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?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 90 by 1213]


[center]
Livin' the dream
Part One[/center]

I think people can create only in their minds, in real life humans just form things.

I think that was very well put!

It occurred to me to compare that a bit with what "God" supposedly did.. created the whole SHEBANG... sort of like "creatio ex nihilo" or "out of nothing" .

You say that for HUMANS, creation can only happen in the mind... If we take the idea that "we were created in the imagine of God" to an extreme, maybe what "God" created was "only in their minds", or something like that.

What do you think?
There are lot of theories.. some people even go as far to say that we are but a dream of the god... whatever his name is... are we but a dream?

[rickmeist]

[Replying to post 3 by ttruscott]

GODs holiness:
- GOD did not need evil to fulfill HIS plan and did not create evil or evil people for any reason.
- All evil is creature-created by their true free will.


I f God created people then he has to be responsible for the evil in people. If a machine is created then any of its performance is determined by the skill of its creator. The fact that people have been given freewill is neither here nor there.

And just a reminder - God did create evil in men and regretted it. The bible records his confession: Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 3 by ttruscott]

GODs holiness:
- GOD did not need evil to fulfill HIS plan and did not create evil or evil people for any reason.
- All evil is creature-created by their true free will.


I f God created people then he has to be responsible for the evil in people. If a machine is created then any of its performance is determined by the skill of its creator. The fact that people have been given freewill is neither here nor there.

And just a reminder - God did create evil in men and regretted it. The bible records his confession: Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Additional reminder:
Isaiah 45:7 KJV: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

[rickmeist]

[Replying to post 3 by ttruscott]

Our Free will:
- All spirits created in the image of GOD were created with the ability to make true free will decisions.
- All spirits had an equal ability to choose GOD or reject HIM.

The phrase 'rejecting God' makes no sense. For instance: a non believer could not reject something they don't believe exists. And someone who does believe that God exists would never 'reject' him - knowing the consequences.

So the entire premise of freewill is moot. One can only accept God unconditionally.
There is no choice.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to 1213]

I think that is a false dichotomy. It is not clear in Gen. 1 whether God creates out of nothing or out of something preexistent, a preexistent chaos. "Create," "make," and "form" are synonymous terms in the English language. The term "create" has never been defined such as to apply only to creation ex nihilo. Was Beethoven any less of a creative genius because he crated his music out of something preexistent, say, a piano, not out of nothing? Was Toscanini, the great conductor, any less of a creative genius because he created his music out of an orchestra, rather than out of nothing?

[1213]

[Replying to post 91 by Blastcat]

You say that for HUMANS, creation can only happen in the mind... If we take the idea that "we were created in the imagine of God" to an extreme, maybe what "God" created was "only in their minds", or something like that.

What do you think?
There are lot of theories.. some people even go as far to say that we are but a dream of the god... whatever his name is... are we but a dream?

Firstly, Bible says actually image of God, not imagine of God. But I think it may be possible that when God created in Genesis 1, it meant he made the plan, imagined everything. And then later God formed all those things He had imagined. That is something I have to think more. However, even in that case, I think Biblical point of view is, God created all and the atoms that were used in forming things, were created by God, out of nothing, by His word.

And about the dream, by what the Bible tells, God already knows how this world turns. So, in a way this could be called dream, because it has already happened in Gods mind, now we just live it through. And maybe this could be called simulation, because in Biblical point of view, body is only like a vessel for soul to experience for example good and evil in this world, while soul is in safe in higher level of existence that cant be harmed by anything of this world.

[1213]

I think that is a false dichotomy. It is not clear in Gen. 1 whether God creates out of nothing or out of something preexistent, a preexistent chaos. "Create," "make," and "form" are synonymous terms in the English language. The term "create" has never been defined such as to apply only to creation ex nihilo.

In my opinion the Bible context gives the meanings for those words. In Genesis 1 creation happens by Gods word and nothing else is used. In Genesis 2 Yahweh uses dust of earth to form man. The description is very different and in my opinion shows clearly the difference.

Was Beethoven any less of a creative genius because he crated his music out of something preexistent, say, a piano, not out of nothing? Was Toscanini, the great conductor, any less of a creative genius because he created his music out of an orchestra, rather than out of nothing?

I think music is really made out of notes (that basically are sound waves). Notes existed before Beethoven, he just arranged them in new way. But I think you can still think he as a genius.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to 1213]

Another major difference between the accounts, which marks them off as separate accounts, is that Gen. 1 does not tell us exactly how God made man, whereas 2 does. If you trying to argue Gen. 1 means that God created man out of nothing, there is no evidence of that in the text. it simply does not not say how God went about it. There is nothing at all in Gen. 1, to start with, that says God created out of nothing. Gen. 1:1-2 dos not make it clear whether the author, P, assumes God created out of nothing or out of some sort of preexistent chaos.

I'm not following where you are going with your reference to Beethoven. Are you saying you would agree with my claim that he is a "creative" genius?

I still fail to see any justification for your assumption that words such as "creativity" can mean only creating out of nothing, which is a dubious concept, anyway.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 43 by Elijah John]

I agree, that people can be too "nit-picky" when highlighting Biblical errors. But here are two major ones, if you want to include failed prophecies as error.

The verse I alluded to above is Matthew 16.27,28. I read that as a failed prophecy, indicating that either Jesus or the Bible is not perfect.

The problem is of course prophecy is hard to guess until it happens and even then there can be layers and multiple fulfillments at different times. I guess I don't try to nail down a prophecy and say it has to happen at dd/mm/yyyy but I try to understand the range of meanings people that put forward. 'Our job' is to be ready & expecting Jesus return which will be like a thief in the night.

Another major internal, theological contradiction/error is between Luke and the author of Hebrews.

The author of Hebrews asserts that "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins." and yet Luke has John the Baptist performing "baptisms of repentance for the forgiveness of sins"..This was forgiveness subversively offered outside of the Temple authority. No blood involved, just water and repentance..

Was JtB the only person able to baptise for forgiveness of sins or could anyone? Why didn't anyone do it?

Also this is how I read it. It's like saying, "I studied for the test." or to make it even closer, "The tutor gave me training for the test." The baptism was of repentance preparing people for Jesus who would forgive them of their sins.

But I want to also claim that many actions can forgive sins, the Israelites were always performing repentance for forgiveness of sins, when I repent of a specific sin verbally God forgives me. But if that is seriously the game to be played then what about the millions of other sins that I forgot to repent for. A potential reply of God will forgive me for them doesn't cut it because it makes JtB and Jesus unnecessary as well.

[4insight]

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?

Only problem is there, is only in the translation dept. and understanding or perceptions. And science has not gotten its act right. Here's a site that explains the differences of what is actual facts and what is a theory.


A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.

While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.

So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law of gravity that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory of gravity that describes why the objects attract each other. http://www.thehappyscientist.com/scienc ... ory-or-law

And here's a video of someone else theory on how life has started.