Biblical Contradictions

[achilles12604]

Ok. I looked over the last few pages of topics and I couldn't find one dedicated to this discussion (much to my surprise). Therefore I am starting it.


What are the biblical contradictions which the atheists keep refering to and what are the answers by apologists.

Ready, set . . . GO!

[Cathar1950]

Comparing that to Christianity's 1,000+, I am led to believe that whoever wrote the Koran was obviously a lot clearer in his teachings than the person(s) who wrote the Bible. Is this an unreasonable assumption?

It is only clear to the believer. But the Koran at least makes a claim that their leader told them his visions and they wrote them down. It is less sure then the NT collection of diverse traditions and interpretations over a 200 year time period. When did they write down Mohamad's visions?

[achilles12604]

Then I have a suggestion. All those places you listed . . . they neither conflict nor disagree with each other. Like a puzzle each piece has its place, and no two pieces have the same place.

Then you don't think there was any simpler way for God to covey his wishes to us? Why not just list the requirements of Christians, as was done with the 10 commandments? Not many people misunderstand the principles set forth in the 10 commandments.


If God inspired the Bible, and truely wants us to obey his will, do you really think he would subjugate Christians to an apparently never-ending scavenger hunt for Biblical truth?

You mean something along the lines of "Love the Lord your God and love your neighbor as yourself. . . " Something like this perhaps. . .

True. However there is one overriding theme throughout all who can ligitamently call themselves Christian at a basic level. And this standard does not change.

I'm curious... just what is this standard?

Jesus attoning death and resurrection from the Grave. Beyond this, who cares if you don't eat pork or you wash your feet or you do the Hokie Pokie.

You are so focused on the minute details (probably because you are unable to find a contradiction which actually places Christian teachings in Jepordy), that you ignore that most of the message is congruant.

Well lets see. . . there are three factions killing each other right now in Iraq. Here are a few more

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/sects.htm

Here are about a dozen more

http://www.religion-cults.com/Islam/islam5.html

Yet you must be right. Islamic people totally agree on everything and therefore are far superior to Christains.

I counted about ten different groups which could be considered "denominations".

Comparing that to Christianity's 1,000+, I am led to believe that whoever wrote the Koran was obviously a lot clearer in his teachings than the person(s) who wrote the Bible. Is this an unreasonable assumption?

Hmm . . . How about the assumption that if you disagree in Islam, you are murdered. I don't recall Paul ordering the murder of Peter. He disagreed with Peter, talked to Peter and tried to get him to see his point of view. Perhaps this is why there are so many different nuances in the Christian faith, because we are free to disagree much moreso (with small exceptions), than in Islam. Notice that right now Iraq is falling into Civil war which has been brewing for many years because of the persecution of one Islam against another Islam. I don't see Baptists murdering and bombing my street ministry. I must be missing all the Non-denominational churches launching poison gas against the lutherans. Sure there have been a few problems between our denominations. But we have never resorted to Genocide against other Christians. If you are muslim and you disagree with another muslim, you are taking your life into your hands it seems. Of course since violence and control are the founding force behind Islam, I guess this makes sense.

This violence was an obvious deterant to free thought.

[Wyvern]

I don't see Baptists murdering and bombing my street ministry. I must be missing all the Non-denominational churches launching poison gas against the lutherans. Sure there have been a few problems between our denominations. But we have never resorted to Genocide against other Christians.

The same things happened to christianity only it happened nearly four hundred years ago, it was called the 30 years war. This was a war that pitted protestants against catholics, pretty much all of Europe got involved with the main fighting being in Germany and Bohemia. Just because it no longer happens doesn't mean that it hasn't happened and is more a case of christianity getting it out of their system.

If you are muslim and you disagree with another muslim, you are taking your life into your hands it seems. Of course since violence and control are the founding force behind Islam, I guess this makes sense.

Same thing happened to christians during the Inquisition and the many witch trials. Control is a primary purpose of any religious/political system and violence is merely a tool used to enforce control

This violence was an obvious deterant to free thought.

Prior to the protestant revolution catholicism had something even better, excommunication in effect a metaphysical nuke. In the islamic world they might kill you but you would still get into paradise but back then the catholic authorities could excommunicate you kill you without sinning themselves and also guarrantee you would go to hell. Ask Gallileo about the power of excommunication.

[achilles12604]

I don't see Baptists murdering and bombing my street ministry. I must be missing all the Non-denominational churches launching poison gas against the lutherans. Sure there have been a few problems between our denominations. But we have never resorted to Genocide against other Christians.

The same things happened to christianity only it happened nearly four hundred years ago, it was called the 30 years war. This was a war that pitted protestants against catholics, pretty much all of Europe got involved with the main fighting being in Germany and Bohemia. Just because it no longer happens doesn't mean that it hasn't happened and is more a case of christianity getting it out of their system.

Absolutly. Actually Christianity's history makes my point even more pronounced. The fighting between the divisions was an attempt to silence any opinion other than your own. The suggestion was offered that Christianity can't be as accurate as Islam because Islam has fewer detailed divisions. However, Christianity once only had one primary denomination. Then over time, different people have used their minds to explore other interpretations of the texts. But the fact that today, those people are able to form there own opinions based reading the scriptures for themselves does not harm the validity of the text. In fact, it shows that many people from many different areas can read the bible, and all believe the main themes, while agreeing to disagree on the details. For a book 2000 years old, the fact that its primary message has been preserved and is agreed upon by people who disagree about a good many other things, should show the bibles general consistancy in its message.

If you are muslim and you disagree with another muslim, you are taking your life into your hands it seems. Of course since violence and control are the founding force behind Islam, I guess this makes sense.

Same thing happened to christians during the Inquisition and the many witch trials. Control is a primary purpose of any religious/political system and violence is merely a tool used to enforce control

Yes. I would say that in this case violence is a tool to enforce ideas. This is what the Christain church tried to do and what Islam is trying to do now. Fortunatly, we have outgrown and now we simply agree to disagree.

This violence was an obvious deterant to free thought.

Prior to the protestant revolution catholicism had something even better, excommunication in effect a metaphysical nuke. In the islamic world they might kill you but you would still get into paradise but back then the catholic authorities could excommunicate you kill you without sinning themselves and also guarrantee you would go to hell. Ask Gallileo about the power of excommunication.

Actually this is a good example of the differences of belief that were held. My personal opinion is that if it isn't in the bible, it shouldn't be part of the doctrine. Catholics hold to a lot of beliefs which are not biblically based. In your studies you must have realized that a great number of the Catholic beliefs were actually invented by priests to increase their power both religious and political. Excommunication is one of these things. It was a tool invented to try and wield even more power. But as Martin Luther objected, this power was not biblically based and so it was really no power at all. If one did not believe in the power of excommunication, then ones opinions and salvation would still be intact. In effect excommunication is nothing to worry about for those who base their beliefs in the actual scriptures rather than simply believing whatever they are told.

And this brings us full circle to free thought. Martin Luther decided to use his brain and read the books for himself rather than relying on a priest to do it for him. His free thought is what I encourage all Christains to do.


I may be wrong, but Islam does not inspire free thought does it?

[Metacrock]

so at worst your argument is saying that there is a pshchological deminsion to belief. But we know that arleady. At best you are saying belief is an effictive tool for dealing with emotional pian.So what's so bad about feeling good?

I not against feeling good. Be careful not to be labeled an hedonist.

why would you fear that one leads to the other?

[achilles12604]

Comparing that to Christianity's 1,000+, I am led to believe that whoever wrote the Koran was obviously a lot clearer in his teachings than the person(s) who wrote the Bible. Is this an unreasonable assumption?

It is only clear to the believer. But the Koran at least makes a claim that their leader told them his visions and they wrote them down. It is less sure then the NT collection of diverse traditions and interpretations over a 200 year time period. When did they write down Mohamad's visions?

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/compilationbrief.html

First I defy you to point to a NT book that ANY acredited scholar truely believes was written as late as 233 AD.

Good luck backing up that claim.


Now as for when was the Quran compiled . . . about 100 years after Muhammed give or take. I also find it interesting that most of the sources for the man compiling the Quran had the stories memorized. Christians point to an oral culture and are told that their NT can't be reliable because of it. Yet then you point to the Quran and say it is much more accurate than the NT?

Then I point out that the NT has 4 independent sources for its story, of whom 1 for sure and probably 3 of them were eyewitness accounts (don't split hairs here. Its getting tired.) The Quran traces its information back to a single source who did not have first hand knowledge of the events.

Finally I point out that Muhammed himself thought his vision was probably demonic in nature at first. I would suggest he could have been absolutly correct.

[wizanda]

There are countless translation error all the way through on purpose to disguise the guilty parties...
This is still clearly visable and needs fixing globally, why i am here in the first place to help fix it...

[Metacrock]

There are countless translation error all the way through on purpose to disguise the guilty parties...
This is still clearly visable and needs fixing globally, why i am here in the first place to help fix it...

real scholars rarely mess with message boards. where did you study blibcal languages? the Secular ;Web?

[achilles12604]

There are countless translation error all the way through on purpose to disguise the guilty parties...
This is still clearly visable and needs fixing globally, why i am here in the first place to help fix it...

real scholars rarely mess with message boards. where did you study blibcal languages? the Secular ;Web?

I am really curious as well. Who did you study under? Can you understand when I write something like . . .


makavrio aujtov

[Metacrock]

There are countless translation error all the way through on purpose to disguise the guilty parties...
This is still clearly visable and needs fixing globally, why i am here in the first place to help fix it...

real scholars rarely mess with message boards. where did you study blibcal languages? the Secular ;Web?

I am really curious as well. Who did you study under? Can you understand when I write something like . . .


makavrio aujtov

Didn't take Hebrew. my undergrad language was Greek. University of Texas system. My Masters degree is from Perkins school of theology, SMU.

I don't claim to be a professional sholar.


Sorry to be insulting. I just think its' absurd to come on like "I am the one sent by .God to correct Paul who is mistaken in everything he said." Wizanda does come on like that both here and in another hread I'm on.

Paul did what theological do. He was in a sense the first real theologian in history. He was one of the most brilliant minds of his day. He was clearly called by God, if we accept Markan and lukan authorship the Pauline circle even shares half the Gospels.