Bible Contradictions

[mwtech]

I used to be a Christian and only recently become an atheist after studying the Bible enough to notice the flaws. I believe the Bible in itself to be contradictory enough to prove itself wrong, and I enjoy discussing it with other people, especially Christians who disagree. I would really like to have a one on one debate with any Christian who thinks that they have a logical answer for the contradictions in the Bible. The one rule I have is that you can't make a claim without evidence, whether from the Bible or any other source. I am interested in logical conversation, and I don't believe that any Christian can refute the contradictions I have found without making up some rationalization that has no evidence or logical base.

[Apollo]

"It is not a reliable souce when it comes to science, and it is not a reliable source when it comes to history, but that does not preclude it's utility (a concept that seems important to you) as a Spiritual guide, IF one approaches it with common sense, reason and discernment.

Okay, let me ask a clarifying question. Do you believe in anything on the basis that it is written in the bible? If no, cool - I just want to ensure I'm not misunderstanding you.

Let's take my passing reference of the scholarship of "external sources" as you say, out of the equation. And speak of what speaks to us as individuals, I have explained my own internal criteria for interpreting the Bible, and similar approaches, anyone can use.

Anyone can use those approaches, the same way anyone can flip a coin. I'm not trying to be flippant - I'm pointing out that those methods don't demonstrate consistent, repeatable results. This indicates that the methods aren't a good way for determining the validity of a claim.

As far as parts of the Bible "speaking to me" and others not, and your reply that "Can't one say that of *any* book?" I would say to this: maybe, but that is like saying regarding the Declaration of Independence when I assert that it useful because parts of it speak to me as an American, "can't you say that about ANY document?"

The Declaration of Independence is a special document because of its unique place in American history, as well as how well-written it is. It has both demonstrable historical value and literary value. I do not dispute that the bible's original scriptures are historical artifacts (though I would dispute that most of it is at all well-written, particularly in the original text). If you're valuing the bible on these criteria alone, bravo. If you're adding anything extra, evidence please.

Well, the Declaration is not just any document, and the Bible is not just any book. You did not address my Declaration analogy when I said THIS in a post above:
"Should Americans also toss out the Declaration of Independence with it's talk of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", because Jefferson also contaminates the document with his own cultural bias when he refers to American Indians as "savages", Should I therefore disregard Jefferson as some individual who had NOTHING useful or edifying to say?

Well, should I?

I'm sorry I didn't address it directly, I thought my explanation was applicable to all potential analogies.

You should indeed dismiss the notion that Jefferson was a reliable source for moral insight or cultural appreciation. You should not take anything Jefferson writes in said documents as morally credible (these are not factual errors you're reporting). However, that does not mean that many of Jefferson's positions can't be morally credible. The point is that Jefferson is not a compass for morality, and neither is the Declaration of Independence. It says some great things and some bad things. We determine which are which through external processed. Jefferson can be a conversation-starter, but the presence of incorrect ideas in the document means that the document isn't credible on its own.

This really isn't complicated. If you have an encyclopedia, for example, and it says a bunch of things that are completely wrong and a bunch of things that are completely right - the encyclopedia isn't a reliable source of truth. If someone asked you to support an argument, you would not be justified in citing that encyclopedia. The same goes for Jefferson's moral failing and the Bible's failings as well.

Likewise the Bible is not just any book. It is foundational to much of English if not Western literature, and it is foundational as a Spiritual inspiration for billions of seekers, for better or worse, like it or not. Even more so than the dialogues of Plato, or anything by Homer, Virgil or Cicero.

If you want to make this argument, go for it. Analyzing literary impact and historical impact is totally cool. Reading what the bible says and accepting the bible as a credible source for its claims is something else entirely.

It's not complex. An egyptian relic covered in hieroglyphs depicting myths has historical value and linguistic value. That doesn't mean anyone should take anything the hieroglyphs say seriously.

And discriminating and discerning the passages of the Bible is not "random", I never advocated a random approach, I think I made that clear.

You definitely don't advocate a random approach. I never meant to imply that you literally based your opinions on random chance.

[Apollo]

If we take for example hollow rubber ball, the material is flat, but the product is round.

According to the Bible earth meant dry land. It is possible that dry land is flat plate that is curved to a round ball.

God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:10

If you're willing to go *that* far, imagining possible explanations...

I think all depends on how things are defined. I think contradiction is two claims that really exclude others.

Please provide an example, any example, of what you'd consider a true contradiction to be. I don't mean one that's in the bible, I mean literally write two statements that, as you say it, really exclude others (by which I assume you mean exclude each other).

Your explanations so far have been so stretched that I do not believe a contradiction that meets your criteria is even possible for you to construct. If you'd demonstrate me wrong, I'd appreciate that.

[connermt]

I can't argue with deism. I can't argue that it is possible for there to be a god. I personally feel like even if there is, I can't know who or what it is or wants, so why think about it. I feel like there probably isn't. But the human mind is only capable of imagining something it has already experienced or a variation of that experience. If there is a god who does things differently than I can comprehend, so be it.

What I argue against is that the God that Jews, Christians, and Muslims is not real, and the bible and Koran are false and full of problems. If you believe that, we're on the same page.

Great post!
From my experience, the human mind is capable of "a whole lot o' junk" that we can't even begin to comprehend. This is why I believe that 'god' is 'real' in that it lives in the mind of the believer and not 'out in the world' or 'the heavens'. So in that sense, there is a 'real' god, but not like the god in the bible.
But that's just me & my 2¢ on it...

[Elijah John]

"It is not a reliable souce when it comes to science, and it is not a reliable source when it comes to history, but that does not preclude it's utility (a concept that seems important to you) as a Spiritual guide, IF one approaches it with common sense, reason and discernment.

Okay, let me ask a clarifying question. Do you believe in anything on the basis that it is written in the bible? If no, cool - I just want to ensure I'm not misunderstanding you.

Anyone can use those approaches, the same way anyone can flip a coin. I'm not trying to be flippant - I'm pointing out that those methods don't demonstrate consistent, repeatable results. This indicates that the methods aren't a good way for determining the validity of a claim.

You definitely don't advocate a random approach. I never meant to imply that you literally based your opinions on random chance.[/quote]
-------------------------------------------------------
I just want to address these three points you make here, as I believe I addressed the others already. If not, and if they are important to you, please let me know, and I will do my best.

Clarifying answer, no, I do not take anything on the basis of "because the Bible tells me so" ...UNLESS, it accords with (or in some cases) transcends Reason, but nothing that contradicts Reason. If it rings true in my inner being, OR if it is self evident and observable, I accept it, if not, I reject or ignore it.

The second point, you illustrate the difference of our appoaches when you use terms like "repeatable results" ...the scientific method does not apply to the Bible IF one does not take the Bible as a book of science, which I do not.

And third, thanks for clarifying that you were not implying that I use a random method, understood and clarification appreciated.

[Apollo]

Clarifying answer, no, I do not take anything on the basis of "because the Bible tells me so" ...UNLESS, it accords with (or in some cases) transcends Reason, but nothing that contradicts Reason. If it rings true in my inner being, OR if it is self evident and observable, I accept it, if not, I reject or ignore it.

1) Can you clarify what "transcends reason" means?

2) Do you think that something "ringing true with your inner being" is a good indicator of whether it's actually true?

The second point, you illustrate the difference of our appoaches when you use terms like "repeatable results" ...the scientific method does not apply to the Bible IF one does not take the Bible as a book of science, which I do not.

Actually, it does - if we're making truth claims about it. If we want to evaluate whether a method is a good indicator of truth, one way to test if it is or isn't is if that method produces consistent and repeatable results. For example, if one was to say their method for knowing what Jesus wants is praying to him and listening to what he says - we can check to see if everyone using this method is getting the same information back. If they are, the method might not be a reliable indicator of truth but at least it's established as reliable (an important step). If they aren't, then we know it isn't a reliable indicator in the first place.

Figuring out what Jesus wants sure isn't a scientific proposition, but the same reasoning applies.

And third, thanks for clarifying that you were not implying that I use a random method, understood and clarification appreciated.

Sure thing. =)

[bluethread]

Yes, they are different genealogies. But yours is a tired apologetic with no basis. It's irrelevant what modern Judaism does. Judaism at the time of the NT was paternal. The fact that there are contradictory genealogies is simply evidence that either one is wrong, or both are wrong. Further, the scripture itself does not allow for this bizarre apologetic. Heli is not written as the father-in-law. He is clearly written in inspired scripture as the father of Joseph.

The truth is - as with so many apologetics - that when this contradiction was pointed out, the church's only option was to either admit to errancy, or desperately scramble for this excuse. Sorry, you'll have to do better than this.

No it says, tou - of the. The word son is only applied to Yeshua and there is a note that He was legally identified as the son of Yoseph. You clearly seem to think that we should take a hyper literal approach. Well, quite literally it says, legalized son of Yoseph of the Heli of the Matthat . . . In a paternalistic society, it is the head of household that is identified, not the daughter, and that is what is done here. I hope you don't now plan to "desperately scramble" for an "excuse".

[Elijah John]

Clarifying answer, no, I do not take anything on the basis of "because the Bible tells me so" ...UNLESS, it accords with (or in some cases) transcends Reason, but nothing that contradicts Reason. If it rings true in my inner being, OR if it is self evident and observable, I accept it, if not, I reject or ignore it.

1) Can you clarify what "transcends reason" means?

2) Do you think that something "ringing true with your inner being" is a good indicator of whether it's actually true?

By "transcending reason" I mean to say that reason is an excellent way, but not the ONLY way of knowing. There is instinct and intuition as well. Things that transcend reason, are things that are not demonstrably true. But they are not demonstrably false either.

The existence of God is such a matter, and transcends reason. God's existence can be neither proven nor disproven through reason.

And "ringing true" is relatied to things which transend reason, ringing true in one's inner being IS a good way of detemining if something is true, at least for that person. It does not mean that it is objectivly demonstable, nor should it be forced on another, as in prostletyzing. But having said that, UNLESS the matter is demonstrated to be untrue, by experience or common sense observation.

But the scientific mind, or the scientific method has it's limitations. One cannot apply the scientific method to Art, for example. And for me, and many others, religion is more closely related to the Arts than it is to science.

[Strider324]

Yes, they are different genealogies. But yours is a tired apologetic with no basis. It's irrelevant what modern Judaism does. Judaism at the time of the NT was paternal. The fact that there are contradictory genealogies is simply evidence that either one is wrong, or both are wrong. Further, the scripture itself does not allow for this bizarre apologetic. Heli is not written as the father-in-law. He is clearly written in inspired scripture as the father of Joseph.

The truth is - as with so many apologetics - that when this contradiction was pointed out, the church's only option was to either admit to errancy, or desperately scramble for this excuse. Sorry, you'll have to do better than this.

No it says, tou - of the. The word son is only applied to Yeshua and there is a note that He was legally identified as the son of Yoseph. You clearly seem to think that we should take a hyper literal approach. Well, quite literally it says, legalized son of Yoseph of the Heli of the Matthat . . . In a paternalistic society, it is the head of household that is identified, not the daughter, and that is what is done here. I hope you don't now plan to "desperately scramble" for an "excuse".

I'm not the one relying on a bogus apologetic. You're trying to sell this argument that in the one case, a 1st century author provided a genealogy according to contemporary custom which called for a record through Joseph, yet another 1st century author completely ignored this supposed custom and provided a genealogy through Mary. It's a shell game, plain and simple. You're welcome to try to sell that to someone else. I'm not buying.

[Elijah John]

Yes, they are different genealogies. But yours is a tired apologetic with no basis. It's irrelevant what modern Judaism does. Judaism at the time of the NT was paternal. The fact that there are contradictory genealogies is simply evidence that either one is wrong, or both are wrong. Further, the scripture itself does not allow for this bizarre apologetic. Heli is not written as the father-in-law. He is clearly written in inspired scripture as the father of Joseph.

The truth is - as with so many apologetics - that when this contradiction was pointed out, the church's only option was to either admit to errancy, or desperately scramble for this excuse. Sorry, you'll have to do better than this.

No it says, tou - of the. The word son is only applied to Yeshua and there is a note that He was legally identified as the son of Yoseph. You clearly seem to think that we should take a hyper literal approach. Well, quite literally it says, legalized son of Yoseph of the Heli of the Matthat . . . In a paternalistic society, it is the head of household that is identified, not the daughter, and that is what is done here. I hope you don't now plan to "desperately scramble" for an "excuse".

Moderator Comment

Please review the Rules.

Do not anticipate another's response, especially in a manner that seems to be judging their motives and possible intent of evasiveness. Take the response as it comes, and strive for more civility.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[bluethread]

No it says, tou - of the. The word son is only applied to Yeshua and there is a note that He was legally identified as the son of Yoseph. You clearly seem to think that we should take a hyper literal approach. Well, quite literally it says, legalized son of Yoseph of the Heli of the Matthat . . . In a paternalistic society, it is the head of household that is identified, not the daughter, and that is what is done here. I hope you don't now plan to "desperately scramble" for an "excuse".

I'm not the one relying on a bogus apologetic. You're trying to sell this argument that in the one case, a 1st century author provided a genealogy according to contemporary custom which called for a record through Joseph, yet another 1st century author completely ignored this supposed custom and provided a genealogy through Mary. It's a shell game, plain and simple. You're welcome to try to sell that to someone else. I'm not buying.

You are the one arguing that there would not be genealogies for someone's mother. I am just explaining what is there. Whether you buy it or not is of no consequence to me. However, there definitely would have been genealogies of the mother's family, at least for the Priests. It was also very important for a woman to keep track of her father's genealogy for the purpose of property rights and near kinsman rights. These are not bogus apologetics. That is how things would work in a Torah submissive society.