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!

[micatala]

I suppose that in most instances of common knowledge, the premise presupposes the conclusion argument may apply, but in the case of the Word of God, it does not. For, if you have the authoritative document, given by the authoritative being, who created everything seen and unseen, who existed before everything, where everything was created by and for Him, and we have His Word to mankind.
Where would one appeal?
The words of Scripture are self attesting. They cannot be "proved" to be Gods words by appeal to any higher authority. There is no higher authority.

bernee has labeled this as 'special pleading' which is not in appropriate.

I will simply add that in any rigorously logical system, it is necessary to make some assumptions that one takes as 'axiomatic'. These are statements that are assumed without proof.

The only rule in making assumptions from a logical standpoint are that they do not result in any contradictions. In other words, they must be self-consistent.

On a more subjective level, one might judge the usefulness of the assumptions and the resulting system by what sorts of conclusions one is able to draw from the assumptions. However, a system can be logical without being useful in any way.

Finally, at bottom arguing that the Bible is the ultimate authority because it says it is is circularity of logic. One might as well just make this as an assumption to avoid both circularity.

However, this does not mean we are done arguing about alleged contradictions.

[Biker]

I suppose that in most instances of common knowledge, the premise presupposes the conclusion argument may apply, but in the case of the Word of God, it does not. For, if you have the authoritative document, given by the authoritative being, who created everything seen and unseen, who existed before everything, where everything was created by and for Him, and we have His Word to mankind.
Where would one appeal?
The words of Scripture are self attesting. They cannot be "proved" to be Gods words by appeal to any higher authority. There is no higher authority.

bernee has labeled this as 'special pleading' which is not in appropriate.

I will simply add that in any rigorously logical system, it is necessary to make some assumptions that one takes as 'axiomatic'. These are statements that are assumed without proof.

The only rule in making assumptions from a logical standpoint are that they do not result in any contradictions. In other words, they must be self-consistent.

On a more subjective level, one might judge the usefulness of the assumptions and the resulting system by what sorts of conclusions one is able to draw from the assumptions. However, a system can be logical without being useful in any way.

Finally, at bottom arguing that the Bible is the ultimate authority because it says it is is circularity of logic. One might as well just make this as an assumption to avoid both circularity.

However, this does not mean we are done arguing about alleged contradictions.

What

rigorously logical system

are you referring to?
And please explain to me why this

rigorously logical system

is more authority than the truth of the Bible, which is inerrant?

Biker

[McCulloch]

What

rigorously logical system

are you referring to?
And please explain to me why this

rigorously logical system

is more authority than the truth of the Bible, which is inerrant?

What system of reasoning did you use in order to conclude that the Bible is inerrant?
Whatever it is, it must be superior to the Bible itself. If there is no system of reasoning that led you to conclude that the Bible is inerrant, then we must conclude that your assertion is without foundation and is irrational.

Let me make it really easy for you. Finish this sentence, "I believe that the Bible is inerrant because ... ".

Your answer will either be based on a sound rational system of logic and evidence or it will be based on subjective irrationalism. If your answer is rational and logical, then you have to admit the higher status of logic and reason over the Bible. If your answer is irrational, then you have to admit that you have nothing with which to argue your case or support your assertions that the Bible is inerrant.

[Biker]

What

rigorously logical system

are you referring to?
And please explain to me why this

rigorously logical system

is more authority than the truth of the Bible, which is inerrant?

What system of reasoning did you use in order to conclude that the Bible is inerrant?
Whatever it is, it must be superior to the Bible itself. If there is no system of reasoning that led you to conclude that the Bible is inerrant, then we must conclude that your assertion is without foundation and is irrational.

Let me make it really easy for you. Finish this sentence, "I believe that the Bible is inerrant because ... ".

Your answer will either be based on a sound rational system of logic and evidence or it will be based on subjective irrationalism. If your answer is rational and logical, then you have to admit the higher status of logic and reason over the Bible. If your answer is irrational, then you have to admit that you have nothing with which to argue your case or support your assertions that the Bible is inerrant.

What system of truth did you use in order to conclude that the Scriptures affirm anything that is contrary to fact? It must be superior to Scripture itself. Please demonstrate to me why your system of truth is superior?
Let me make it easy for you. Finish this sentence: "I believe the Bible is not the authority, and it does not always tell the truth, and it does not always tell the truth in everything it talks about because..."
Your answer will be based on the worlds wisdom.
My answer will be based on Gods Word.

Biker

[WelshBoy]

I believe the Bible is not the authority, and it does not always tell the truth, and it does not always tell the truth in everything it talks about because..."

...there is no evidence for a Biblical flood in the past 110,000 years, and the earth is known to be 4.56 billion years old.

My answer is based on evidence. Yours isn't. Call it God's wisdom if you like but since you can't prove it as such, the debate is mine.

Would you like me to give you some more pointers about debate?

[McCulloch]

What system of truth did you use in order to conclude that the Scriptures affirm anything that is contrary to fact? It must be superior to Scripture itself. Please demonstrate to me why your system of truth is superior?
Let me make it easy for you. Finish this sentence: "I believe the Bible is not the authority, and it does not always tell the truth, and it does not always tell the truth in everything it talks about because..."
Your answer will be based on the worlds wisdom.
My answer will be based on Gods Word.

How do you know that your answer is based on God's Word? How do you know that the Bible is God's Word?

I use the only systems of truth available to humans. Reason, evidence and logic. You evidently believe that there is some other way of determining truth. If I understand you correctly, and I admit that I quite possibly might not, your method of determining truth is to rely on the what the Bible says. What you continually refuse to do is to answer why the Bible should be considered God's Word.

I believe that the Bible is not the final authority because I have not been given any rational, logically consistent reason to believe that it is, nor have I seen any evidence which would persuade me that the Bible is God's Word.

I believe that the Qu'ran is not the final authority because I have not been given any rational, logically consistent reason to believe that it is, nor have I seen any evidence which would persuade me that the Qu'ran is God's Word.

I believe that the Vedas are not the final authority because I have not been given any rational, logically consistent reason to believe that it is, nor have I seen any evidence which would persuade me that the Vedas are God's Word.

I believe that The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy by Isaac Newton is not the final authority because I have not been given any rational, logically consistent reason to believe that it is, nor have I seen any evidence which would persuade me that The Principia is God's Word.

I believe that Constitution of the United States of America is not the final authority because I have not been given any rational, logically consistent reason to believe that it is, nor have I seen any evidence which would persuade me that Constitution of the United States of America is God's Word.

If you are shrewd, you will notice that there is a pattern here. Why is it that you continually insist that the Bible is God's word? There must be a reason. Either that or you admit to being irrational.

I have answered. Your turn. Demonstrate how your answer is based on God's Word, without using circular reasoning and begging the question.

[Biker]

I believe the Bible is not the authority, and it does not always tell the truth, and it does not always tell the truth in everything it talks about because..."

...there is no evidence for a Biblical flood in the past 110,000 years, and the earth is known to be 4.56 billion years old.

My answer is based on evidence. Yours isn't. Call it God's wisdom if you like but since you can't prove it as such, the debate is mine.

Would you like me to give you some more pointers about debate?

Hey I can always use some pointers. I am admittedly a novice debater! So why don't you teach me some pointers.
Evidence:As to Genesis 6-8. Jesus in His Olivet discourse clearly affirmed that "as in those days that were before the Flood (or if you prefer Deluge) they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they did not know it until the flood came and took them all away, so shall the coming [parousia] of the Son of Man be." Jesus(historical figure) is predicting that a future historical event will take place as an antitype to an event recorded in the Old Testament. He must therefore have regarded the Flood as literal history, just as it was recorded in Genesis.
So we have a couple of chapters in the Old Testament, Genesis 6-8, and we have Jesus affirming those two chapters in the New Testament. So I guess you should provide your evidence refuting these clear accounts in the inerrant Bible which I hold in my hands, Welshboy.

Biker

[WelshBoy]

Biker,

You don't have to keep typing out the passage where Jesus said those things, I'm not disagreeing with you that the Bible records those things, what I AM saying is that they have an ice-core from the Greenland ice sheet showing the annual summer and winter water depositions dating back 110,000 years. If you wanted and you had the money and time, you could go and count those rings for yourself. These would show that water didn't cover the whole earth any time in the past 110,000 years.

What I cannot do is go back in time and see if Noah was on an Ark saved from a global flood. I have evidence, you do not. You claim, as McCulloch is pointing out, that your version of events is true because the Bible says so, and that the Bible is true because the bible says so. This is a logical fallacy, it is unreasonable. You have not met the criteria for debate.

[McCulloch]

Evidence:As to Genesis 6-8. Jesus in His Olivet discourse clearly affirmed that "as in those days that were before the Flood (or if you prefer Deluge) they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they did not know it until the flood came and took them all away, so shall the coming [parousia] of the Son of Man be." Jesus (historical figure) is predicting that a future historical event will take place as an antitype to an event recorded in the Old Testament. He must therefore have regarded the Flood as literal history, just as it was recorded in Genesis.

Even accepting the Bible as God's word, your conclusion does not follow. People can use mythical or metaphoric events as antitypes in their speech without necessarily believing them literally. If I tell my son that he must be home before midnight or like Cinderella's carriage turned into a pumpkin, his automobile privileges would disappear, I am not admitting a literal belief in the Brothers Grimm.

So I guess you should provide your evidence refuting these clear accounts in the inerrant Bible which I hold in my hands, Welshboy.

Let's weigh the evidence. Biker has some words recorded in an ancient but revered holy book, which he asserts without evidence and without reason is completely inerrant. Welshboy has scientific data which has been studied thoroughly, has been challenged by experts in the relevant fields of study and which agrees with mountains of evidence regarding the geological history of this planet. Biker, unless you come up with something else, this is simply no contest.

[Biker]

What system of truth did you use in order to conclude that the Scriptures affirm anything that is contrary to fact? It must be superior to Scripture itself. Please demonstrate to me why your system of truth is superior?
Let me make it easy for you. Finish this sentence: "I believe the Bible is not the authority, and it does not always tell the truth, and it does not always tell the truth in everything it talks about because..."
Your answer will be based on the worlds wisdom.
My answer will be based on Gods Word.

How do you know that your answer is based on God's Word? How do you know that the Bible is God's Word?

I use the only systems of truth available to humans. Reason, evidence and logic. You evidently believe that there is some other way of determining truth. If I understand you correctly, and I admit that I quite possibly might not, your method of determining truth is to rely on the what the Bible says. What you continually refuse to do is to answer why the Bible should be considered God's Word.

I believe that the Bible is not the final authority because I have not been given any rational, logically consistent reason to believe that it is, nor have I seen any evidence which would persuade me that the Bible is God's Word.

I believe that the Qu'ran is not the final authority because I have not been given any rational, logically consistent reason to believe that it is, nor have I seen any evidence which would persuade me that the Qu'ran is God's Word.

I believe that the Vedas are not the final authority because I have not been given any rational, logically consistent reason to believe that it is, nor have I seen any evidence which would persuade me that the Vedas are God's Word.

I believe that The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy by Isaac Newton is not the final authority because I have not been given any rational, logically consistent reason to believe that it is, nor have I seen any evidence which would persuade me that The Principia is God's Word.

I believe that Constitution of the United States of America is not the final authority because I have not been given any rational, logically consistent reason to believe that it is, nor have I seen any evidence which would persuade me that Constitution of the United States of America is God's Word.

If you are shrewd, you will notice that there is a pattern here. Why is it that you continually insist that the Bible is God's word? There must be a reason. Either that or you admit to being irrational.

I have answered. Your turn. Demonstrate how your answer is based on God's Word, without using circular reasoning and begging the question.

You have answered nothing. All you are doing is appealing to human reason. Big deal. You have not shown it to be the authority in anything. If you will look at the exchange in Genesis 3 especially verse 6, human reasoning against Gods Word is the source of all the problems to begin with so I think your human reason and logic as displayed in the same example could in fact prove to be deadly. You believe a lot of stuff, so what. Why? Why is it superior to the Bible is the exercise.
You use systems of truth available to humans, reason, evidence, and logic, so what what makes them the authority, you have never explained that?
I say they are not superior to the Word of God.
How do I know that the Scriptures are truth? I believe that Scripture is Gods Word because it claims to be that. I believe its claims because Scripture is Gods Word. If one has the truth, where would one go to for truth other than that authority?
This is not invalid, for all arguments for an absolute authority must ultimately appeal to that authority for proof: otherwise the authority would not be an absolute or highest authority. You are using a circular reasoning in your claim for the ultimate authority for belief. You assume human reasoning, logic, science, etc to be ultimate authority, prove it, I don't. You are using circularity yourself.
You have not even demonstrated Biblical contradiction.
The truthfulness of the Bible commends itself as being far more persuasive than any other religious books or than any intellectual constructions of the human mind (such as logic, human reason, sense experience, scientific methodology, etc.)
The Bible is more persuasive in the actual experience of life, all of these other candidates for ultimate authority are inconsistent or have shortcomings that disqualify them, while the Bible is fully in accord with what we know about the world around us, about ourselves, and about God.
So why is rational logically consistent reason the ultimate authority for truth? It wasn't in Adam and Eves case, in fact, its the reason for the problems.
If you will notice a pattern here, the inerrant Bible is ultimate truth, if some methodology claims more authority in matters of truth, it is wrong.

Biker