why are there errors in the bible and yet people follow it?

[outhouse]

So you claim there was a Ark, and a god wanted to kill everyone?

None of that applies a bit of common sense, knowing there are no flood records from anywhere that indicate what you have posted. The Euphrates flooded, but that was a local river flood that happened to Sumerians

 

[Skwim]

How about you let ME do that instead (instead of you taking my words out of context).

Rather than formulate a subjective opinion about why I think the bible is wrong or right, or why other people who I've never met before may or may not follow it, I'd rather focus on debating the actual issue, which is the content of the bible, and determining whether or not it is actually erroneous. If it is erroneous, then we should point out specific examples of the errors, and determine whether or not these can answered. If they can, then the entire premise of the OP's question is flawed to begin with. If some can and others cannot, then the OP's question may have some validity (with multiple explanations). If none of them can, then OP's question is perfectly valid and your assumptions about other people should perhaps be given more weight than they currently have as it stands.

Highlighted are all of the parts that you left out when you attempted to mis-characterize my position. You're welcome!

Nice, but they have no bearing on---don't change in any way---your stated goal, which is to

"focus on debating the actual issue, which is the content of the bible, and determining whether or not it is actually erroneous."
​

Sorry CB, but you're going to have to swallow this one. Your tap dance is over and no one is applauding.

For the record, I'm well aware of some specific errors to various translations of the bible. So it wouldn't be logical for you to assume that my intent is to prove that the bible has no errors. It certainly does! I'm simply waiting to see of you or the OP can point some out, which might cause a believer to question whether or not they should still be a believer. And so far, you have yet to do that!

Admitting that the Bible has errors is good enough for me, but it certainly doesn't square with your other-self whose goal it is to determine "whether or not it is actually erroneous." Might want to put your two heads together before committing yourself to print.

1 Kings 4:26 says:
“Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen”.

2 Chronicles 9:25 says:
“Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen”.

The two verses do not contradict because they describe different types of stalls. The stalls in 1 Kings 4:26 were "of horses" which were used for chariots and by horsemen. Nothing in this verse says that these stalls were for the chariots. On the other hand, the stalls in 2 Chronicles 9:25 were for "horses AND chariots". Such a stall to house both horses and chariots would not have been as numerous as stalls to house just horses because there is always a smaller ratio of chariots to horses. In fact, 2 Chronicles 1:14 says there were 1,400 chariots. Hence it makes sense that there would be less of these stalls that were capable of storing both horses and chariots.

Errr. . . . . Nobody puts chariots in with their horses. NOBODY. And to suppose that they do is ludicrous. Nope, CB, There's no wiggle room here, not even let's-pretend wiggle room.

4,000 ≠ 40,000
​

Anything else?

As long as you ask, how about addressing the following.

Yes, I opened it intentionally to answer the question (that you so desperately needed an answer to when you didn't get a response) and to stomp on your delusions. Because you once again drew some faulty conclusions about why some religious folks on here didn't reply to you, and I decided to give you a reality check and educate you as to the REAL reasons why nobody replied to it.

Exactly what "question" did I ask? (To help you out I've reprinted my post (#87) below)

Exactly what "delusions" did I exhibit? (To help you out I've reprinted my post (#87) below)

Exactly what faulty conclusions did I come to? (To help you out I've reprinted my post (#87) below)
​

That everyone has ignored my comments in post 49 is quite telling. I read you loud and clear.

 

[captainbryce]

So you claim there was a Ark, and a god wanted to kill everyone?

I make no "claims" about anything. Their are stories presented in the bible that one can either choose to accept as truth (God's word) or not. I choose to accept them as truth. They are not MY claims!

None of that applies a bit of common sense, knowing there are no flood records from anywhere that indicate what you have posted. The Euphrates flooded, but that was a local river flood that happened to Sumerians

Do you realize you just contradicted yourself? You just said that there are no records of a flood (even though there actually are because the bible is in itself a "record"), and then followed that up with a record of a local Sumerian flood!

So which one is it? Was their a flood or wasn't there?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So you claim there was a Ark, and a god wanted to kill everyone?

None of that applies a bit of common sense, knowing there are no flood records from anywhere that indicate what you have posted. The Euphrates flooded, but that was a local river flood that happened to Sumerians

We recently had flood in Canada. Does that count too?


But oh, we forgot to put two of every kind in the Ark.

 

[captainbryce]

Nice, but they have no bearing on---don't change in any way---your stated goal, which is to

"focus on debating the actual issue, which is the content of the bible, and determining whether or not it is actually erroneous."
​

Sorry CB, but you're going to have to swallow this one. Your tap dance is over and no one is applauding.

I'm not going to ARGUE with you about my goal. You can believe what you want about my goal, but that won't advance your argument. However you choose to interpret my previous comments, it should be clear by now that I have no intention of either A) claiming that the bible has no errors, or B) getting into a religious argument with you. I know you're trying to goad me into that, but it's not going to happen. :sorry1:

Rest assured, there are other people on here who might be willing to engage in such a useless tit-for-tat.

Admitting that the Bible has errors is good enough for me,

I sincerely doubt that (based on the previous exchange).

but it certainly doesn't square with your other-self whose goal it is to determine "whether or not it is actually erroneous." Might want to put your two heads together before committing yourself to print.

Or perhaps you can finally accept my position for what it really is. I HAVE NO INTENTION OF PROVING THAT THE BIBLE HAS NO ERRORS. I don't know how many times that point needs to be brought to you.

Exactly what "delusions" did I exhibit? (To help you out I've reprinted my post (#87) below)

Well as far as I'm concerned, your insistence that my stance is something that it clearly isn't is indicative of delusional thinking in itself.

Exactly what faulty conclusions did I come to? (To help you out I've reprinted my post (#87) below)

That would be just about everything so far. But to compile a list of all of them would take way too much time and effort. Instead, I'll just give you the first three!

People follow the Bible, errors and all, because they've been told it's the word of god. - Really? EVERY PERSON who follows the bible does so only because they have been TOLD it's the word of God? That's news to me! :sarcastic

It's as if the brain of the believer was compartmentalized wherein everything that conflicts with one's needed belief can be put on cold storage and forgotten -Really? So there are NO believers out there (NONE WHATSOEVER) who fail to acknowledge the so-called "contradictions" simply because they don't exist? Oh, but I guess if YOU decide that their ARE such contradictions based solely on your pitiful understanding of scripture, then that MUST be true, and anyone else's interpretation is wrong by default huh?

I've read all kinds of rationalizations, some quite lengthy, but almost none that have not resorted to some kind of fallacious reasoning, - Really? So we can assume then that you have therefore read EVERY rationalization from EVERY Christian? Or is it that based solely on the ones that YOU happened to read, you believe that a generalization such as this should apply? Or is it that the "almost none" is indicative of you dismissing the rationalizations that DON'T rely on "fallacious reasoning"? Believe me I could go on for quite some time, but I think I've made my point.

In any case, there is no point in debating with you. Clearly, you've already got your mind made up and it is your intention to draw me into a religious debate (which as I previously said are pointless). So rather than lead you on, you can pretty much consider this my last response to you. Considering the type of person you are, you'll likely interpret that as a WIN or something idiotic like that. That's fine! You can have the last word here. I don't need to win unwinnable and pointless religious debates against people who just like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Have a good day, and good luck with the rest of your "debates". :hug:

 

[InvestigateTruth]

..... You can't compare it to "other verses in the bible," unless those verses were from the same text, or unless they're the same type of writing -- and then only to establish a pattern for what the text in question might be. ...

That's exactly what I did!

"They" what? Which verses? Because I can tell you that "Christians [don't] generally agree" that the stories are metaphor. They may be allegory, but they're not metaphor.

A Christian would agree that 'Light' is a metaphor for 'guidance' or 'knowledge'
But what they often don't agree is that the verses in Bible can be figurative, except for those verses that traditionally Christian Leaders have said so.

"A constant interpretation" between what? These "comparative verses" remain anonymous.

Consistent interpretation in a sense that, when It comes to proving Jesus is the Messiah, they do not hesitate to accept anything in Hebrew Scriptures as a Figurative Sign regarding Messiah, no matter how 'Out of context' it may seem, and how contrary to the established Jewish traditional interpretation is, but when it comes to other things, that would have a meaningful metaphor, they see it as 'out of context' simply because it is different than what they heard before!
(Not rebuking anyone though!)

Within what context? Because I can assure you that that's not what it means in the context of the creation myths.

I can also assure you that All the six day of genesis can be reconciled to have a spiritual meaning 'Consistently' without changing the subject of the whole or changing the context.

The problem is, there are no "mysteries" written within the Genesis creation myths. Sure, we can assign "mysteries" to them, but that would not be borne out by the texts, themselves.

In our view Bible is clear that there mysteries in it, until the end time, the Promised One opens the Seals of it, which Baha'u'llah wrote a great deal and unsealed it in our view.
You can find verses of Bible that says it is sealed in Chapter of revelation, as well as Isaiah, and Danial, and many other places says, God spoke a Hidden Language as a Mystery.

 

[Skwim]

Exactly what "delusions" did I exhibit? (To help you out I've reprinted my post (#87) below)

Well as far as I'm concerned, your insistence that my stance is something that it clearly isn't is indicative of delusional thinking in itself.

No! No! dear CB, IN POST #87.

Exactly what faulty conclusions did I come to? (To help you out I've reprinted my post (#87) below)

That would be just about everything so far. But to compile a list of all of them would take way too much time and effort. Instead, I'll just give you the first three!

No! No! dear CB, IN POST #87.

But never mind replying. I've grown weary of your games and won't be returning.

Have a good evening,

​

 

[outhouse]

We recently had flood in Canada. Does that count too?


But oh, we forgot to put two of every kind in the Ark.

As long as none of the farm animals got too wet, we will let you slide

 

[outhouse]

I make no "claims" about anything. Their are stories presented in the bible that one can either choose to accept as truth (God's word) or not. I choose to accept them as truth. They are not MY claims!

Do you realize you just contradicted yourself? You just said that there are no records of a flood (even though there actually are because the bible is in itself a "record"), and then followed that up with a record of a local Sumerian flood!

So which one is it? Was their a flood or wasn't there?

So you either believe there was a ark or you don't. You either believe s god was punishing mankind or you don't.

No I did not contradict myself, you know the context of the flood I stated no records exist has to deal with the mythical flood. Floods obviously happen in many places.


To date, the bible does not deal with a flood any Israelite ever knew about as described and is not a accurate record of any real flood. According to all of science and all credible historians.

 

[captainbryce]

To date, the bible does not deal with a flood any Israelite ever knew about as described and is not a accurate record of any real flood. According to all of science and all credible historians.

Sure, if that's what you choose to believe. Meanwhile back at the Bat Cave:

Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard

According to a controversial theory proposed by two Columbia University scientists, there really was one in the Black Sea region. They believe that the now-salty Black Sea was once an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland, until it was flooded by an enormous wall of water from the rising Mediterranean Sea. The force of the water was two hundred times that of Niagara Falls, sweeping away everything in its path.

Fascinated by the idea, Ballard and his team decided to investigate.

"We went in there to look for the flood," he said. "Not just a slow moving, advancing rise of sea level, but a really big flood that then stayed... The land that went under stayed under."

Four hundred feet below the surface, they unearthed an ancient shoreline, proof to Ballard that a catastrophic event did happen in the Black Sea. By carbon dating shells found along the shoreline, Ballard said he believes they have established a timeline for that catastrophic event, which he estimates happened around 5,000 BC. Some experts believe this was around the time when Noah's flood could have occurred.

"It probably was a bad day," Ballard said. "At some magic moment, it broke through and flooded this place violently, and a lot of real estate, 150,000 square kilometers of land, went under."

The theory goes on to suggest that the story of this traumatic event, seared into the collective memory of the survivors, was passed down from generation to generation and eventually inspired the biblical account of Noah

Catastrophic events of this kind are not unique to the Bible. Some contemporary examples include the 2004 tsunami that wiped out villages on the coasts of 11 countries surrounding the Indian Ocean. There was also Hurricane Katrina, described as the worst hurricane in United States history.

Scholars aren't sure if the biblical flood was larger or smaller than these modern day disasters, but they do think the experiences of people in ancient times were similar to our own.

"If you witness a terrible natural disaster, yes, you want a scientific explanation why this has happened," said Karen Armstrong, author of "A History of God." "But you also need to something that will help you to assuage your grief and anguish and rage. And it is here that myth helps us through that."

Regardless of whether the details of the Noah story are historically accurate, Armstrong believes this story and all the Biblical stories are telling us "about our predicament in the world now."

Back in the Black Sea, Ballard said he is aware that not everyone agrees with his conclusions about the time and size of the flood, but he's confident he's on the path to finding something from the biblical period.

Ballard does not think he will ever find Noah's Ark, but he does think he may find evidence of a people whose entire world was washed away about 7,000 years ago. He and his team said they plan to return to Turkey next summer.

"It's foolish to think you will ever find a ship," Ballard said, referring to the Ark. "But can you find people who were living? Can you find their villages that are underwater now? And the answer is yes."

New Evidence Suggests Biblical Great Flood of Noah's Time Happened, Archaeologist Says - ABC News

 

[outhouse]

Ballard is not taken seriously, and old work that has been proven unsubstantiated.


Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A new study based on process length variation of the dinoflagellate cyst Lingulodinium machaerophorum shows no evidence for catastrophic flooding

 

[Muffled]

1. Astronomy: First we deal with Astronomy.The Bible speaks about the creation of the universe. In the beginning, 1st Book, Book of Genesis, 1st Ch., it is mentioned - It says… ‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, in six days and talks about a evening and a morning, referring to a 24 - hour day. Today scientists tell us, that the universe cannot be created in a 24 hour period of six days.

if your going to argue the Quran also says six days : "Your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days and then settled Himself firmly on the Throne... (Qur'an, 7:54)

the word used is "ayyamin" meaning (long) periods and NOT 24 hour days like the Bible has it mentioned..


Gen 1:14-18 claims that God made the sun on the 4th "day". How can there be three "days" before the sun even exists?
Gen 1:11;12 claims that plant life was created before the sun. How can there be plants without any sun?

these are just a very few of the errors.. there are many more

and if ur going to say that the Bible is not a science book? well dont you think it should be consistant with science because its GODS words? or given by God?

I believe scientists don't know anything about creation. Therefore thieropinions of it are pure conjecture as opposed to the word of God which comes from God who speaks the truth.

As for the question the reality is that God is able to preserve enough truth in the Bible for a person to be saved and then the Holy Spirit is there to authenticate whatever needs to be authenticated.

 

[captainbryce]

Ballard is not taken seriously, and old work that has been proven unsubstantiated.

So you say. It's funny how "religious folk" get accused of "picking and choosing" when it comes to the bible, yet this seems to be a common theme among skeptics when it comes to science...PICKING AND CHOOSING! Any science that seems to substantiate a biblical claim is said to "not be taken seriously", whereas any science that seems to refute that science is taken seriously. All things being equal, the simplest explanation is correct. PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE, so they do everything they can to try to discredit what they don't want to be true. :yes:

 

[sojourner]

I believe scientists don't know anything about creation. Therefore thieropinions of it are pure conjecture as opposed to the word of God which comes from God who speaks the truth.

As for the question the reality is that God is able to preserve enough truth in the Bible for a person to be saved and then the Holy Spirit is there to authenticate whatever needs to be authenticated.

Naivete is a poor substitute for faith.

 

[outhouse]

So you say. It's funny how "religious folk" get accused of "picking and choosing" when it comes to the bible, yet this seems to be a common theme among skeptics when it comes to science...PICKING AND CHOOSING! Any science that seems to substantiate a biblical claim is said to "not be taken seriously", whereas any science that seems to refute that science is taken seriously. All things being equal, the simplest explanation is correct. PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE, so they do everything they can to try to discredit what they don't want to be true. :yes:

That's ridiculous.

Its more like some theist are so set in their ways, their minds are closed and they no longer wish to learn. And if this knowledge goes against their preconceived belief, their minds shut like trap's.

You posted garbage, and got called on it, and credible evidence posted to show you the errors of your ways.

 

[outhouse]

I believe scientists don't know anything about creation. .

While scientist may not study mythology outlawed from being taught in public schools, many scientist are theist and do know creation mythology.

Therefore thieropinions of it are pure conjecture as opposed to the word of God which comes from God who speaks the truth.

Scientist opinions are based from knowledge through education.


Man has written all biblical data to date. No deity has written anything scientifically.

It is why the bible contains errors and contradictions, such as the different birth narratives, two different flood accounts, and geographic locations being incorrect.

As for the question the reality is that God is able to preserve enough truth in the Bible for a person to be saved and then the Holy Spirit is there to authenticate whatever needs to be authenticated

Which is 100% speculation through faith alone.

 

[captainbryce]

That's ridiculous.

Is it? The evidence would seem to suggest otherwise.

Its more like some theist are so set in their ways, their minds are closed and they no longer wish to learn. And if this knowledge goes against their preconceived belief, their minds shut like trap's.

I have no doubt that this is true in many cases. But this fact doesn't suggest that the majority of theists follow that pattern. SOME theists are close minded (namely the conservative theists), while others are not. But being a religious "skeptic" by nature (particularly among the self professed atheists) typically means that you are motivated by trying to find evidence AGAINST a religion. It is inherently a biased perspective that makes one incapable of being objective in their judgement. At least agnostics are capable of being objective, and most liberal Christians recognize that it is their duty to question their beliefs.

You posted garbage, and got called on it, and credible evidence posted to show you the errors of your ways.

Yeah, in your mind that happened. In reality a neutral Wikipedia link was posted which does little of what you claim. You decided to rely on one scientific perspective over another (because it's what you want to believe). But that's okay, because as long as YOU believe that counts as "credible evidence", then you can rest easy. I choose to remain objective an consider all possibilities (as any logical person in search of truth would do).

Good day!

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The thing is science changes, and while it may drag its feet at times, it's inevitable. There isn't a scientific perspective, there is simply more information added that changes the results. No scientific claim made will say with 100% certainty, but it will say that within the scopes of the information found they can make an accurate claim.

 

[outhouse]

The evidence would seem to suggest otherwise. !

There has never been evidence for a BSD. Israelites who FACTUALLY formed after 1200 BC would not have accurate details of such as described.

We do know they used previous flood mythology for Sumerian and Mesopotamian sources, and no credible historian denies it.

I have no doubt that this is true in many cases. But this fact doesn't suggest that the majority of theists follow that pattern.

But are you is the question?

I have shown you that the BSD did not happen in any time period Israelites would record.

I also showed you the mythology of Ziusudra that pre dates Israelites and is word for word in many places similar.

Genesis flood narrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search

"The Deluge", by John Martin, 1834. Oil on canvas. Yale University


The Genesis flood narrative is a flood myth in the Hebrew Bible,



You notice it states "flood myth"

Flood myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Israel, there is no such evidence of a widespread flood.[11]

Global sea levels were about 120m lower up till 18,000 BP and rose till at 8,000 BP they reached the current levels

Water levels have been the same for 8000 years in the black sea.

Noah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many scholars believe that Noah and the Biblical Flood story are derived from the Mesopotamian version

 

[danieldemol]

The people of Moses time, although they may not have understood the roundness and rotation of the earth, nontheless would have understood that the sun is the cause of daylight

No. They didn't. While the sun was bright and hot, it was not considered to be the source of light -- only an indicator of "day." The sun, moon, and stars were thought to be fixed upon a rigid dome covering the disc of the earth. The dome would turn about the earth.

1. Just for my knowledge, do you have a citation for this?

2. Was there only one view on this matter that you know of?

...it is clear that right from the beginning, the creation story was not intended to be a factual story, could it then have had allegorical meaning right from (to use a pun) the beginning?

...Genesis is an etymological account of the beginning -- not some metaphysical treatment of the spiritual condition of humanity.

3. I'm not familiar with your usage of the term "etymological", but I'm taking a guess that what you mean is that it is a story with earlier origins in another story. Is this correct?

4. If not please explain what you mean by this term.

5. If correct what is the story you believe it came from?

I think the story is quite mythical and allegorical. But not in the way the poster suggested -- nor can it be twisted in order to try and make it line up with science.

6. I don't think the aim of Investigate Truth was to make Genesis line up with a scientific account of man's natural (physical) evolution if that is what you mean.

7. What do you believe the allegory to be about and why?

(Since this is a lengthy list of questions I don't mind if you copy the list into a new thread dealing specifically with the Genesis allegory if you find it more convenient, but if you do please post a link to the new thread in this one so I can easily follow the conversation there)

Thanks