Religion One of the all-time great bakes

[Sloth]

If we are, for arguments sake, accepting that God has inspired the bible, he would surely be free to have it written however he thought was best. The idea that we should be dictating to God how he should reveal himself to us, is pretty arrogant.

Oh really? To most of us it's plain as day that the bible was written by men and not an infallible deity. So no, we are not accepting it for arguments sake.

 

[Partridge]

[SNIP SNIP SNIP]

Why the gymnastics? If the bible was the word of god, or divinely inspired, then surely it should be unambigous and error free? If the purpose of the bible is for god to communicate with humanity then surely he would make it as easy as possible to follow, without the need of jumping through hoops to try and make it work?

Of course it should. Absolutely correct. There's 5 pages of drivel coming that will try and convince you otherwise though.

 

[Partridge]

So what makes a Christian a Christian? Where do you actually stand?

Some beliefs are absolute. Does Hell exist? Are their talking snakes? Did Jesus raise from the dead? Did Noah's Arc exist?

My eternal damnation (quite a long time) is at stake here.

Some people undoubtedly believe these things. My own answers are:

1. No.
2. Of course not, I'm not a 5-year-old.
3. No.
4. Extremely unlikely. (Not forgetting there are around 600 ancient myths concerning cataclysmic floods. Not sure what's so special about the Biblical one.)

Looks like we're both damned.

 

[melbournemartin]

Some people undoubtedly believe these things. My own answers are:

1. No.
2. Of course not, I'm not a 5-year-old.
3. No.
4. Extremely unlikely. (Not forgetting there are around 600 ancient myths concerning cataclysmic floods. Not sure what's so special about the Biblical one.)

Looks like we're both damned.

Without having followed this thread closely or your posts.

Do you believe in Intelligent Design?

 

[SergioGeorgini]

[SNIP SNIP SNIP]

Why the gymnastics? If the bible was the word of god, or divinely inspired, then surely it should be unambigous and error free? If the purpose of the bible is for god to communicate with humanity then surely he would make it as easy as possible to follow, without the need of jumping through hoops to try and make it work?

What gymnastics? If anyone is performing triple backflips and jumping through hoops in order to assert the Bible contains contradictions it is the atheists. Some of your alleged contradictions and errors are truly laughable.

I picked a nice and short one from your list randomly:

48. Freedom of divorce permitted [Deut 24:1 / Deut 21:10,11,14]

Divorce restricted [Matt 5:32]

You honestly think this is a contradiction? A law is recorded in one part of the Bible and thousands of years later it is amended? Who's performing the gymnastics here mate?

That would be like arguing that the Statute Books of the Australian Parliament contains a contradiction because Workchoices is on the books as law then it was repealed a few years later.

Forget gymnastics, this is plain dishonest, or possibly just dumb.

There are many more alleged 'contradictions' in your list that are equally laughable.

The webpage I linked to helpfully summarises the different mistakes made by those asserting such contradictions. I recommend you have a read and have an honest think about whether these contradictions are really contradictions.

[The] supposed 143 contradictions can in essence be classified according to the erroneous assumptions or methodologies that they employ.


[Taking passages out of context]

A popular mistake is to take things out of context. It is easy to "create contradictions" when there are none by violating the context of the passage(s) in question.

[Taking beliefs out of context]

More significant, though less mentioned, is violating the context of belief. Christian understanding is a synthesis of many beliefs, and Biblical teachings are often interpreted through this background belief which has been synthesized. Such a synthesis may include other facts, not directly related to the contradiction in question, but nevertheless, relevant. When the critic proposes a contradiction, he ought to do so within the context of this background belief. By failing to do this, he merely imposes alien concepts into the text as if they belong. This error is common when the critic tries to cite contradictions related to doctrine or beliefs about the nature of God. For example, orthodox Christians believe in the Trinity. One could argue about this concept elsewhere, but trying to impose contradictions by ignoring Trinitarian belief violates the context provided by the Christian's background belief.

Or consider a mundane example. Say that Joe is recorded as saying that Sam is not his son. But elsewhere, he is recorded as saying that Sam is his son. An obvious contradiction, right? But what if one's background belief about Joe and Sam includes the belief that Sam is Joe's adopted son? By ignoring the context this belief provides, one perceives contradictions where there are none.

[False assumption that Biblical accounts are intended to be exhaustive and precise in all details]

The critic sometimes assumes that the Biblical accounts are exhaustive in all details and intended to be precise. This is rarely the case. As such, the critic builds on a faulty assumption and perceives contradictions where none exist.

Also related to the context problem: Let's say that the only records of Joe speaking about Sam are the two cases where he affirms and denies that Sam is his son. Certainly Joe said many other things in his life, but they were not recorded -- including the fact that he adopted a boy and named him Sam.

Another real-life case concerns a newspaper report which lists the time of birth of twin babies. The first was born at 1:40 AM, and second was born at 1:10 AM. If this account did not have the added detail that the birth occurred the during the night in which Daylight Savings ended, it would appear to be a real contradiction/error. You have to know the whole story, or at least have a plausible explanation.

Since the accounts in the Bible are rarely intended as exhaustive and precise descriptions, it would be prudent to see if differing accounts complement, rather than contradict one another.

[Falsely assuming all the different books of the Bible are written in one literary genre]

The critic seems to assume that the Bible is written in one genre: a literal and descriptive account. While the Bible does indeed contain literal and descriptive accounts (which, of course, are not exhaustive in details), it also contains many other styles of composition: the Proverbs list "rules of thumb," the Psalms communicate through poetry, many teachings/prophecies are in the form of hyperbole and metaphor, parables contain deeper messages, etc. Since the Bible is actually many books of different genres by several different authors, the critic's assumption leads her astray if it is used to create contradictions.

[Basing alleged contradictions on mistaken interpretations]

Another point is related to the one above, namely, the alleged contradictions are often a function of a particular interpretation. This is clear when one reads how the author of the list presents the biblical teachings in contrast to the actual verses he/she cites. Thus, the "contradiction" exists only if the correct interpretation is applied by the author, and this is often not the case (or at least, it is often not clear if this is the case).

For example, in many situations, the critic uses particular incidents or rules of thumb and interprets these as absolute principles. Sometimes the critic equivocates. He/she uses the same sense of a word in two sets of verses, when sometimes it is the case that the word has two meanings. For example, peace could mean lack of war or it can mean an internal sense of tranquility.

[General ignorance]

The critic sometimes reads contradictions into the accounts. This is often a function of all of the points listed above, but it could be due to plain ignorance. In other cases, it is due to the fact that aspects of Hebrew idiom are not always captured in English translations.

[False assumptions that copyists could make no mistakes]

The critic assumes that the believer in Biblical inerrancy also believes that copyists could make no mistake. I have found not many believers in inerrancy to hold to this position. It is their belief that the original documents were without error, and were copied as faithfully as humanly possible. Thus, copyist errors are of little concern (and are unlikely to result in significant changes).

[Interpreting the Bible in absolutist terms]

Finally, the critic engages in black and white either/or thinking when a both/and approach seems to be called for. This can be tricky, so let me set up my case by using one of the supposed contradictions cited:

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself." [Pr 26:4]
"Answer of fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes." [Pr 26:5]
​

The first thing to note is that these seemingly contradictory teachings are right next to each other. Could the writer of Proverbs be so stupid as to not notice this? I hardly think so. In fact, I think it is very illuminating that these teachings are closely tied. They highlight the fact that Biblical admonitions need not fall under the "either/or" criteria, but can be more properly understood in terms of "both/and." In fact, I have often found these two teachings from Proverbs quite useful.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

So what makes a Christian a Christian? Where do you actually stand?

Some beliefs are absolute. Does Hell exist? Are their talking snakes? Did Jesus raise from the dead? Did Noah's Arc exist?

My eternal damnation (quite a long time) is at stake here.

As already posted, the core belief of Christianity is that by faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus, individuals are saved from death by redemption from their sins. Through God's grace, by faith and repentance, men and women are reconciled to God in Heaven through forgiveness and by sanctification.

Crucial beliefs in Christian teaching are essentially Jesus' incarnation, atonement, crucifixion, and resurrection from the dead to redeem humankind from sin and death.

As I said earlier, provided these beliefs are at the core of your belief system, you are a Christian, whether or not you believe in the literal truth of the Genesis accounts or certain other theological ideas that Christians debate amongst themselves.

Most of the beliefs you posit as 'absolute' are not core teachings of Christainity. You appear to understand Christianity as a young child might be taught it. If you're really interested in learning about the non-cartoon version of Christianity that is intellectually satisfying and grounded in reason, there are plenty of resources available on the internet. I'd be happy to point you in the right direction.

 

[Partridge]

Without having followed this thread closely or your posts.

Do you believe in Intelligent Design?

No problem.

No I don't. Based on what I've read I can't personally subscribe to it. Evolution to me is utterly overwhelming, logical, totally convincing and requires nothing further to substantiate it.

That's just my opinion of course, others are entitled to think as they choose.

 

[Pie eyed]

What gymnastics? If anyone is performing triple backflips and jumping through hoops in order to assert the Bible contains contradictions it is the atheists. Some of your alleged contradictions and errors are truly laughable.

I picked a nice and short one from your list randomly:




You honestly think this is a contradiction? A law is recorded in one part of the Bible and thousands of years later it is amended? Who's performing the gymnastics here mate?

That would be like arguing that the Statute Books of the Australian Parliament contains a contradiction because Workchoices is on the books as law then it was repealed a few years later.

Forget gymnastics, this is plain dishonest, or possibly just dumb.

There are many more alleged 'contradictions' in your list that are equally laughable.

The webpage I linked to helpfully summarises the different mistakes made by those asserting such contradictions. I recommend you have a read and have an honest think about whether these contradictions are really contradictions.

Tomayto Tomarto.
You asked for examples of contradictions, I gave a few.

You state as a fact the Bible is contradictory on many, many levels.

If this is true, you should be able to provide a few examples.

Knowing full well of these contradictions. You asked in response to this post from me.

I constantly read (here) and hear in the wider world claims that only parts of the bible are literal but that other, usually those passages being used to back ones argument or opinion, are clear, when in fact the entire Bible is contradictory on many, many levels.

My position is that anyone who bases their beliefs on the words of the bible must accept that "all" of the bible is correct, a true representation of Gods will and that all demands must be met for redemption.

Anyone who denies one part of the bible denies it all and is in essence a non-believer. In exactly the same boat as any non-believer come end times.

Of course there will be well worn mechanisms to "philosophise" ones self out of this conundrum but they have no substance.
You can't base an entire life on just some parts of the the Bible, those which appeal to your sensibilities while disregarding those parts which do not and still maintain you are really Christian. Only partially Christian.

You can't have a faith in an omnipotent God who cannot correctly author his own set of rules.

Which was specifically in relation to the "risk" a non-believer takes in their lack of belief. I was and I think successfully, pointing out that even the "believer" is at risk if he/she does not believe waht is in the bible.
The Bible is after all what the entire Christian faith is based on and the document which they claim is the basis of their authority and their claims to representation of God on earth. Without the Bible the Christian churches have nothing.

There are numerous more contradictions and examples of many other anomolies which directly fly in the face of what you would call normally acceptable social behaviour such as patricide, infanticide, slavery, murder, mass murder, rape and a litany of other acts we would now not accept as Christian behaviour.


If you had not asked specifically for evidence then none would have been provided and the discussion would have been on the original topic of risk.

You can spend a millions words justifying the contradictions, constructing intricately constructed arguments and providing reams of supposedly expert opinion to back your interpretation of what the contradictions were meant to get across, what context thye are in etec.
The fact remains the bible is full of contradictions, errors and anomalies. An entire field of scholarship exists to interpret them.

To say the Bible is clear is a simple lie which relies on the ignorance of the audience to fly.

It is very ambiguous for something which claims to be the word of a God.

 

[CharacterFirst]

I wonder if we have anyone dumb enough to be a new Earth creationist here?

I thought you said you only stick your head up once a year.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

No problem.

No I don't. Based on what I've read I can't personally subscribe to it. Evolution to me is utterly overwhelming, logical, totally convincing and requires nothing further to substantiate it.

That's just my opinion of course, others are entitled to think as they choose.

Evolution does not explain the apparent intelligent design of the universe, including the fine tuning of the constants for life. Just sayin'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_physical_constant

 

[Sloth]

Evolution does not explain the apparent intelligent design of the universe, including the fine tuning of the constants for life. Just sayin'.

It's not supposed to, that's like saying gravity does not explain a zebra's stripes... Evolution deals with biological organisms not cosmological theories.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Oh really? To most of us it's plain as day that the bible was written by men and not an infallible deity. So no, we are not accepting it for arguments sake.

But sloth, you already were accepting it for argument sake!

You were saying if there was God who inspired the bible, surely he would have to make his self revelation absolutely unambiguous. You set the argument up that way mate. Can you see what i mean?

My point was, if there is a God, he can do how he pleases. You certainly won't be dictating how he should be revealing himself. He will be the one in control - he is God - not you.

I think God has revealed himself pretty clearly, but I also think there are things that are paradoxes. A Xian has to hold these things in tension.

For example jesus says, "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to God but through me." Now that is pretty straight forward - you may not believe it, but it is pretty clear what Jesus is saying.

BUT, on the other hand, Jesus also deliberately spoke in parables and riddles (for a range of reasons), but one of the reasons he gives is so that those who can see what he means may understand, but others will never get it.

This is a paradox, one i hold in tension, as a Xian.

Maybe Mooniehawk would be able to explain this better.

BTW, the foundational, basic belief for a Xian is this. That Jesus is who he and the bible claims he is. That is what the words Christian means - follower of Christ (Jesus). If you accept that Jesus is God, then all else follows from there.

 

[Sloth]

What gymnastics? If anyone is performing triple backflips and jumping through hoops in order to assert the Bible contains contradictions it is the atheists. Some of your alleged contradictions and errors are truly laughable.

I picked a nice and short one from your list randomly:




You honestly think this is a contradiction? A law is recorded in one part of the Bible and thousands of years later it is amended? Who's performing the gymnastics here mate?

Thank you for making my point so clearly. If the bible really was written by god, why the revision? why the updates? Why the change of mind? Is god infallible or not? Or was it just all made up by a bunch of men?

That would be like arguing that the Statute Books of the Australian Parliament contains a contradiction because Workchoices is on the books as law then it was repealed a few years later.

I think we both agree Australian law is written by humans and not infallible gods, so I have no idea why you would bring it up.

 

[Sloth]

But sloth, you already were accepting it for argument sake!

You were saying if there was God who inspired the bible, surely he would have to make his self revelation absolutely unambiguous. You set the argument up that way mate. Can you see what i mean?

My point was, if there is a God, he can do how he pleases. You certainly won't be dictating how he should be revealing himself. He will be the one in control - he is God - not you.

ok ok, I'll agree that a god can write anything he wants if you you'll agree that he'd be stupid to fill his holy book with confusing contradictions

 

[CharacterFirst]

ok ok, I'll agree that a god can write anything he want's if you you'll agree that he'd be stupid to fill his holy book with confusing contradictions

Well i guess that's a start.

Again, I couldn't agree that God would fill his book with stupid confusing stuff if I believe in a God. He is God, he is sovereign, he reveals how he wishes. We might think he has done it wrong, but that won't hold a lot of water with him will it! He will be right b/c he is God

I know what you mean when you see lots of contradictions in the bible. There are things that look that way up front, but have reasonable explanations. I think Sergio tries to list those explanations. He may get a bit defensive (sorry Serg) but he is as frustrated with you as you appear with him and God etc.

Then there are some things that appear to be contradictions, but may not be if you approach them from a different way of thinking.

Then there as those that may appear as contras but are really perhaps better explained as things we don't have the full picture on yet.

I think the bible is truth, but it doesn't hold all truth. If it did we wouldn't need text books etc. Having said that, i think all truth is Gods, and he has revealed enough of it and himself for people to be able to make a reasonable step of faith and put their belief in him. You don't of course. I can't really help anymore than this.

Try and see the "contradictions" as paradoxes, or things to be held in tension. This might not be a good example, but a bit like trying to imagine an infinite Universe. That seems is impossible, and I can't do it, nor can I prove it, but somehow I we believe it.

 

[Sloth]

Well i guess that's a start.

Again, I couldn't agree that God would fill his book with stupid confusing stuff if I believe in a God. He is God, he is sovereign, he reveals how he wishes. We might think he has done it wrong, but that won't hold a lot of water with him will it! He will be right b/c he is God

Thank you for that measured response, but my point is: would a god do it this way? I know you believe that he can, and I don't dispute that, but ask yourself...is this really the best way to get his point across?
Obviously I think no, a god would not do it that way. Which is part of the reason I do not believe.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

Thank you for making my point so clearly. If the bible really was written by god, why the revision? why the updates? Why the change of mind? Is god infallible or not? Or was it just all made up by a bunch of men?

I think we both agree Australian law is written by humans and not infallible gods, so I have no idea why you would bring it up.

So you agree the example is not a contradiction?

We can have a separate discussion about why God abrogated the Law given to the Jews by Moses ("by abolishing in in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations": Eph 2:15). The point I'm making is that no sensible person would consider the passages on divorce, understood in their proper context, as being a contradiction or an error of the type that casts doubt upon the reliability of the Bible. Surely you must agree?

If you want to move on from the topic of alleged Bible contradictions to a separate discussion about why God might 'change his mind' I'm happy to do so.

 

[HARKER]

There is nothing more arrogant than an atheiest.

I still find it pretty stupid to be tagged for not believing in one elses lies.
If there was a term to be attached to no-believers (?) it really should be "logical" and if that makes me arrogant, then so be it.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Thank you for that measured response, but my point is: would a god do it this way? I know you believe that he can, and I don't dispute that, but ask yourself...is this really the best way to get his point across?
Obviously I think no, a god would not do it that way. Which is part of the reason I do not believe.

Yeah. I get what you are saying. I tried to address that in the second half of the post.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

It's not supposed to, that's like saying gravity does not explain a zebra's stripes... Evolution deals with biological organisms not cosmological theories.

Yeah I know, I was just saying that Intelligent Design theory is not limited to biology.

 

[Sloth]

So you agree the example is not a contradiction?

Not at all. If you accept the doctrine that god is infallible, then then his apparent rethink is absolutley a contradiction. You either have to ditch the infallibility of god, or admit that the bible was just written by men with no divine intervention

 

[Monniehawk]

Not at all. If you accept the doctrine that god is infallible, then then his apparent rethink is absolutley a contradiction. You either have to ditch the infallibility of god, or admit that the bible was just written by men with no divine intervention

Sorry to buy into this..
There are a couple of key points or relativity, here.
First, everything seems awry with the bible if you do not accept that there is a god.
If you accept a deity, from here, theists can easily justify the authority of the bible - some without question. No problem.
If you begin with the view that god does not exist, then the bible cannot make sense.
Now invert that logic to Creation and the birth of the cosmos. If you believe in an omnipotent god, conventional scientific theories may not make sense - but if you don't, then the science explanation is a valid conclusion.
In each of these scenarios there is scope for some of the more athletic and adventurous to query the accepted wisdoms. This does not compromise their respective statuses as a believer of one or the other. They are simply adding shades of grey to the b/w concepts. That is robust debate!
That is when progress is made. Not when someone 'wins the argument'!

 

[Max zero]

Crucial beliefs in Christian teaching are essentially Jesus' incarnation, atonement, crucifixion, and resurrection from the dead to redeem humankind from sin and death.

And you are calling my interpretation 'cartooney'? Go, go zombie Jesus.

Seriously though be nice if God left more then a 2000 year old book to guide. Why not give it to the Chinese they had printing presses?

Thankfully belief is falling in the west (even in America slowly).

 

[Max zero]

Yeah I know, I was just saying that Intelligent Design theory is not limited to biology.

Well 'God did it' is a pretty flexible theory.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Not at all. If you accept the doctrine that god is infallible, then then his apparent rethink is absolutley a contradiction. You either have to ditch the infallibility of god, or admit that the bible was just written by men with no divine intervention

I agree essentially with what monniehawk has said in his above post Sloth.

But just let me toss around that line in your post for a minute.

If (and I do; and you don't by definition) we accept that God is infallible, i think we mean, at least for this discussion, he doesn't make mistakes. Is that a fair working definition?

But if the God we are talking about is the Xian God, then he is completely free to rethink or change his mind b/c he is God. He has set all rules, all systems, all truth, all everything; not us. Changing his mind doesn't prove he is not infallible, it just proves that being infallible doesn't mean you can't change your mind.

At the core of accepting the Xian God, is the realization that he is God, and so far above us in power, knowledge, wisdom etc that we are hardly of any significance. Which BTW makes it so amazing that he does pay heed to mankind, b/c he has no obligation to - he is the God who created. He can do as he pleases, but he loves us nonetheless. This leads into the next point!

HOWEVER, I would say that God's ability to do anything is tempered by the understanding (and many people who have a belief in a God would think this about him as well) that he is unable to contradict his own character. Cf above when i said God loves us - this is b/c love is a core part of his nature. For example, God is Holy and perfect, so he has to "find" a way to remove the imperfection of sin (which corrupts) from his creation (admittedly he created knowing that sin would occur - why? I don't really know, someone here might have a clear handle on this at the moment, but as i said, he is sovereign! ). Hence Jesus incarnation, death, resurrection et al.

BUT, I don't actually accept the premise that the bible shows God has got it wrong and had to change it. It just shows his plan, which I don't fully understand (like an infinite Universe) always included the reality that there would be mistakes made by imperfect beings, and that he is a flexible God who knew these things in advance, and was willing and able to adjust.

I also think apparent inconsistencies in scripture are due to our lack of understanding, not Gods. As I said, it has to follow that this is the case if i believe he is God.

Again I don't think there are mistakes in the bible, or contradictions. It depends, as monniehawk said, what bias you bring to the text whether you think they are contradictions or merely paradoxes or even examples of our own lack of knowledge and insight.

I think there are times it appears God is changing the rules - i think someone mentioned the divorce laws in one post. I really see this as just progressive revelation.

Jesus in fact comments on this exact example, saying that God gave some permission for divorce (as he still does - we are not struck down when we leave a marriage today for example) b/c that was really the reality of where man was at. I think Jesus says b/c your hearts were/are hard, or the like. But it has always been Gods standard that a man and woman become one flesh, and should not be separated until death do them part.

God is saying - here are my standards, these are the ideals consistent with my character - be perfect even as I am perfect. But at the same time he is also gracious - bestowing of unmerited favour. He knows we are not God and are imperfect people, so he allows us the freedom to make those mistakes - even though they abhor his holy nature.

What to do? = Beat sin. How? = Pay an enormous price to satisfy his own disgust at sin. Who could pay such a price? Only someone who is worthy and sinless himself - God. God pays the price himself in Jesus.

I know it looks like folly. The bible knows that to! Paul says in 1 Corinthians "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

The faith element of believing in Jesus/God includes, in fact is rooted, in the realization that we are not God - we may not be right. We should perhaps be humble, and genuinely with heart felt openness, consider that maybe I'm not the center of the Universe. Maybe there is a God, and if there is, then he is a Big Boss that i Should probably get to know.

I am assuming in writing this post that the people in this discussion are genuinely trying to grapple with who God is, or if there even is one, and are not just people out to shoot down Xians b/c it makes them feel better, or superior, or whatever. You know what i mean.