Biblical errors.

[Elijah John]

someone recently said:

there are no biblical errors

For debate, perhaps we can list a few. And having done so, will the supporters of the quoted statement above revise the statement? Will they admit that the Bible is, in fact, not perfect?

Or will they maintain their claim of Biblical perfection in spite of evidence to the contrary?

I'll start with a few general assertions to the contrary,

a) The Bible has internal contradictions, some important, some minor.
b) The Bible sometimes contradicts what we know about science.

And finally, if the Bible is less than perfect, does that mean it is useless as a source of life-guidance or as a source of Spiritual inspiration?

Or to put it another way, why defend the supposed perfection of the Bible in light of contrary evidence?

[tfvespasianus]

That it is not necessary to dispense with what we know of scientific reality in order to maintain devout religious belief. We need only to dispense with religious and Biblical literalism in order to reconcile science and rational religion.

But that's a slippery slope. The more you believe in the truth, the less you believe in the bible. Once you realize how much of it is just myths and legends, you're just left with a few nice anecdotes about being nice to other people and being a good person. But those are lessons that you can learn in any religion, or even outside of religion. It could be argued that getting your moral lessons from a 2,000 year old book is going to cause a lot of problems in contemporary society. At that point, what are you getting from religion? Just the tragic story of a really nice guy who was crucified for being a false prophet.

The phrase slippery slope implies that the first step has a high probability of leading to an undesired outcome. So, in this case (accepting rudimentary truths about our physical world) I would not say that one leads to the other (i.e. abandoning religious faith). Thats because I think many people dont have the same contingencies set-up in their worldview. That is, belief in fidelity, piety, humility, justice and to some extent the numinous that is beyond our understanding neednt be predicated upon the literal truth of the sun standing still or humans and dinosaurs living at the same time. When I think of people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Reinhold Niebuhr, Oscar Romero, or Martin Luther King I would guess (but do not know) that they dont wholly reject science on the grounds that it contradicts the bible. What I do know that they are intelligent, thoughtful men that took their faith seriously and thus tried to live out their lives in that way.

Its a matter of emphasis. Some people choose to emphasize things like social justice, some personal piety (whatever that may mean), some spend a great deal of time thinking about gays and abortion. Still others expend effort on shoring up crank theories that go against the consensus of science that do little to help our state of affairs on the grounds that this is true religion. However, I dont think every religious person has a default responsibility to the latter.

Take care,
TFV

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 68 by Elijah John]

We need only to dispense with religious and Biblical literalism in order to reconcile science and rational religion.

Rufus21 points out the difficulty with that line of reasoning very well.

You seem to be admitting that what is presented in the Bible as true events might be, after all, myths or metaphors, not to be taken as objectively true. Perhaps, these passages are meant to be taken as subjectively true the way the Mona Lisa might be taken as "true" art. Or as you put it those non literal passages might be "spiritually true" ( whatever that's supposed to mean )

So, I don't know what's left of the "religion". Subjective truths only?
The Golden Rule?

As an example, is the resurrection a myth, a metaphor or is it a true event?
Who really knows?

People run into trouble when they consider the Bible a book of science, rather than a book of Spiritual truths.

I can see trouble for those who want to straddle the line between metaphorical and literal. Where DOES one draw that line?

Where does the fiction stop and the "truth" begin in the religion?
Looks very much like a roulette game to me.

Place your bets, ladies and gents.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 71 by tfvespasianus]



[center]Christianity: Immersing ourselves in the experience that ( insert denomination here ) is true.
Part One[/center]

The phrase slippery slope implies that the first step has a high probability of leading to an undesired outcome.

I agree.

So, in this case (accepting rudimentary truths about our physical world) I would not say that one leads to the other (i.e. abandoning religious faith).

I agree.
It doesn't necessarily lead from one to the other.
That would depend on the person.

Some people have been led away from their religious faith for that very reason, though. Some people lose their faith in the Bible for other reasons. Some people hang on for dear life.

Thats because I think many people dont have the same contingencies set-up in their worldview. That is, belief in fidelity, piety, humility, justice and to some extent the numinous that is beyond our understanding neednt be predicated upon the literal truth of the sun standing still or humans and dinosaurs living at the same time.

Right, some people get a whole lot of benefits from ideas that aren't literally true.
I think that's why works of fiction are so very popular.

They are seen as a benefit.
Religion might be the same kind of phenomenon.

It's way easier to get benefits from religion if we dispense with our non-belief and just "go with it".

When I think of people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Reinhold Niebuhr, Oscar Romero, or Martin Luther King I would guess (but do not know) that they dont wholly reject science on the grounds that it contradicts the bible. What I do know that they are intelligent, thoughtful men that took their faith seriously and thus tried to live out their lives in that way.

We don't even have to guess at all.
You could be talking about yourself, and you are an expert who doesn't have to guess. Or so I take you to be.

I don't take you at all an expert on other people's inner thoughts.
Just your own.

You'd be way better off speaking about what you DO know.

Maybe next time.

Its a matter of emphasis. Some people choose to emphasize things like social justice, some personal piety (whatever that may mean), some spend a great deal of time thinking about gays and abortion.

I agree.
The Bible can be used to justify just about anything.
And most people claim that what they say about the Bible is "True".

If the "truth" of the Bible can vary from person to person, that's a very subjective way to use the word "True". That's pretty much like saying that the Mona Lisa represents the "truth" about art.

To me, statements like "the truth of the Bible" and the "truth of the Mona Lisa" are just as subjective. These are aesthetic kinds of truths. And when it comes to aesthetics, truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Still others expend effort on shoring up crank theories that go against the consensus of science that do little to help our state of affairs on the grounds that this is true religion. However, I dont think every religious person has a default responsibility to the latter.

Crank theories being crank theories, they can't be taken very seriously.
But these crank ideas can have disastrous implications for us all as some people TAKE ACTION based on crank ideas.

Hence, Blastcat in debates with Christians.

[tfvespasianus]

We don't even have to guess at all.
You could be talking about yourself, and you are an expert who doesn't have to guess. Or so I take you to be.

I don't take you at all an expert on other people's inner thoughts.
Just your own.

You'd be way better off speaking about what you DO know.

Maybe next time.

I think this is a flip response to the point I was making. I say I am guessing about these individuals based upon what I know about their writings, actions, and assessments of their legacies. For example, with respect to Niebuhr, he was criticized among his more conservative contemporaries as too radical in his departure from orthodoxy. He famously stated If we take the disciplines of the various sciences seriously, as we do, we must depart at one important point from the biblical picture of life and history. when discussing the place of the supernatural in our universe. So, while its possible each of these individuals had a more regressive stance on matters involving science than a random atheist on the internet, I wouldnt place much money on it based upon what I do know about the people I mentioned.

take care,
TFV

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 74 by tfvespasianus]




[center]Some people would rather take guesses than be certain.
Part One[/center]

We don't even have to guess at all.
You could be talking about yourself, and you are an expert who doesn't have to guess. Or so I take you to be.

I don't take you at all an expert on other people's inner thoughts.
Just your own.

You'd be way better off speaking about what you DO know.

Maybe next time.

I think this is a flip response to the point I was making.

I disagree. You see, I am an expert in my own motivations, I am the only one who knows my very own deepest thoughts. I don't have to guess them in any way.

I can be certain that I was trying to be helpful, and not at all trying to be "flip".
I don't think you have as much data about my inner thoughts as I do, you see.

If you want to know what I think, ask me.

I say I am guessing about these individuals based upon what I know about their writings, actions, and assessments of their legacies. For example, with respect to Niebuhr, he was criticized among his more conservative contemporaries as too radical in his departure from orthodoxy. He famously stated If we take the disciplines of the various sciences seriously, as we do, we must depart at one important point from the biblical picture of life and history. when discussing the place of the supernatural in our universe. So, while its possible each of these individuals had a more regressive stance on matters involving science than a random atheist on the internet, I wouldnt place much money on it based upon what I do know about the people I mentioned.

You don't at all have to guess at all if you talk about your own beliefs.
Why guess about other people when you can be certain about yourself?

Your choice, of course.

Some people might prefer to guess than to be sure.
Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets!

[1213]

I'm not quite sure I follow you. I'm in agreement with what your said about Gen. 2. It clearly contradicts Gen. 1, by affirming God created all the animals after Adam.

I am sorry that I am not clear enough. Genesis tells God formed every different animal that are mentioned in the Genesis 2:19. It is possible and Bible seems to say that God had created animals before that, but then later in Eden he formed one of each species for Adam. So, there could have existed already many animals, but for Adam God Yahweh formed new set of those animals. The point is not that God then created all animals, it just speaks about God forming one of each species and then showed them to Adam.

Also, I don't quite follow you when you say it's entertaining to see how easily some believe the earth rotates. What do you mean by "entertaining"?....

I mean with it that if person doesnt see his double standards, it is almost comical. I say almost, because it is really not comical, it is more like sad, if person doesnt understand if he has double standards and is contradicting himself.

[1213]

How do you explain the fact that the earth, when photographed from space, is a sphere and not flat.

Kinda like the moon, only bigger, and bluer.

Or maybe I misunderstand what you are saying here?

First, I want to say, I dont have any reason to claim planet earth is not sphere. It is probably so. Secondly, in Bible earth means dry land, the area that can be seen above water, not the whole planet. And by what the Bible tells, that area was in the beginning, on top of water. And so, the dry land, the earth, formed continent like formation. According to the Bible, there was only one continent at the beginning. It is possible that the original continent could have be seen from space as one flat continent. It is possible to put area on top of sphere so that it seems like flat area. And it was not actually flat according to the Bible, if I remember correctly, because there was a mountain. But anyway, I hope I am clear enough, continents are just part of sphere, not the whole sphere.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 76 by 1213]

I don't think this two-theory view of Genesis is at all workable. Neither account speaks of there being two separate creations of the animals.

Sorry, but I'm still in an information black hole on your second comment. I don't know what "double standard" you are referring to. Could you describe it, please?

[Elijah John]

How do you explain the fact that the earth, when photographed from space, is a sphere and not flat.

Kinda like the moon, only bigger, and bluer.

Or maybe I misunderstand what you are saying here?

First, I want to say, I dont have any reason to claim planet earth is not sphere. It is probably so. Secondly, in Bible earth means dry land, the area that can be seen above water, not the whole planet. And by what the Bible tells, that area was in the beginning, on top of water. And so, the dry land, the earth, formed continent like formation. According to the Bible, there was only one continent at the beginning. It is possible that the original continent could have be seen from space as one flat continent. It is possible to put area on top of sphere so that it seems like flat area. And it was not actually flat according to the Bible, if I remember correctly, because there was a mountain. But anyway, I hope I am clear enough, continents are just part of sphere, not the whole sphere.

Thanks for the clarification. Still, it's hard to believe that the solar system revolves around the earth...(the whole universe?).

I doubt that very much, but I will leave it to the scientists among us to refute that claim with details, if they are so inclined.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 79 by Elijah John]

EJ,

Notice that those who promote the geocentric universe offer absolutely NO evidence to support their position " only conjecture and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam ('prove me wrong').

Proponents do not even attempt to dispute real world evidence supplied by astronomers and astrophysicists with anything other that 'I don't think so' or 'this ancient text says otherwise'.

Some of that appears to fit the definition of willful ignorance ('A decision in bad faith to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt. www.yourdictionary.com) " also known as Willful Blindness or Contrived Ignorance.