Biblical errors.

[Elijah John]

someone recently said:

there are no biblical errors

For debate, perhaps we can list a few. And having done so, will the supporters of the quoted statement above revise the statement? Will they admit that the Bible is, in fact, not perfect?

Or will they maintain their claim of Biblical perfection in spite of evidence to the contrary?

I'll start with a few general assertions to the contrary,

a) The Bible has internal contradictions, some important, some minor.
b) The Bible sometimes contradicts what we know about science.

And finally, if the Bible is less than perfect, does that mean it is useless as a source of life-guidance or as a source of Spiritual inspiration?

Or to put it another way, why defend the supposed perfection of the Bible in light of contrary evidence?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 30 by hoghead1]

I'm not sure you aren't in the fundamentalist box you speak of. I often consider my own posts as mirrors. Do others?

These two issues aren't actually issues. Given that fact the non fundamentalist would move on I'd have thought.

We have a long detailed genesis account vs a paragraph where God brought the animals before Adam.

Your language in your post indicates your stridency and so what more can be said?

I'm just interested to know what other bug bears forum members have.

[1213]

For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.?

Funny thing is that Bible doesnt even claim planet earth is flat. And Bible means with earth dry land, not the whole planet.

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

Interesting thing is also that there is no real proof that earth rotates around the sun.

As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.

I think I just did that, but you seem to ignore, or misunderstand what I said. Genesis 2 is literally about forming things by Yahweh and Genesis 1 is about how Elohim created things. Also, it is no contradiction, if in Genesis 2 Yahweh forms animals, God could still have created animals before that. In my opinion we have your contradiction only, if we accept your version of things and reject what the Bible tells, which in my opinion is irrational move and I have no good reason to accept your version.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 31 by Wootah]

Well, I'm afraid I'm in an information black hole here.

I certainly do not see myself as a fundamentalist because I do no share their concept of inerrancy. So, what makes you think I am a fundamentalist? That doesn't make any sense.

You say my language makes me appear strident and then ask, "What more could be said?" Well, for one thing, what makes you think I am strident, and if so, is that wrong?

"These two issues are not issues'? What two issues. I am responding to the issues stated in the OP.

"...given the fact non-fundamentalists would have moved on<" I think you added. OK, moved from what to what?

"We have a long, detailed Genesis account"? I beg to disagree. First, we have two conflicting accounts of creation. Secondly, they are very brief, covering two pages. Compared to nature religions, who creation accounts went on for hundreds and hundreds of pages, the Genesis accounts are a mere drop in the bucket. And many key details are omitted. The Bible dos not tell why God created, where, where, out of what, or how.

You wonder what other "bug bears" posters have here? Well, if that is the low opinion you have of some of us posters here, that's your problem. Question is: If so, why are you even bothering to respond to the OP?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to 1213]

No real proof that the earth rotates around the sun? Are you kidding me? Where were you in science class?

There are at least 75 biblical passages (e.g., Isa. 40) that affirm the earth is flat, a fact stressed by the very few flat-earthers who are still around.

God could have created animals before he created the animals? That doesn't even begin to make sense. Gen. 1 says god created all the animals before man. Gen. 2 clearly states God created all the animals after Adam. Either he created all the animals before Adam, or after. It can't be both. Hence, the contradiction.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 34 by hoghead1]

I, for one, truly appreciate you and a few others presenting a Rational Theism as an alternative to the more Fundamental / Literal / Traditional views so often presented as though they represented religion in general.

Interesting thing is also that there is no real proof that earth rotates around the sun.

No real proof that the earth rotates around the sun? Are you kidding me? Where were you in science class?

Yup " I thought it was a joke too the first time that sort of statement was made " surely, me thinks, no one living in the 21st Century and at least alert enough to use a computer KNOWS that there is overwhelming evidence that the Earth rotates ('on its axis') and revolves around ('orbits') the Sun.

But, NO that isn't presented as a joke. Even after clear evidence is cited to confirm both rotation and revolution, the Literal Bible Defender(s) still maintain and defend geocentric solar system / universe notions (or maintain that there is no proof otherwise).

THAT is the (or 'a') face of religion that is often presented to readers here as well as to the public elsewhere. It is no wonder that I often find myself, a Non-Theist, aligned with Thinking Theists combating Fundamentalists, Literalists, Traditionalists.

The anti-intellectual, anti-education, anti-science contingent is alive and well " and is dominant in some areas of the nation (and in politics) " particularly here in the Bible Belt.

Also, it is no contradiction, if in Genesis 2 Yahweh forms animals, God could still have created animals before that. In my opinion we have your contradiction only, if we accept your version of things and reject what the Bible tells, which in my opinion is irrational move and I have no good reason to accept your version.

God could have created animals before he created the animals? That doesn't even begin to make sense. Gen. 1 says god created all the animals before man. Gen. 2 clearly states God created all the animals after Adam. Either he created all the animals before Adam, or after. It can't be both. Hence, the contradiction.

Don't be surprised to encounter that sort of 'argument' over and over. Demonstrating its irrationality makes no difference to those who believe the Bible is right even when it is wrong " and who revere every Bible word as though it came directly from God rather than being thoughts written by men.

There are at least 75 biblical passages (e.g., Isa. 40) that affirm the earth is flat, a fact stressed by the very few flat-earthers who are still around.

Some might say (in a general way, not applied to any individual), 'Don't confuse them with facts. Their mind's made up' or 'Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and irritates the pig'.

Of course, what you and other Thinking Theists say in favor of religion (as well as what I and others say opposing religion) is not likely to (or intended to) influence those who are enmeshed 'up past their ears' in religious dogma. Instead, we can present ideas to be considered by READERS and compared to what is presented by F/L/T promoters.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 35 by Zzyzx]

Thanks for your support. I am well aware of the Bible Belt, and you have my empathy in dealing with them, and I have had loads of experience dealing with creation-science people and other contemporary fundamentalists, including flat-earthers, who are still around. In fact, there is a student contingency at the local U, with a booth right in the main student union, been there for years.

[Zzyzx]

.

Thanks for your support.

It is a pleasure to support reasoned positions (even if I do not agree completely).

I am well aware of the Bible Belt, and you have my empathy in dealing with them,

It is not a problem for me to deal with Fundamentalists in real life. Almost all seem to understand that I am not a candidate for God talk -- and the topic does not come up (and certainly not a second time). Even friends who are ministers do not attempt to talk religion, or even mention religion, when interacting with me.

However, here in the anonymity of the Internet even Walter Mitty types may be bold enough to push their religious opinions aggressively. The list of those on Probation / Suspension / Banishment attests to that aggressiveness http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... m.php?f=23

and I have had loads of experience dealing with creation-science people and other contemporary fundamentalists, including flat-earthers, who are still around. In fact, there is a student contingency at the local U, with a booth right in the main student union, been there for years.

It is a profound defect in our society that critical / analytical thinking and decision-making are not highly valued and taught at every level of schooling.


Perhaps those who have been convinced that the Bible CAN'T be wrong / can't have errors must forego reasoning (except perhaps quasi-reasoning in attempts to defend or 'explain' Bible stories -- including genocide, infanticide, needless killing, extreme punishment, etc -- and of course geocentric universe and six-day creationism).

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 37 by Zzyzx]

I also have few problems with fundamentalists. Usually, once they find out I'm a scholar and can really come back at them, they simply avoid me like the plague. That's why I wasn't particularly surprised when several JW's here told me they no longer wanted to talk with me. I think the JW's and other door-to-door religious solicitors have a hex sign on my house or something. They knock and the door, I invite them in for a discussion, really pout the question to them, and then they never come back, never. I am concerned about the churches. Too often, they forget about education and allow themselves to collapse into glorified social clubs, where theology and biblical studies are the last things on their minds. However, currently I am affiliated with a church which wants to upgrade theological education and invited me to write a monthly column for their newsletter.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 3 by ttruscott]

Consider that the Bible as the word of GOD says exactly what HE wants it to say and is perfect, that is complete

Ok, I considered it.
Now what?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 6 by Wootah]

I've researched that and they're fine. Just google and answers are there. What else? I doubt even you consider them as strong arguments?

You Googled it, so I suppose you convinced yourself.
Well, you sure didn't convince me.