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!

[achilles12604]

Quote:
I'm calling you on this. You mean to tell me that the entire bible, contains no historical facts?

No.

Most of it's outrageous claims are based on some historical fact. For example, although the Isrealites were never enslaved by the Egyptians, there were definetly some Jews in the region around the time described.

The Bible would be my absolute last resort for historical facts, needless to say.

Sir William Ramsay said the same thing until he dug into it. Have you seen the result of his years of archeology?

Quote:
I also see nothing in the Bible that indicates that we should take it literally

.

And I see nothing that would imply that it should be taken figuratively either.

Therefore, when the Bible says that the Earth was created in six days, why should I assume that it means something other than it says? If God meant something else, then why not just say it?

Surely you are familiar with apocolyptic writings?
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/ApocWr ... index.html

Scholars UNIVERSALLY recognize this type of writing. So what is the basis for your claim?

Quote:
All humans understand the basics of the divine knowledge. This would account for the fact that all religions have many similarities.

And what similarities are those? "Love thy neighbor", I assume?

If so, you should note that many non-religious philosophies have adopted this concept as well.

It is not a piece of "divine" knowledge that God has lent us. Altruism and brotherhood are simply human nature.

Very good. And if God was the author of mankind, then Jesters point has been made. You have identified the handprint in the mud. We are simply pointing to the hand that made it.

If that makes you feel better. However, the Bible seems to say differently...
Mat 7:13-14
Enter through the narrow gate because the gate and road that lead to destruction are wide. Many enter through the wide gate. But the narrow gate and the road that lead to life are full of trouble. Only a few people find the narrow gate.

It does make me feel better, and I dont feel that there is a problem here. In no place in Christianity is anyone "saved" through merit. Thus, it make much more sense that "finding the narrow gate" refers to a real seeking of God. And, sadly, this is true. Relatively few people, including us Christians, ever really seek God.

The Bible never demonstrates anyone being saved without merit either. Obedience is essential to salvation.

1Jo 5:3
To love God means that we obey his commandments.

Too bad no one can decide just what to obey.

Your logic is flawed. The verse you pulled does not say that obedience = salvation. It says that obeying God commands shows a love for God. I don't see salvation anywhere in this verse. Pulling ramdom verses is a poor way to investigate christianity anyway. Much like looking at a nut on a tire and then making assumptions about whole the dump truck.

There is absolutely nothing that organized religion can do for humans that we cannot do more effectively on our own.

Ah and there is truth to this statement. Hence the reformation and the protestant movement. Even christians recognize this idea.

[Cathar1950]

Sir William Ramsay said the same thing until he dug into it. Have you seen the result of his years of archeology?

They have found that many of then made premature concusions because they were going on the bible as there guide and their results were often circlar.
You shoould read some mnre recent stuff by people like
Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

[achilles12604]

Sir William Ramsay said the same thing until he dug into it. Have you seen the result of his years of archeology?

They have found that many of then made premature concusions because they were going on the bible as there guide and their results were often circlar.
You shoould read some mnre recent stuff by people like
Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

I'm calling Red herring on you. I was discussing the findings of the New Testament. Your sources are focused on everything before the unifying of the kingdoms.

Finkelstein and Silberman place a large question mark over the period up to and including the time of the United Monarchy.

http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm

So even if your sources were 100% correct and all the other biblical archeologists which refute them were 100% wrong, MUCH of the bible does not fall into this timeframe, and certainly not the NT which is what I was refering to.

So long as we are throwing out names how about Albright?

Anyway, your sources don't refute what I put forth. Show me something that refutes the archeology af Acts, Paul's letters or the gospels and we'll talk.

[Jester]

[

I also see nothing in the Bible that indicates that we should take it literally.

And I see nothing that would imply that it should be taken figuratively either.

Therefore, when the Bible says that the Earth was created in six days, why should I assume that it means something other than it says? If God meant something else, then why not just say it?

"In the beginning, God created the Big Bang. On the 10^-35 second, God made the universe expand. And he saw it was good. In the year 9,133,000,000 God created the Earth. And he saw it was good. ect ect ect"

The Universe, of course, was NOT created in six days. Many Christians try to comprimise the Bibles view by presuming that Genesis does not really mean what it says, painting the "figurative" interpretation as that demonstrated above.

But why should God tell us that the world was created in six days, when it really wasn't? Apply Occam's Razor to the situation, and any figurative interpretation of the text quickly loses credibility.

We should not try to speculate what God meant. All we can assume is that he meant what he said.

To say that "he meant what he said" is to make certain assumptions. First, that the people recording the Bible had it dictated to them word-for-word by God. I have found no claim along these lines within scripture, only within churches. Second, it falsely assumes that the Bible is a book on science and history. There is no theological reason for God to describe the scientific origin of the universe. Even most Christians appear to be very confused on this point. The creation story (as our current example of many parts of the Old Testament) exists to teach philosophical and theological lessons rather than outline scientific events.

All humans understand the basics of the divine knowledge. This would account for the fact that all religions have many similarities.

And what similarities are those? "Love thy neighbor", I assume?

If so, you should note that many non-religious philosophies have adopted this concept as well.

It is not a piece of "divine" knowledge that God has lent us. Altruism and brotherhood are simply human nature.

I dont feel this disproves my point at all. The fact that all humans have a common concept of virtue does not need for that concept to manifest in an overtly religious manner for it to have its origins in God. Simply put, the divine knowledge is still clear, regardless of whether or not it is recognized as such. Obviously, which of our perspectives proves to be true will not be shown at this point. I only claim that mine, as yours, fits the facts.

The Bible never demonstrates anyone being saved without merit either. Obedience is essential to salvation.

1Jo 5:3
To love God means that we obey his commandments.

Too bad no one can decide just what to obey.

This, also, is a specific interpretation. The Bible teaches that one will obey God if one loves him, this does not infer that obedience is required for salvation.

The fact remains, however, that science has always been about giving direct answers to the masses and spirituality has always been about directing people down a path of discovery.

I think you have it backwards.

Organized religion provides definite answers for those who are too scared to face reality, those without the means of providing any superior explanation, or simply those too lazy to think for themselves.

You are going to have to support this claim. I will continue to offer my counter-argument until you do so: that this is a deeply oversimplified view of religion that is not in-line with the facts. In the United States, the secular profession with the highest percentage of evangelical Christians is Bio-Chemists. This fact does not appear to be in line with the concept that religion is for those to lazy to accept that science is the universal explanation.

It is science that questions these precepts. Scientific thought is not constrained by any unfounded philisophical barriers (God, a six day creation). A scientists only limit is his available means of discovery.

With all due respect to science, this is untrue. Science specifically omits a theological or philosophical explanation from its paradigm. Science gives us no insight into the nature of ethics, for example, not because scientists are unconstrained by a sense of ethics, but because science deals with different subject matter. A legitimate scientist will, therefore, always refrain from making any claim that science in any way touches on matters of spirituality.
More to your point science questions its own precepts constantly (as it does not consider spiritual precepts), but is constantly in a state of replacing one dictated answer for another. The capacity to think is, in both science and religion, left to the individual. One will find, however, that the teachings of Christ (like many religious leaders both in the Bible and elsewhere) were aimed at tantalizing thought and stimulating debate.

The few things that Christ lead me to discover, I found in plainer and fuller form in the material world. Who knows how much faster I could have 'discovered myself' (so to speak) had religion and myth not stood in my way for so long.

It would be very easy to argue that you simply overlooked much of the teaching of Christ in your personal situation. This post (unlike most of your comments, which I tend to find very intelligent and challenging) shows a lack of understanding of the Christian religion. More concisely, I would get nothing out of the Bible either if I refused to let go of some of the interpretive assumptions youre defending.

There is absolutely nothing that organized religion can do for humans that we cannot do more effectively on our own.

I am always a little uncertain what one means by "organized religion". As it applies to your statement, it would seem to mean a large group of people, uniting under a common belief about the universe. In this case, I fail to see how it is effectively much different from a political party or a social philosophy that lacks Sunday meetings. To say that our modern secular philosophy has been better at healing the problems of the world than religion is entirely unfounded. I find that people who make such comments tend to loudly proclaim the great suffering of having to deal with obnoxious Christians (of which there are many) while ignoring the fact that the majority of homeless shelters and relief programs are run by churches. It is far too simplistic a view.
A much more complex and accurate view would be to believe that spirituality and science exist on entirely different levels and that a human being should understand them both.

[samuelbb7]

let me see.


I am gone for a weekend and am so behind.

First Persnekity made this outrageous statement which Cathar has already called him on.

Nothing in the Bible is based on facts. The scripture is 100% unadulterated myth.

Quite a few things in the bible can be proved. Ur exists people with the name of Abram and also Abraham lived there. The customs spoken of in the Bible match the time period. So this can be show in many areas. Goliah was a name used by the philistines etc. Cities mentioned in the Bible nations mentioned exist and are real.

Then the conversation switched to what inspired means. Correct except in a few cases GOD did not dictate the Bible. The Ten commandments being the major exception. Quotes from JESUS being the other.

Then the discussion about how animals in the Temple service represented JESUS and the man, animal and god points..

The Bible give us a conundrum in reverence to JESUS. He is 100% man and 100% GOD. Not a animal. Animals were used to give visual repsentations and point to JESUS but they are not JESUS and he is not them.

Lastly about the six day creation. I believe in the six day Creation even though it is not Scientific. But I do not have the time to speak of that now.

By studying the Bible we can understand GOD if we wish to. But if we look for only ways to circumvent his will we can convince ourselves to do that also. I am sorry for falling so far behind that my remarks are too short to answer all the points. That is my fault for not being her more often.

[McCulloch]

The Bible give us a conundrum in reverence to JESUS. He is 100% man and 100% GOD. Not a animal. Animals were used to give visual repsentations and point to JESUS but they are not JESUS and he is not them.

Nitpick. If Jesus was a human then he was an animal. Humans are animals. Animals are multicellular living things that are not plants. You probably meant non-human animal.

Lastly about the six day creation. I believe in the six day Creation even though it is not Scientific. But I do not have the time to speak of that now.

When you do get time, what is it about science and the scientific method that you disagree with.

That is my fault for not being her more often.

No problem. We all have lives. Except us humourless sociopathic god-hating atheists.

[Cathar1950]

First Persnekity made this outrageous statement which Cathar has already called him on.

Nothing in the Bible is based on facts. The scripture is 100% unadulterated myth.

Quite a few things in the bible can be proved. Ur exists people with the name of Abram and also Abraham lived there. The customs spoken of in the Bible match the time period. So this can be show in many areas. Goliah was a name used by the philistines etc. Cities mentioned in the Bible nations mentioned exist and are real.

The Bible give us a conundrum in reverence to JESUS. He is 100% man and 100% GOD. Not a animal. Animals were used to give visual repsentations and point to JESUS but they are not JESUS and he is not them.

Where is it I called TPP on this? I don't recall it like that?
Finding names or places or even buildings that are in the bible is not proof of the bible. It does not even prove it is not all myth. Is Homers Troy a myth? Yes but it existed. Do you believe in Zeus? He is mentioned by Homer and Troy existed therefore Homer is historical and so is Zeus.
As for Jesus being 100% God and 100% man that is impossible even for God. If you need reference then watch "Southpark" or learn about the man/bear/pig. Also Mack can help you with the math.
Animals were used as sacrifices and did not point to Jesus. You are looking backward to an interpretation that does not belong with the practice or visions they had when they were using animals in sacrificial rites. The animals do not and did not point to Jesus. You choose to think they do to your bias and poor vision.

achilles12604:

Anyway, your sources don't refute what I put forth. Show me something that refutes the archeology af Acts, Paul's letters or the gospels and we'll talk.

Tell me how anything you think you have put forth had to do with Archeology? Talk about a "Red herring".
Tell what Archeology has to do with Acts, Paul's letter or The Gospels.
How is it even relevant? Has archeology proven any of the claims or even given any kind of support? You can't reconcile Acts, Paul's letter or The Gospels do to the "conundrum" of stories and ideas. How does archeology help you here?

Jester:

Here, I would draw a line between "imperfect" and "totally useless". In most areas of life, the difference is clear. (the sciences are an excellent parallel) Truth is there to be found, but this does not mean that the Bible was written by people who understood it perfectly.

Nothing is totally useless. Paper can be used to start fires. This sure is a funny line to draw. If the people that wrote the bible did not understand it perfectly then how can we say they wrote truth?

Jester:

Simply put, the divine knowledge is still clear, regardless of whether or not it is recognized as such.

How is it clear if it is not recognized? If you cant understand it perfectly how can you say it is divine or true?
Jester:

In the United States, the secular profession with the highest percentage of evangelical Christians is Bio-Chemists. This fact does not appear to be in line with the concept that religion is for those to lazy to accept that science is the universal explanation.

Maybe it shows that anyone can be a Biochemist?

The Persnickety Platypus wrote:

It is science that questions these precepts. Scientific thought is not constrained by any unfounded philisophical barriers (God, a six day creation). A scientists only limit is his available means of discovery.

Jester:
With all due respect to science, this is untrue. Science specifically omits a theological or philosophical explanation from its paradigm. Science gives us no insight into the nature of ethics, for example, not because scientists are unconstrained by a sense of ethics, but because science deals with different subject matter. A legitimate scientist will, therefore, always refrain from making any claim that science in any way touches on matters of spirituality

.

You should read Experience with the Supernatural by Shirley Jackson Case, Religious Experience and Scientific Method by Henry Nelson Wieman
Or anything by A. N. Whitehead.
Science has had a major impact on religion, ethics and even the legal system. In fact I would like you to name all the things that it has not had an impact.

Should I have broken this into three posts?

[achilles12604]

achilles12604:

Anyway, your sources don't refute what I put forth. Show me something that refutes the archeology af Acts, Paul's letters or the gospels and we'll talk.

Tell me how anything you think you have put forth had to do with Archeology? Talk about a "Red herring".
Tell what Archeology has to do with Acts, Paul's letter or The Gospels.
How is it even relevant? Has archeology proven any of the claims or even given any kind of support? You can't reconcile Acts, Paul's letter or The Gospels do to the "conundrum" of stories and ideas. How does archeology help you here?

Uh . . . You do know who Sir William Ramsey is right? I'm not even sure how to respond without an ad hominem . . .

Respectfully, Sir William Ramsey, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman are all in the realm of Archeology. So I fail to see how your comments here could even be contemplated much less presented. We were discussing archeologists so it is obvious how

anything you think you have put forth had to do with Archeology?

Tell what Archeology has to do with Acts, Paul's letter or The Gospels.
How is it even relevant?

The basic premise used by both biblical and secular researchers, is to look for discrepancies between the accounts and history or archeology. For example there is great debate over the validity of Sodom being destroyed. William Albright claims to have found it under water with several feet of ash covering what remains of the ruins. Others say that what he found doesn't fit the details. Hence the debate.

Where this applies to Acts, the Gospels and Paul's letters is that if Luke wrote about an island, but this island didn't exist and couldn't be found by archeologists, then it would show Luke was not a very careful writer and would bring question to his trustworthiness.

Since Luke's archeological record is perfect with over 50 cities several rulers, islands and other geographical items all checking out, it shows that at the least, he was familiar with the areas involved which means he was in fact there as recorded in the Books, and that he held great attention to detail.

You being an ex-professor should have known this so I think you were simply playing devils advocate. But still it presented me with a good opportunity to explain these details to anyone who was truly not familiar with them so I thank you.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

McColloch,

Nothing in the Bible is based on facts. The scripture is 100% unadulterated myth.

This is an overstatement, probably just as bad as saying that the Bible is 100% literally true.

Oh come on. Do you really think I intended to imply that none of the people and places in the Bible are historically accurate?

I did not envision that my statement would be applied to every person/place/thing mentioned in the Bible. We know that there was a nation named Isreal. We know that there was a King David.

We do not know, however, whether Jesus walked on water, or rose from the dead.

Therefore, the central claims and doctrines of the Bible are myth.


achilles,

Sir William Ramsay said the same thing until he dug into it. Have you seen the result of his years of archeology?

No, I'm afraid you will have to fill me in.

Surely you are familiar with apocolyptic writings?
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/ApocWr ... index.html

Scholars UNIVERSALLY recognize this type of writing. So what is the basis for your claim?

What is the basis of my claim?

That depends. Just what is the basis of yours? That because the Bible is an apocalyptic writing, it must automatically be taken figuratively?

That is no universal law. Logically, if God is going to reveal a truth to us, wouldn't it make sense to actually reveal it, rather than leading us on another wild guessing game for the answers?

The Bible, taken figuratively, can (and has) been interpreted to mean just about anything. Therefore, if the Bible's rhetoric is meant to be figurative, then God is not actually revealed anything to us, but rather, is merely giving us a hazy new basis by which to make our guesses.

Very good. And if God was the author of mankind, then Jesters point has been made. You have identified the handprint in the mud. We are simply pointing to the hand that made it.

But what if God wasn't the author of mankind, and "loving thy neighbor" was in fact a central attribute of human nature?

Then my point would be made.

Until you can provide some evidence for God's creation of the universe, my point (and any other) is just as valid as yours.

Your logic is flawed. The verse you pulled does not say that obedience = salvation. It says that obeying God commands shows a love for God. I don't see salvation anywhere in this verse. Pulling ramdom verses is a poor way to investigate christianity anyway. Much like looking at a nut on a tire and then making assumptions about whole the dump truck.

Are you for real?

It has been established that one must love God to be saved (at least, I thought that had been established). Now this verse states that if we LOVE God, we will OBEY him. Put two and two together. It would appear as if obedience is indeed required for salvation, would it not?

Of course, if you are still in doubt, you could always refer to these (many of which I have all ready quoted in this thread):

Matt 19:17
If you want to enter into life, obey the commandments.

1Jo 2:3-4
We are sure that we know Christ if we obey his commandments. The person who says, "I know him," but doesn't obey his commandments is a liar. The truth isn't in that person.

1 Cor 15:2
you are saved by this Good News if you hold on to the doctrine I taught you.



We obviously must obey God's commandments if we are to attain eternal life. Now the only question that needs answering is, just what do we obey?

[McCulloch]

Nothing in the Bible is based on facts. The scripture is 100% unadulterated myth.

This is an overstatement, probably just as bad as saying that the Bible is 100% literally true.

Oh come on. Do you really think I intended to imply that none of the people and places in the Bible are historically accurate?

I do not believe that you meant what you said. But this is a debating forum. Choose your words carefully or someone will challenge you. "100% unadulterated myth" is an overstatement. How about "76.4 % adulterated myth"?