1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Biblical Contradictions

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by Mister Emu, Sep 23, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    well, "Duh"!!! Me too, I'm sorry to say.

    -pah-
     
  2. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,476
    Ratings:
    +1,280
    Religion:
    Christian
    I was refering to Mr. Spinkles, whose comments I took as him believing he was not biased.
     
  3. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    And I'm agreeing with you!

    -pah-
     
  4. Feathers in Hair

    Feathers in Hair World's Tallest Hobbit

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    14,605
    Ratings:
    +1,796
    *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? :D

    Cheers to all of us who admit we are biased! :jam:
     
  5. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,899
    Ratings:
    +10,259
    Religion:
    Judaism
    This is nothing but argumentum ad hominem. Furthermore, can you show me evidence of gMark fabricating stories and/or borrow things from other legends?

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

    Perhaps you were driven by your bias to jump to an unwarranted conclusion. ;)
     
  6. true blood

    true blood Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Ratings:
    +36
    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.
     
  7. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    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
     
  8. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    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-
     
  9. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,899
    Ratings:
    +10,259
    Religion:
    Judaism
    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?
     
  10. true blood

    true blood Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Ratings:
    +36
    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.
     
  11. true blood

    true blood Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Ratings:
    +36

    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?
     
  12. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,985
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    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?

    Here is some evidence that suggests Mark fabricated and/or borrowed things from previous legends, from: http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm
    Refine this to "absence of evidence is not necessarily proof of absence" and we'll be in agreement.
    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.

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

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059

    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-
     
  14. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    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
     
  15. true blood

    true blood Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Ratings:
    +36
    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.
     
  16. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,985
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    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.
     
  17. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    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.
     
  18. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,476
    Ratings:
    +1,280
    Religion:
    Christian
    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 :)

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

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    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?
     
  20. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    Thats a bit unfair Mr.Emu since it is at least 2 of your harmonizations I`ve accepted in the past

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

    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.

    Please point these implications out to me.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...