Contradictions in the Bible

[Subduction Zone]

Sure I can.

Is God requiring me to do this?

Good-Ole-Rebel

So your morals are as poor as your God's are.

 

[Audie]

I certainly believe my views of some things in Scripture are right. There are other areas where it is somewhat gray and one must give some allowance.

Here on this forum, many of the things discussed are what I would consider dogma. The things that the believer must believe.

There are believers with different views on the flood. I do believe the flood existed and was over the whole earth. I believe the Bible teaches that. Those who disagree do so usually for other reasons then the Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel

You believe the version you choose to believe.

Those Christians who disagree with your "flood"
have no trouble using the bible to show they are
right.

Those who say there was no such flood
generally do so for reasons external to the bible.


See if you can understand this example-
The bible, if read literally, shows that the value of Pi
is 3.0
If there were no other info on Pi, of if nobody
ever worked it out, you could figure yeah, pi is 3.

EXTERNAL SOURCES show that Pi is not 3.

So the bible-believers concoct all manner of ways
of show that the bible is right anyway.

The bible is APPROXIMATELY correct, but not
exact, in the measurements.

Are you ok with the literal Truth of God
being approximate? If not, how do you get out
of this problem?

But back to the flood. All relevant data on planet
earth, from all the hard sciences show that there
never was such a flood, no more than there is
a lost continent of Atlantis, nor the land of Hyperborea.

Educated people know that, so if they are also
Christians, they are faced with some need to
reconcile the approximations such as in Kings,
and the flood, with their belief in god.

Others go with denial; it is easier, if not respectable
or intellectually honest.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

"Literal" you know, literally does not
mean what you claim it does.

You are converting again!

lit·er·al
/ˈlidərəl,ˈlitrəl/

1. 1.
   taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
2. 2.
   (of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text.

No. The interpretation I use is the literal interpretation. This brand was not created by believers, if I remember right. It was used in a mocking manner that we take everything in the Bible literally.

So, when we, Christians study the Bible, there are those who interpret literally and those who lean to more metaphor or allegory method. The better way to describe our literal interpretation would be a normal interpretation. We take everything as is unless a metaphor or symbol is used.

As far as converting, I am existing in the Christian realm. So I use terms we use and define them as we define them.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Audie]

Nothing to indicate Jesus referring to Noah and the flood was a simile.

Good-Ole-Rebel

And that little bit of hearsay is enough to cancel
out the reality of two million year old ice on the south pole.

Any idea why some of us are not impressed with the
depth of Christian thinking?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You believe the version you choose to believe.

Those Christians who disagree with your "flood"
have no trouble using the bible to show they are
right.

Those who say there was no such flood
generally do so for reasons external to the bible.


See if you can understand this example-
The bible, if read literally, shows that the value of Pi
is 3.0
If there were no other info on Pi, of if nobody
ever worked it out, you could figure yeah, pi is 3.

EXTERNAL SOURCES show that Pi is not 3.

So the bible-believers concoct all manner of ways
of show that the bible is right anyway.

The bible is APPROXIMATELY correct, but not
exact, in the measurements.

Are you ok with the literal Truth of God
being approximate? If not, how do you get out
of this problem?

But back to the flood. All relevant data on planet
earth, from all the hard sciences show that there
never was such a flood, no more than there is
a lost continent of Atlantis, nor the land of Hyperborea.

Educated people know that, so if they are also
Christians, they are faced with some need to
reconcile the approximations such as in Kings,
and the flood, with their belief in god.

Others go with denial; it is easier, if not respectable
or intellectually honest.

But I can still believe in a hollow Earth, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. The interpretation I use is the literal interpretation. This brand was not created by believers, if I remember right. It was used in a mocking manner that we take everything in the Bible literally.

So, when we, Christians study the Bible, there are those who interpret literally and those who lean to more metaphor or allegory method. The better way to describe our literal interpretation would be a normal interpretation. We take everything as is unless a metaphor or symbol is used.

As far as converting, I am existing in the Christian realm. So I use terms we use and define them as we define them.

Good-Ole-Rebel

So then the Earth is Flat, right? Since that is the "normal" interpretation.

 

[Audie]

No. The interpretation I use is the literal interpretation. This brand was not created by believers, if I remember right. It was used in a mocking manner that we take everything in the Bible literally.

So, when we, Christians study the Bible, there are those who interpret literally and those who lean to more metaphor or allegory method. The better way to describe our literal interpretation would be a normal interpretation. We take everything as is unless a metaphor or symbol is used.

As far as converting, I am existing in the Christian realm. So I use terms we use and define them as we define them.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Christian realm. Good freaking grief.
Any word means anything you like.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

 

[Subduction Zone]

And that little bit of hearsay is enough to cancel
out the reality of two million year old ice on the south pole.

Any idea why some of us are not impressed with the
depth of Christian thinking?

I would say literalist thinking. Of course they all draw the line at some arbitrary point.

 

[Audie]

But I can still believe in a hollow Earth, right?

This offshore drilling is super risky.

 

[Audie]

I would say literalist thinking. Of course they all draw the line at some arbitrary point.

We have seen they have a really hard time admitting
that they are just going with their chosen interpretation.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

You believe the version you choose to believe.

Those Christians who disagree with your "flood"
have no trouble using the bible to show they are
right.

Those who say there was no such flood
generally do so for reasons external to the bible.


See if you can understand this example-
The bible, if read literally, shows that the value of Pi
is 3.0
If there were no other info on Pi, of if nobody
ever worked it out, you could figure yeah, pi is 3.

EXTERNAL SOURCES show that Pi is not 3.

So the bible-believers concoct all manner of ways
of show that the bible is right anyway.

The bible is APPROXIMATELY correct, but not
exact, in the measurements.

Are you ok with the literal Truth of God
being approximate? If not, how do you get out
of this problem?

But back to the flood. All relevant data on planet
earth, from all the hard sciences show that there
never was such a flood, no more than there is
a lost continent of Atlantis, nor the land of Hyperborea.

Educated people know that, so if they are also
Christians, they are faced with some need to
reconcile the approximations such as in Kings,
and the flood, with their belief in god.

Others go with denial; it is easier, if not respectable
or intellectually honest.

Yes, I choose the version and believe it. As to the other you I don't have time at the moment. And I do not understand your point. If you could, explain it more. As I have already said, I do not use science. to interpret the Bible.

Later

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[savagewind]

But I can still believe in a hollow Earth, right?

Let's go!

 

[Audie]

Yes, I choose the version and believe it. As to the other you I don't have time at the moment. And I do not understand your point. If you could, explain it more. As I have already said, I do not use science. to interpret the Bible.

Later

Good-Ole-Rebel

I doubt there is anyone else here who "cant
understand" what i said.

Math shows literal interpretation of Kings
is insane.
Science shows literal flood interpretation is insane.

But suture self, as the tele-doctor might say.

 

[sojourner]

Then, are you certain they are teaching it correctly, because I can't find anywhere in that Hebrew word, where the word bowl can be injected.

Second paragraph: "e.g., the process of making a dish by hammering thin a lump of metal."

So basically, persons that hold this view, rely on ideas, and interpretations formulated after the 11th century C.E., and into our modern time, telling us what the Hebrews before the 11th century B.C.E. believed.
And what documents do they have to support their view? What documents state what they claim?
None.

No, they rely on anthropological information gleaned about the ancients by experts.

However, why are these assumptions considered the best conclusion, when considering Hebrew expressions with more than one meaning, and why accept how they are interpreted?

Because that's how raqiya is used in other contexts; it has a common meaning and understanding. Additionally, the Genesis accounts were lifted from earlier Babylonian accounts. The Babylonians' cosmology was a disc-shaped earth. It makes anthropological and literary and mythological sense to go with continuity.

So I see, spread out, and expanse, which are not at odds with scripture, and the alternatives (stamp, beat out) do not need to be taken literal, in a text which often uses figurative language.

"Beat" and "stamp" aren't "alternatives.

 

[savagewind]

2 Timothy 4:3-4

This isn't about the people whose consciences have to refuse the idea of the God-inspired Bible (the whole of it). It can't be because it would make no sense. It is about the people who want to believe in it that it is wholly God-inspired.

(I actually trust that some of it is by God, but I believe that it can't all be what God wants us all to live by like some Christians teach.)

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's go!

Think of it dinosaurs, Nazis when one wants a human enemy and Raquel Welch in a fur bikini.

 

[Audie]

Think of it dinosaurs, Nazis when one wants a human enemy and Raquel Welch in a fur bikini.

Twaddle. I heard on coast to coast that it is
Reptoids.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Imagine... 2 million plus their live stock left Goshen and 800 make it to Jerusalem.

It was a really arduous trip and they had to eat a lot of the 1,999,200 livestock.

 

[rrobs]

Now that's amazing. How you come up with such things. As there is no contradictions in the Bible. Only you and others taking things out of it's context.

Back during the year 1611. Those men who translated the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts into English.
Did their best with what limited tools they had at that time.
Those people back in the year of 1611,
did not have all the necessary tools nor the technology as we have to day at their disposal to do a proper job of translation of languages into the English language, As we have to day.
So when you say there are contradictions in the Bible. Just remember those people back in the year 1611. did the best they could with what limited tools they had nor did they have the technology as we do to day.
To translate languages into the English language.

It seems as though you may not have read the whole post. If you did you misunderstood what I was saying. That's OK. Maybe read it again. I think I was pretty clear in saying that any apparent contradiction can be cleared up with a little bit of work. I was clear in my assertion that God's word is the truth and that as such, it can not contradict itself. I simply suggested a few ways that apparent contradictions can be made to vanish. One of them was context, which, when misunderstood can cause a contradiction. Get the context right and the contradiction goes away. What's so bad about that?

As far as the KJV translators go, I have no doubt of their sincerity or scholarship. I thank God for their work in making His word available to the masses. Nonetheless, there are some translations in the KJV that do cause apparent contradictions. After all, they are human, warts and all. Besides, overall they did a much better job than I could have ever done! But I'm not going to hold them above God's word. If they screwed up something, it is imperative that we fix it if possible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Twaddle. I heard on coast to coast that it is
Reptoids.

You're taking Reptoids out of context. When speaking of Reptoids today, does that mean it is the same story of Reptoids that our ancestors were told hundreds or even thousands of years ago? If you warned a crowd of 11th Century peasants about Reptoids, it would not mean the same to them as it does for a crowd of zealots today. The earlier warning does not contradict the later warning and vice versa.

I hope that is as clear as the many other posts on this thread.