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.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 77 by bluethread]

Bats are not to be eaten...How about hares are not to be eaten.

Who says they aren't to be eaten? That's the point I was making.

No, the forum point was that bats are no birds and hares don't ruminate. The points made in the Scripture passages are that Adonai's people do not eat bats and hares.

So, you see, the vagueness is due to the expectations of the reader and not the context of the passage.

That's not an absolute. "...how we should then live." is the umbrella needing more details and thus, too vague to be anything but grand fodder without meaning IMO.
"how we should then live." isn't the same as 'bats aren't to be eaten' The 'bats' statement is a part of 'how we should live', but not the whole. The 'how we should then live." is a general statement and too grand without more details and a qualifier as to the 'who said' and 'why is it'.
Following general statements like that tends to lead to divergence in cultures and soceities from what I've seen.

The standard that determines the significance of an apparent contradiction is in how it effects how Adonai's people are to live. Is that clear enough?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 81 by bluethread]

No, the forum point was that bats are no birds and hares don't ruminate.

Um.... bats are no birds....?

The points made in the Scripture passages are that Adonai's people do not eat bats and hares.

Which answers the 'says who' which begs the question 'so what? I don't share this belief so why should I live MY life the way YOU think YOUR god says I should?'
One's life is theirs to live the way they see fit, not how you or I say it should be lived.

The standard that determines the significance of an apparent contradiction is in how it effects how Adonai's people are to live. Is that clear enough?

That's less vague. However, you still have the god variable in there. Beyond that: are you saying this (in all its forms) is how every human should live? That your god, that you interparet in the way you do, which is vastly different than many, should be given priority because your god said so? Is that the defense you're taking here?
Or are 'adonai's people' a special sect selected above others?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 78 by bluethread]

Hell no! Lol!!

My point in bringing them up was that they are the same kind of tired, long-refuted apologetics as the genealogy example. I have no interest in re-hashing contradictions and errors that were resolved for me some 40 years ago. If you are unfamiliar with any of those citings, someone else will have to enlighten you. They are quite common and the exposition of the fallacies they entail are quite comprehensible to the reasoning mind. I grow weary of battling obstinance and answering the same questions over and over again, just as I would grow weary over explaining why 2+2 does not equal 13. Vita brevis.

Well, if you do not wish to abide by the TOS, your point is moot. You may be convinced, but, as I heard someone say recently, I am not buying it.

I refer you to my original prediction at the beginning of this thread, where I advised the OP that he would be given all sort of apologetics, and you have and others have complied. I stated there would be those who simply don't care that there are contradictions, and here comes dianaiad with the expected 'So What?'.

It is the apologetics forum, is it not? As for dianaiad's inquiry, isn't it reasonable to ask why a given apparent contradiction matters? Aren't we advised by nonbelievers to be skeptical?

Personally, I should not have enabled this thread. That's my bad. Others are more than welcome to it. For myself, I value this site for the new ground I see covered from time to time, not for the endless loop of 'that's not what it says!' - 'yes it is!'

Jesus does not fulfill messianic prophesy. The facts of the OT speak for themselves on this. It's resolved, and has been for centuries. Christians embarass themselves when they pretend to know more about the OT Messiah and his attributes and evidences than the actual people that wrote the book. I don't tell Tongans what the origin and attributes of the Haka are. Christians would do well to consider that intellectual courtesy. Just sayin'.

Have I ever said that I know more about the Tanakh than the people who write it. You obviously have a chip on your shoulder regarding particular kinds of individuals, but I do not understand why you presume that other individuals fall into that category. Regarding personal preferences, I prefer to discuss concepts with individuals and not write off or castigate them for experiences I may have had with others.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 83 by bluethread]

As for dianaiad's inquiry, isn't it reasonable to ask why a given apparent contradiction matters? Aren't we advised by nonbelievers to be skeptical?

Curious: at what point did 'so what' become curiosity?
Does that not mean more disregard than curiosity?
Sounds more like "2+2 doesn't equal 5? meh don't care - I don't need 2s & 5s anyway to get through life" than "2+2 doesn't equal 5? Why not? Let's figure out why!"

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 81 by bluethread]

No, the forum point was that bats are no birds and hares don't ruminate.

Um.... bats are no birds....?

The points made in the Scripture passages are that Adonai's people do not eat bats and hares.

Which answers the 'says who' which begs the question 'so what? I don't share this belief so why should I live MY life the way YOU think YOUR god says I should?'
One's life is theirs to live the way they see fit, not how you or I say it should be lived.

When did I say you should? I did use the rhetorical we, but that does not need to include you. This is a thread on apparent contradictions in the Scriptures, not how you should live.

The standard that determines the significance of an apparent contradiction is in how it effects how Adonai's people are to live. Is that clear enough?

That's less vague. However, you still have the god variable in there. Beyond that: are you saying this (in all its forms) is how every human should live? That your god, that you interparet in the way you do, which is vastly different than many, should be given priority because your god said so? Is that the defense you're taking here?
Or are 'adonai's people' a special sect selected above others?

"Above" is a value judgment and is subject one's prospective. The Scriptures do say that Adonai's people are set apart for a purpose.

As for dianaiad's inquiry, isn't it reasonable to ask why a given apparent contradiction matters? Aren't we advised by nonbelievers to be skeptical?

Curious: at what point did 'so what' become curiosity?
Does that not mean more disregard than curiosity?
Sounds more like "2+2 doesn't equal 5? meh don't care - I don't need 2s & 5s anyway to get through life" than "2+2 doesn't equal 5? Why not? Let's figure out why!"

One could infer a flippant attitude in that remark, but it is not implicit and I don't see dianaiad as a flippant person. I take it that she is saying that she does not how a particular apparent inconsistency matters. The straight forward response would be to show how it does matter, I would think.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 85 by bluethread]

When did I say you should?

You said "That line is where it effects how we should then live."

I did use the rhetorical we, but that does not need to include you.

Ah - another vague response that has been rectified where you answered the question: "Beyond that: are you saying this (in all its forms) is how every human should live?"
It then appears that you're saying these rule aren't for the 'non-god people' or non-believers. Are they to live by a different standard?

The Scriptures do say that Adonai's people are set apart for a purpose.

For what purpose? Is this not destiny? Are are 'the people' a vague general term that means 'anyone accepting god'?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 85 by bluethread]

When did I say you should?

You said "That line is where it effects how we should then live."

I did use the rhetorical we, but that does not need to include you.

Ah - another vague response that has been rectified where you answered the question: "Beyond that: are you saying this (in all its forms) is how every human should live?"
It then appears that you're saying these rule aren't for the 'non-god people' or non-believers. Are they to live by a different standard?

The Scriptures do say that Adonai's people are set apart for a purpose.

For what purpose? Is this not destiny? Are are 'the people' a vague general term that means 'anyone accepting god'?

I think the reason these things may appear vague is because you seem to be asking for precise language on an open forum on apparent contradictions in and not the over all purpose of the Scriptures. I have attempted to be more specific as we have proceeded and I will attempt to refine this as we go. In short, Adonai's people are set apart to be an example to the nations. Therefore, anyone who wishes to be considered one of Adonai's people would need to live as He intends. I am not sure what this has to do with apparent contradictions in the Scriptures, but there you have it.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 87 by bluethread]

I think the reason these things may appear vague is because you seem to be asking for precise language on an open forum on apparent contradictions in and not the over all purpose of the Scriptures.

No, you made vague statements with assumptions, many of which you corrected (know your audience as they say). You're doing a good job in clarifying - it's appreciated.

In short, Adonai's people are set apart to be an example to the nations.

Which I don't disagree with (I liked how you didn't specify 'good' or 'bad' examples, just examples - in this case vagueness is called for)

Therefore, anyone who wishes to be considered one of Adonai's people would need to live as He intends.

Again, you clarified - it's appreciated

I am not sure what this has to do with apparent contradictions in the Scriptures, but there you have it.

I was thinking the same thing but thought it worth asking anyway.
Again, thanks for your ability to clarify!

[Strider324]

[Replying to post 83 by bluethread]

Nothing wrong with the fact that apologetics exist. But there are literally thousands of claims in the bible that require apologetics - an astounding fact that, if true for any other text, said text would have been utterly dismissed centuries ago. Such is the power of both the sword and human credulity.

I'm just not going to waste any more time on the bible claims that have been thoroughly thrashed. Too many more interesting and less obviously bogus claims to be considered, imo. That's all.

Have fun storming the castle....

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 83 by bluethread]

Nothing wrong with the fact that apologetics exist. But there are literally thousands of claims in the bible that require apologetics - an astounding fact that, if true for any other text, said text would have been utterly dismissed centuries ago. Such is the power of both the sword and human credulity.

I'm just not going to waste any more time on the bible claims that have been thoroughly thrashed. Too many more interesting and less obviously bogus claims to be considered, imo. That's all.

Have fun storming the castle....

Storming what castle? I'm not the one making the accusations. I am just asking that we examine some of the "literally thousands of claims". If you do not wish to do that, then I don't know how you can expect me take you seriously. Happy venting.