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?

[squint]

[Replying to post 12 by Zzyzx]

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?

Hosea 12:10
I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

Without these elements in view any attempts at understanding are faulty.

[sf]

[Replying to post 8 by sfisher]

Zzyzx wrote:
Perhaps some can be explained away with various excuses, but can all contradictions be explained away?

Presupposing that the explanations given will be excuses prejudices one's reasoning.

This is a good point, sfisher.

It boils down to what one's baseline regard for contradiction is. Is a contradiction a problem to be solved, a knot to be teased apart? I think this is along the lines of pro-Theist regard for contradictions (I'm sure this could be fleshed out a lot more).

The presupposition of a 'believer' or Theist would equally prejudice their reasoning, going in a different direction to that of a non-Theist or nonbeliever.

That is often the case as well.

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.

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

A major flaw is that unless one is a Greek linguist they are working to "interpret" words that in all probability do not exactly fit the original language. Notice that imperfect translation is often raised as a defense in other instances but forgotten when convenient.

[KenRU]

The requirement that everything be empirically accurate regardless of who is speaking, who is being spoken to and in what context it is being spoken is not reasonable, and is not properly applied to any form of communication, except possibly in an exclusively empirical study.

Agreed. Careful analysis is often required in attempting to determine what happened or was said. In many cases the best we can do is make a "best guess."

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. 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.

Fair enough, but if you admit that this assertion is just conjecture, what is the criteria then, to determine "conjecture" from Truth?

For example, from Exodus 20 New International Version (NIV)

And God spoke all these words:

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

“You shall have no other gods before[a] me.

Wouldn't the above also be considered conjecture on the part of the author of Exodus?

Here again, we are requiring the same standard for two different questions. The truth of what can be empirically verified, ie writing on a page, can be established as empirically true or false. The truth regarding what can not be empirically verified, ie what that writing says about what may have happened in the past, would have to be verified by other means, ie historically true, logically true, or philosophically true. Not all truth is empirically verifiable.

Ok, but how does one verify by other means (either historically, logically or philosophically) that a god actual spoke those words?

-all the best

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 12 by Zzyzx]

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?

Hosea 12:10
I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

Without these elements in view any attempts at understanding are faulty.

Please answer the questions with your words and not Bible verses meant to dodgem the questions. The questions are very simple squint.

Either that, or show that your Hosea verse is true so I can give it some regard.

[Ancient of Years]

Ok, but how does one verify by other means (either historically, logically or philosophically) that a god actual spoke those words?

Not really relevant, I think. The intent of the OP if I understand it correctly is to address the issue of whether apparent contradictions in the bible impact the credibility of the bible as being a divinely inspired work. Successfully demonstrating that these apparent contradictions are resolvable does not require that the bible actually be divinely inspired. It would only show that this particular argument against that possibility does not hold. However if the apparent contradictions are real and not resolvable, the divine inspiration theory about the bible is immediately threatened.

If it were not known if Don Quixote were a work of fiction or an accurate presentation of historical events, one might raise the question of whether the mysterious disappearances and reappearances of Sancho Panza's donkey are resolvable or not. One could argue that they are resolvable without necessarily requiring that Cervante's story really happened. But if they are not resolvable, the book goes on the fiction shelf.

[squint]

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.

A major flaw is that unless one is a Greek linguist they are working to "interpret" words that in all probability do not exactly fit the original language. Notice that imperfect translation is often raised as a defense in other instances but forgotten when convenient.

Obviously the basis of approach would be exactly "how" any decides to view and interpret same. That is what the Word does. It "reflects" what the readers think they see:

Hebrews 4:
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Those who insist that the basis of approach is and can only be X (insert whatever approach is insisted upon, historical only, empirical only) will only be reflecting their own internal insistence on what they insist to see. And in that quest they themselves have been revealed to some extents only by what they see or do not see.

In theological circles this principle is known generally as "as we study the scriptures we find the scriptures are also studying us."

When engaging the Word of God, the people of the O.T. were requested to do so with a "whole heart." Or with all our mind/body/emotions/everything that is within us.

If we hide part of that heart from exposure, then understandings will be quite purposefully "locked out" in the attempts of erroneous engagements.

Did this Living God engage the people of Israel? It was not "just them" that God engaged. The meanings of the scriptures are buried on the dark sides of the ledgers.

Jacob for example came before his father, Isaac, as a deceiving liar, YET Jacob was BLESSED by God.

Why?

Because Jacob approached HONESTLY, as a pretender, a liar, a deceiver, and he KNEW it and deceived his father of the FLESH, Isaac.

Spiritual lesson 101.

Any person who makes an HONEST approach to Gods Words will also be blessed. They will be led to see themselves as they really are, on the INSIDE. If we approach the Word thinking that we ourselves are not known, we are only kidding ourselves in what we think we see.

"Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do."

Whole heart. It's what's for spiritual dinner.

[squint]

[Replying to post 12 by Zzyzx]

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?

Hosea 12:10
I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

Without these elements in view any attempts at understanding are faulty.

Please answer the questions with your words and not Bible verses meant to dodgem the questions. The questions are very simple squint.

Either that, or show that your Hosea verse is true so I can give it some regard.

God engages the world of darkness and of evil that is within every person. Looking on the outside will reveal nothing but a man who approaches with his mask on.

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

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

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 12 by Zzyzx]

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?

Hosea 12:10
I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

Without these elements in view any attempts at understanding are faulty.

Please answer the questions with your words and not Bible verses meant to dodgem the questions. The questions are very simple squint.

Either that, or show that your Hosea verse is true so I can give it some regard.

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

Right, and the elephant stood on the marshmallow so that it wouldn't drown in the hot chocolate.

Please show that I have evil in me or kindly retract your horrible and insidious claim.

What you offer is nothing but the "with all due respect" argument.
Person A - With all due respect, you are evil.
Person B - What?!?!
Person A - Why are you upset, I said "with all due respect".

Squint - You have evil in you.
Clownboat - That is a terrible thing to say to anyone.
Squint - But the Bible. Derp.

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

Perhaps you could learn to be a better judge of character? For example, all I know about you is what you post (outside stuff), and what you post tells a lot about you.