Are bible contradictions just opinion or interpretation prob

[Zzyzx]

.
Are bible contradictions just opinion or interpretation problems?

From another thread

Yes, no point to show “contradictions�, which are not in the Bible, but in your personal opinions and interpretations of the Bible.

When the bible says "yes" in one place and "no" in another or similar directly conflicting statements (of which there are MANY) is that just a matter of opinion or interpretation?

For instance:

God be seen?
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)

Is that, or is that not a contradiction?

Evidently some bible writers (whoever they were) said that God could be seen and others said God could not be seen. Was one idea right and the other wrong? Which one? Or, were the writers just making things up as they went along – or stating opinions that had no basis in fact?

An internet search for "bible contradictions" produces many results. Perhaps some can be explained away with various excuses, but can all contradictions be explained away?

If the bible contains contradictions it is not fully trustworthy since directly contradictory statements cannot both be true. Which parts of the bible, if any, can be trusted to be truthful and accurate?

[sf]

I decided to see if there were additional passages that could be claimed as being contradictory in God can be seen vs. not be seen debate after you posted. I found some others, but each defense I read was unsatisfactory to me (claims like "seen" can have other meanings). I've found through my experience in questioning the Bible that reading verses in their context resolves most issues, so I went with that and was satisfied with what I found.

A standard Apologist defense of what doesn't make sense or goes against their views is to creatively expand or change the meaning of words and to read into "context" whatever fits their opinion.

That's true, and those are the kinds of unsatisfactory explanations I was talking about coming across when looking into this topic more. In some instances, a layman can get more meaning out of a verse by looking into its original language with the help of professionally created study aids because English is very different than Greek or Hebrew. But other times, people are just pretending that words have more meanings than they do.

On the contrary, when I say to read the verse in context, I mean to read the whole thought (be it multiple sentences/verses or entire paragraphs and chapters). When the Bible was split into verses and even chapters, it helped people be able to reference parts of the Bible more easily, but also did a disservice by making many people think that verses can be taken out of their context and stand on their own (some can, but most can't).

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Not contradictions of itself, but contradictions of opinions concerning its intended meaning. So indeed there are plenty of contradictions in the bible. AND they all address ones opinion about something. Unfortunately for critics, those contradictions are of no value to anyone wishing to contradict Gods word.

So, opinions as the the MEANINGS of the words are of equally no value to the fans of the words, if everything is open to interpretation.

Is it your opinion that the god depicted in the book should be interpreted as REAL, and not simply metaphorically?

[bluethread]

That is the profession of cultural anthropologists and literary critics. Do you believe those are irrational professions?

What do you mean by "irrational professions?" An example? I have not encountered that term previously.

Can we assume that cultural anthropologists and literary critics (and theologians and Christian scholars) KNOW the ability of the intended initial reader? Do they claim such knowledge? Or do they acknowledge they are assuming or guessing (uncertain)?

Well, you questioned how one can discern the nature of the initial reader. I used the phrase irrational professions to refer to professions that assume and guess things apart from reason. Since, I presumed you would reject theologians and Christian scholars outright, I asked if you thought that cultural anthropologists and literary critics do anything other than guess? If that is all that they do, I don't know how anyone can know anything earlier than the civil war, if that. Everything we have in that regard is second hand at best.

Well, there are those little things called quotation marks and related attributions.

OH? Do quotation marks indicate whether a statement is factual or not?

If a statement is contained in quotation marks is that indication that the statement is factual – or that it is not factual? If something presented by bible writers or characters is not in quotation marks is it safe to assume that it is factual information? If no attribution is made does that indicate opinion or factual information?

It establishes whether something that is said to have been recorded in a particular manner was actually recorded in that manner. It appeared that you were attributing a statement to Adonai, that was attributed to Yacov in the text. If that textual attribution is correct, one might be able to argue Yacov was contradicting Adonai, but you can not use that text to support the argument that Adonai is contradicting Himself.

It would not be appropriate to claim that our best guess is error free. Right?

Unless the parameters of the topic under discussion are all included.

When, exactly, are all parameters of the topic under discussion actually included?

In considering bible stories are ANY parameters included? If so, what are they?

I did not say

all

parameters. I simply said the parameters, ie relevant parameters. We are talking about contradictions in the text. Attribution of the statement presented to someone other than Adonai would serve as relevant parameter for showing quotation is not indicative of Adonai contradicting Himself.

Then, it is not our best guess and the error can be identified. For example, if one says, Gen. 32:30 tells us that Yacov literally saw Adonai face to face. That is demonstrably false. Gen. 32:30 tells us that Yacov said, "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Yacov literally seeing Adonai face to face is conjecture on the part of the person making that assertion.

Perhaps there is some doubt that Jacob was being truthful and accurate in saying "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared" in Gen 32:20."

If so, I do not disagree (perhaps for a different reason).

Though I do not think the statement was accurate in a strict literal sense, your reference to the truthfulness of his statement broadens to scope of the statement to include intent. That is a diversion from the point I was making regarding what the text actually says. If I present the following, asdfghj, one can show the assertion that "d" is the second letter in that sequence to be demonstrably false and the assertion that "h" is the sixth letter in that sequence to be demonstrably true. That is the case whether asdfghj is true in any other regard. That is my point.

[lefillegal]

[Replying to post 12 by Zzyzx]

There we have it. The question was about contradiction itself, not about the bible's contradiction. As stated, contradictions are a matter of opinion.

Not always though.
Canada is North of my current location and Canada is South of my current location.

Proving my point. Canada is both North and South of you, so how is that really a contradiction?

The same way you asked how can I rely on what the writers wrote as true, I can ask how do you know its false, how do you KNOW God did not have a hand in theie writings? This is when opinion enters the picture.

Is it of your opinion that there was a global flood, that donkeys and snakes talked, and that dead bodies came back to life?

Yes.

If this is where opinion enters the picture like you claim, who's picture is more reliable? The one based in reality, or the one based on seeming impossibilities? If this is just about opinion, why would anyone choose the opinions that contain impossibilities? I submit that emotions (such as a fear of burning in a hell) drive such decisions, not rationality. Therefore, opinions that don't include impossibilities would seem like the rational ones to hold, not opinions that include things we have never once witnessed in the history of humans

.

The majority of people had a different opinion about The Wright Brothers seeminly impossibe idea of inventing a machine that man could fly in. Few believed their outlandish opinion. Yet this outlandish, impossible fairytale became reality. Basing ones decision on an opinion because it APPEARS closer to reality does not gaurantee ones opinion IS reality.

For neither one of us knows, so we can only offer our opinion.

Does your opinions include talking animals and such? Mine don't. I have opinions about evolution for example, but I can evidence them. What evidence is there for magic?

Anyone can evidence their own opinion. As far as evolution, you can only present what is evidence in your opinion, I would see your same evidence as proof against evolution. Evolution has to first be proven true, before you can present any evidence on its behalf. Without your so called evidence, can you prove to me evolution is true? Why then shall I credit your evidence when you discredit mine?

Also even with all the different denominations, they disagree on a relatively small amount of the bible. Not a majority of it like you assume. But different opinions does nothing to the truth.

It suggests a lack of truth. If we have 10 differing opinions on a subject, they cannot all be true, therefore differing opinions can affect the truth by allowing us to know that not all of the opinions are true.

No, it suggests, a lack of understanding the truth. Just because someone doesn't understand the truth doesn't mean the truth doesn't remain. Truth stands always, even if we don't understand it. How then, can you say it affects the truth? Truth doesn't change, just the opinions of what is truth, that's what changes.

The truth remains true always, regardless of opinion. If interpretation starts with different opinion(presuppositions) then differing analysis of what is taking place is sure to occur.

True, but don't lose the forest for the trees.
Who's opinion would seem more credible? One that included things we have never witnessed to be possible, or one that doesn't.

No opinion is more credible than another. Once an opinion is proven true, it is no longer an opinion but truth, if another opninion is the thing proven false, that is truly an opinion.

Would you trust the opinion of a person that is arguing that animals can talk over a person that argues that they cannot? The starting point for an opinion should not be ignored.

Its not, my starting point is WHO. In your question above, WHO are my two sources of information. In my worldview the WHO are God and Man.

But here's a final example of how interpretation is often dependant on opinion. Its 50 degrees f outside, if I'm from southern California, that's cold, yet if I'm from Antarctica, that's hot, whose correct? Cold is just the absence of heat so again whose opinion is correct, the Californians or the Antartican?

I get what your saying here. Perhaps I can get my point across too.

Who's opinion would seem more reasonable here? The opinion of someone from Antarctica that claims that polar bears can speak, or the opinion of a Californian that claims they cannot speak?

I interpret one opinion to be reasonable and one to be un-reasonable. I assume you agree, but once we are talking about religion with eternal threats, emotions can get in the way and proved a reason to accept the un-reasonable.

Only truth can make one accept the unreasonable, opinion has yet to accomplish that.

This is how opinion plays a role in iinterpretation. This is why I said apparent contradictions are a matter of both opinion and interpretation. Until information is correctly conveyed and recieved properly, all one can do is offer opinion. Until the truth is revealed, opinions is all that we have about how to interpret anything.

Great! I want to interpret the reliability of the Bible.
- Is it your opinion that animals can talk?
- Is it your opinion that people can walk on water?
- Is it your opinion that a human can survive in the belly of a whale?

You said: Until information is correctly conveyed and received properly...

Is, "animals can talk" information that you find to be correct?

It is of my opinion this information IS correct, it is of your opinion that it isn't. Yet neither of our opinions matters, until the truth is revealed we both sound equally outlandish. It is because until that truth is revealed, you can't claim to be any closer to it than I can.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 34 by lefillegal]

Proving my point. Canada is both North and South of you, so how is that really a contradiction?

Canada is not both north and south of you, he was stating a factual contradiction. North and south are fixed points on a globe.



Wherever you are on that globe something is either respectively south or north of you. If for instance you are at the equator Canada cannot be south of you. It will always be north, with respect to your location. East and West are not fixed points and it would also not be a contradiction to say the Bermudas are west of you and east of you because both statements are true and are not mutually exclusive.

A square circle is another factual contradiction. A circle is a concept of a shape that is bounded by one line equidistant from a central point. A square is a shape consisting of four equidistant lines set at 90degree angles. A square cannot be a circle and a circle cannot be a square ergo a square circle is a contradiction.

Contradictions are not always an opinion.

The majority of people had a different opinion about The Wright Brothers seeminly impossibe idea of inventing a machine that man could fly in. Few believed their outlandish opinion. Yet this outlandish, impossible fairytale became reality. Basing ones decision on an opinion because it APPEARS closer to reality does not gaurantee ones opinion IS reality.

There is a difference between powered flight, and people being ignorant of the math involved, since people had already achieved flight through hot air balloons. Human flight was not outlandish. A snake talking in a human language is more than outlandish, they neither have the brain structure nor vocal chords to make speech with. It is very much not the same thing.

You are right though, basing an opinion on what appears closer to reality does not guarantee the opinion is reality. Neither does basing an opinion on what does not remotely resemble reality guarantee that opinion is reality. Which leaves us where we began. The next question is which path has the higher likelihood of being right.

If you were in a 1 mile straight line race on perfect pavement and you had 4 options to race with:

1. A horse
2. Being chained to a 1 ton anvil
3. Being chained to a flock of 100 kittens leashed together
4. A fully charged Tesla P85 with a fresh set of tires and in perfect working order.

Which would you choose?

Anyone can evidence their own opinion. As far as evolution, you can only present what is evidence in your opinion, I would see your same evidence as proof against evolution. Evolution has to first be proven true, before you can present any evidence on its behalf. Without your so called evidence, can you prove to me evolution is true? Why then shall I credit your evidence when you discredit mine?

I am inclined to agree with you in only 1 regard that I nor anyone else can prove evolution to you. You can however prove that to yourself there are many simple simple experiments that you and everybody else can perform to understand how evolution works.

Evolution quite simply is genetic change over successive generations. Simply get your parents DNA sequenced then sequence your own and look for the changes. Cost free simply list the differences between you and your parents. Please get back to us with the results of your findings.

[Ancient of Years]

Canada is North of my current location and Canada is South of my current location.

Are you in Detroit?

[Zzyzx]

.

No opinion is more credible than another.

I disagree. There is a great deal of credibility difference between an opinion of a neurosurgeon concerning brain surgery than the opinion of a tarot reader or faith healer on the same issue. The difference is verifiable training, experience and knowledge.

However, the opinions of those people regarding "gods" may be equally credible (or non-credible) since there is no opportunity for verifiable training, experience or knowledge.

[squint]

.

God engages the world of darkness and of evil that is within every person.

According to Christian lore and literature, God CREATED darkness and evil. Isaiah 45:7 (KJV) I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Uh, yeah. The existence of both is obvious enough, source notwithstanding. Point being?

Looking on the outside will reveal nothing but a man who approaches with his mask on.

The "outside" (actions and words) DOES reveal something of the inside[/quote]

At least you arrived at the internal observation, which is the direction of the scriptures. All the hoo haa that you think you see about scriptures is consistently missing on this count.

-- as exemplified by loving actions by one's mate. Of course, a "mask" may conceal the real "inside" at least for a time.

The outside reveals little about anyone or anything.

[squint]

.

God engages the world of darkness and of evil that is within every person.

According to Christian lore and literature, God CREATED darkness and evil. Isaiah 45:7 (KJV) I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Uh, yeah. The existence of both is obvious enough, source notwithstanding. Point being?

Looking on the outside will reveal nothing but a man who approaches with his mask on.

The "outside" (actions and words) DOES reveal something of the inside

At least you arrived at the internal observation, which is the direction of the scriptures. All the hoo haa that you think you see about scriptures is consistently missing on this count.

-- as exemplified by loving actions by one's mate. Of course, a "mask" may conceal the real "inside" at least for a time.

The outside reveals little about anyone or anything.

There are much more interesting sights to be gleaned.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 39 by squint]

Uh, yeah. The existence of both is obvious enough, source notwithstanding. Point being?

Why create it in the first place?