 100% true, complete, infallible, and inerrant . I can't help it if all of the atheists here are wrong; they're 100% ignorant. This thread like a rally for the atheist religion. They believe what they want as long as it fits their criticisms.

Do you object to atheists believing what they like rather than what others want them to believe? Several posters have suggested that theists are jealous that we get to live our lives unfettered by all of these religious rules, living under no threat of hell, for example.

I don't know about that, but I do now that many if not most theists dislike us for some reason. I suspect that's mostly due to the scriptures I just listed hatefully defining unbelievers at abominable and fit to be hated. And what defense would any believer offer for describing people who are basically hard-working, law-abiding, decent people trying to support their families and communities in such hateful language.

Another Bible fail.

My tradition, secular humanism simply doesn't include anything like that. It does not call believers ugly names or teach that despising them is appropriate.

 

[sooda]

I certainly don't think it is a curse. I was taught meek means to obey God. Perhaps meek means possessing power such as nuclear weapons. You don't want to use it at all, but others know you have it so they won't cause war. It's a peace keeping weapon so we do not have WW III. Meek fits in this regards if Jesus was referring to peacekeepers. If we can build the matter-anti-matter weapon, then I think we should. Be meek. Walk softly and carry a big stick.

I don't follow the 700 Club, but they have something like it -- Jesus Was Meek, Not Weak.

This meaning sort of fits because it seems Jesus is going to kick Satan's arse at the end of the world aka second coming of Jesus. I just started to read about the end as the Bible says the believers should be ready. Now, I don't know exactly what it means to be ready.

"Meek" is a choice that requires courage.