Contradictions in the Bible?

[mattskramer]

The web site may be biased but this link does raise some questions.
Do those who believe that the Bible is the “word of God” and believe in a applying a literal interpretation to its writings have an explanation for the apparent contradictions listed at the following web site?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Try this site too:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

 

[liberalogic]

The web site may be biased but this link does raise some questions.
Do those who believe that the Bible is the “word of God” and believe in a applying a literal interpretation to its writings have an explanation for the apparent contradictions listed at the following web site?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Try this site too:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

You can't justify them. The Bible is....gasp....fallible. It was written by men and not by God himself. So if this is the case, then how can we prove that it's true? Did the writers of the Bible actually see the creation of Adam? No...that's impossible, so they HEARD about it not from God but from other human beings. We might as well consider it one big rumor...we'll never know if there's any truth to it.

 

[Joz]

You can't justify them. The Bible is....gasp....fallible. It was written by men and not by God himself. So if this is the case, then how can we prove that it's true? Did the writers of the Bible actually see the creation of Adam? No...that's impossible, so they HEARD about it not from God but from other human beings. We might as well consider it one big rumor...we'll never know if there's any truth to it.

Well, personally, I think you're in for a very big surprise.

You think the stories Grandma tells you of her childhood are lies? Any of you guys ever write a paper for school? You get the facts, you talk to people and then write it in your own words, right? Pretty much the way the Bible was done.
As far as contradictions, things we do today would never have been tho't of doing years ago. Women never wore pants, carried parasols, covered their heads in certain churches. Customs change; and that puts a slant on a person's writing.
But what remains true throughout the Bible is this, God is the same today as He was yesterday. He loves us. And Jesus came to this earth & died that we might have eternal life with Him. It is a gift, we receive through His grace. You don't have to accept it.

 

[liberalogic]

Well, personally, I think you're in for a very big surprise.

You think the stories Grandma tells you of her childhood are lies? Any of you guys ever write a paper for school? You get the facts, you talk to people and then write it in your own words, right? Pretty much the way the Bible was done.
As far as contradictions, things we do today would never have been tho't of doing years ago. Women never wore pants, carried parasols, covered their heads in certain churches. Customs change; and that puts a slant on a person's writing.
But what remains true throughout the Bible is this, God is the same today as He was yesterday. He loves us. And Jesus came to this earth & died that we might have eternal life with Him. It is a gift, we receive through His grace. You don't have to accept it.

Not true. Grandma's stories are from HER experience. The facts in my paper are from those who experienced the event. No one experienced the creation of the Earth.

And as for God being the same-- that's not the impression I get. Why is the Old Testament so much harsher than the New Testament?

And it's not about acceptance....I can accept that anyone believes it. The recent problem, though, stems from ID-- where it's being forced onto us as fact. It directly impacts my life when I'm instructed in a science class and told that it's factual.

 

[Joz]

.....And as for God being the same-- that's not the impression I get. Why is the Old Testament so much harsher than the New Testament? .....

The Old Testament tells the rise & fall of nations, the battles between armies. It contains history, poetry, and to me, boring family trees. The OT also shows the dark side of man. The men are real, flesh & blood, fallible men. But it also shows what lengths God will go to redeem His people. The New Testment is the fullfilment of the Old. We see the life, death and ressurection of Jesus, the events in the great redemption story.

 

[Joz]

Not true. Grandma's stories are from HER experience. The facts in my paper are from those who experienced the event. No one experienced the creation of the Earth.

But someone did live in the Garden, experience the disobeying of what God said, the first murder, the Flood, the Immaculate conception of the Christ-child. So maybe Creation isn't a hoax, either.

 

[liberalogic]

But someone did live in the Garden, experience the disobeying of what God said, the first murder, the Flood, the Immaculate conception of the Christ-child. So maybe Creation isn't a hoax, either.

Still, though, it's second hand information. Why didn't Adam write the Bible? Not to mention that when you compare actually stories and history (ie- war battles, etc.) you are reporting plausible events. When we get into the supernatural, how are we supposed to trust anyone?

 

[jillian]

The Old Testament tells the rise & fall of nations, the battles between armies. It contains history, poetry, and to me, boring family trees. The OT also shows the dark side of man. The men are real, flesh & blood, fallible men. But it also shows what lengths God will go to redeem His people. The New Testment is the fullfilment of the Old. We see the life, death and ressurection of Jesus, the events in the great redemption story.

There are those who also believe each of the men in the Bible represent different "attributes". The mixture of history and allegory is supposed to illustrate the ten attributes of the Creator.

 

[Joz]

..... When we get into the supernatural, how are we supposed to trust anyone?

That is where faith comes in. We have such finite minds how can we even imagine such a thing as life, spoken into existence? Heck, I'm still trying to figure out how radio & TV work.

But just look at the hair on the body. The hair on your head is different than that on your arms which is different than the hair on your legs, which is different than the hair on your genitals, which is different than your eyebrows or eyelashes. This can't be just by accident.

 

[Joz]

There are those who also believe each of the men in the Bible represent different "attributes". The mixture of history and allegory is supposed to illustrate the ten attributes of the Creator.

Which men and what are the ten attributes?

 

[Joz]

This is a question for no one in particular.

By accepting the Bible and living your life accordingly, what do you have to lose?

 

[USViking]

This is a question for no one in particular.

By accepting the Bible and living your life accordingly, what do you have to lose?

Exactly right: fornication and divorce are fobidden, so never
let them happen.

The exact opposite is pretty much the rule now.

I myself like the forn part (anyone here more pure?-
stand up and tell us of your purity); I wish people
who got married stayed married forever.

 

[liberalogic]

That is where faith comes in. We have such finite minds how can we even imagine such a thing as life, spoken into existence? Heck, I'm still trying to figure out how radio & TV work.

But just look at the hair on the body. The hair on your head is different than that on your arms which is different than the hair on your legs, which is different than the hair on your genitals, which is different than your eyebrows or eyelashes. This can't be just by accident.

You're absolutely right! And that's great that you have faith, but that is my point exactly in this entire Intelligent Design debate. It's faith and cannot be proved to be true...translation: faith is not science. When people assert this as a universal truth, then I have a problem with it. If you believe it, I may disagree, but who am I to tell you otherwise? Again, we are blurring the line between science and faith-- claiming creationism as a science inhibits future discoveries that may actually be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And as I mentioned before with supernatural discoveries-- everything is left open. For instance, if I said to you that I saw, spoke to, and received a physical response from God-- would you really believe me? I would hope not. Now what differentiates me saying I spoke to God and anyone of the people in the Bible saying they spoke to God? For all we know, they could be schizophrenic or just playing a hoax on us. A literal (I don't mean prayer) conversation with God is beyond the scope of reason and therefore is subject to anything that we want to create. And also-- how did Abraham and the others live to 900 or some absurd number close to that? There has to be some sort of fabrication there. And if not, how can we actually prove that? We can't, therefore, it takes faith. But since we can't prove it or even come close to it, we can't call it science.

I'm sorry to ramble, but I'm just attempting to clarify the difference between faith and science. Faith is okay, but don't declare it as a universal truth when you are unable to do so.

 

[dilloduck]

You're absolutely right! And that's great that you have faith, but that is my point exactly in this entire Intelligent Design debate. It's faith and cannot be proved to be true...translation: faith is not science. When people assert this as a universal truth, then I have a problem with it. If you believe it, I may disagree, but who am I to tell you otherwise? Again, we are blurring the line between science and faith-- claiming creationism as a science inhibits future discoveries that may actually be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And as I mentioned before with supernatural discoveries-- everything is left open. For instance, if I said to you that I saw, spoke to, and received a physical response from God-- would you really believe me? I would hope not. Now what differentiates me saying I spoke to God and anyone of the people in the Bible saying they spoke to God? For all we know, they could be schizophrenic or just playing a hoax on us. A literal (I don't mean prayer) conversation with God is beyond the scope of reason and therefore is subject to anything that we want to create. And also-- how did Abraham and the others live to 900 or some absurd number close to that? There has to be some sort of fabrication there. And if not, how can we actually prove that? We can't, therefore, it takes faith. But since we can't prove it or even come close to it, we can't call it science.

I'm sorry to ramble, but I'm just attempting to clarify the difference between faith and science. Faith is okay, but don't declare it as a universal truth when you are unable to do so.

So do you have a lot of faith that science will solve everything for mankind?

 

[1549]

You're absolutely right! And that's great that you have faith, but that is my point exactly in this entire Intelligent Design debate. It's faith and cannot be proved to be true...translation: faith is not science. When people assert this as a universal truth, then I have a problem with it. If you believe it, I may disagree, but who am I to tell you otherwise? Again, we are blurring the line between science and faith-- claiming creationism as a science inhibits future discoveries that may actually be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And as I mentioned before with supernatural discoveries-- everything is left open. For instance, if I said to you that I saw, spoke to, and received a physical response from God-- would you really believe me? I would hope not. Now what differentiates me saying I spoke to God and anyone of the people in the Bible saying they spoke to God? For all we know, they could be schizophrenic or just playing a hoax on us. A literal (I don't mean prayer) conversation with God is beyond the scope of reason and therefore is subject to anything that we want to create. And also-- how did Abraham and the others live to 900 or some absurd number close to that? There has to be some sort of fabrication there. And if not, how can we actually prove that? We can't, therefore, it takes faith. But since we can't prove it or even come close to it, we can't call it science.

I'm sorry to ramble, but I'm just attempting to clarify the difference between faith and science. Faith is okay, but don't declare it as a universal truth when you are unable to do so.

You bring up interesting points. I am a strange sort of christian. I believe in the big bang, evolution, and that much of the bible is symbolic and not so much literal. Was Jesus really the son of God? I don't know.

But I believe in God for one reason:

the condensed ball of molecules that exploded to create our universe had to have been created by something. And something had to create that. For all we know this universe of galaxies and nebulas is just a floating piece of dust in a much larger landscape. Yet somewhere there has to be a supreme power.

 

[Dr Grump]

But just look at the hair on the body. The hair on your head is different than that on your arms which is different than the hair on your legs, which is different than the hair on your genitals, which is different than your eyebrows or eyelashes. This can't be just by accident.

It's not. It's nature adapting to its environment...

 

[Dr Grump]

This is a question for no one in particular.

By accepting the Bible and living your life accordingly, what do you have to lose?

Same could be said of the Koran, Torah, Gita or Buddhist scriptures....

 

[LOki]

You can't justify [biblical contradictions]. The Bible is....gasp....fallible. It was written by men and not by God himself. So if this is the case, then how can we prove that it's true? Did the writers of the Bible actually see the creation of Adam? No...that's impossible, so they HEARD about it not from God but from other human beings. We might as well consider it one big rumor...we'll never know if there's any truth to it.

Well, personally, I think you're in for a very big surprise.

You think the stories Grandma tells you of her childhood are lies? Any of you guys ever write a paper for school? You get the facts, you talk to people and then write it in your own words, right? Pretty much the way the Bible was done.
As far as contradictions, things we do today would never have been tho't of doing years ago. Women never wore pants, carried parasols, covered their heads in certain churches. Customs change; and that puts a slant on a person's writing.
But what remains true throughout the Bible is this, God is the same today as He was yesterday. He loves us. And Jesus came to this earth & died that we might have eternal life with Him. It is a gift, we receive through His grace. You don't have to accept it.

I think that if you consider the subject a bit, you'll discover that the "truth" AND "Truth" of stories are somewhat independent of the factual accuracies and consisency contained within them.

As for "truth" (as opposed to lies), factual accuracy is nearly completely irrelevent. If what you are saying is factually accurate, yet you possess the conviction that what you are saying is not, then you are lying--alternatively, if what you say is factually inaccurate, yet you possess the conviction that it is, then you are not lying, you are just wrong.

Concerning "Truth," (the essential ideal, moral, or concept usage) a tale can be complete fiction yet perfectly valid "Truth" can be extracted. For instance, while it is surely arguable that a person named "Jack" may plausibly have traded a cow for "magic" beans, the remainder of "Jack And The Bean Stalk" is surely fiction--the likeyhood that the tale is 100% fiction does not in the least bit invalidate the "Truth" of the tale.

Concerning the Bible, the descision you must make for yourself, is whether it is more important to you that the contents of the Bible are "truth" or "Truth."

If you are willing to accept that time and the frailty of Grandma's memory multiplied by the varied biases of her singular experience might render her stories not factually accurate; if you are willing to accept that a student might not research at all, but fabricate "facts" to be reported; if you are willing to accept (and perhaps assert) that Satan, or evil, can corrupt all things not God, why would you assume that over the centuries, in the (patently corruptable) hands and minds of men, that the "truth" of the Bible could not be corrupted in a effort to undermine the "Truth" of the Bible?

If you are of the belief that God is the author of all things, and all things in God have a purpose, would you not consider it consistent with God's plan that reality be aknowlegable as fact, and that men be possessed of reason that they may separate lies from "truth" with accurate facts and valid logic to defend knowledge of the "Truth" of God's creation?

By accepting the Bible and living your life accordingly, what do you have to lose?

Nothing--if you believe that in the (patently corruptable) hands and minds of men, that the "truth" of the Bible could not be corrupted in a effort to undermine the "Truth" of the Bible.

Otherwise you have an obligation (if not to God, at least yourself) to know Truth-- and that may not be consistent with the dashing infants against rocks, the ripping babies from wombs, or the various justifications for killing and destroying of all various "others."

So do you have a lot of faith that science will solve everything for mankind?

What do you mean by "science," and what do you mean by "solve?"

But I believe in God for one reason:

the condensed ball of molecules that exploded to create our universe had to have been created by something. And something had to create that. For all we know this universe of galaxies and nebulas is just a floating piece of dust in a much larger landscape. Yet somewhere there has to be a supreme power.

Interesting, but not new syllogism. Not to mock, but it is reminiscent of that peculiar bong-smoke epiphany that runs along the lines of "...what if the molecules in my eye lash are really universes, and our universe is just a molecule in the toe-nail of a giant whose universe is just a molecule in the pinky of another giant..."

The unanswered question in your unsupported assumption is: "Exactly why must reality have been created, but it's creator not?"

 

[liberalogic]

I think that if you consider the subject a bit, you'll discover that the "truth" AND "Truth" of stories are somewhat independent of the factual accuracies and consisency contained within them.

As for "truth" (as opposed to lies), factual accuracy is nearly completely irrelevent. If what you are saying is factually accurate, yet you possess the conviction that what you are saying is not, then you are lying--alternatively, if what you say is factually inaccurate, yet you possess the conviction that it is, then you are not lying, you are just wrong.

Concerning "Truth," (the essential ideal, moral, or concept usage) a tale can be complete fiction yet perfectly valid "Truth" can be extracted. For instance, while it is surely arguable that a person named "Jack" may plausibly have traded a cow for "magic" beans, the remainder of "Jack And The Bean Stalk" is surely fiction--the likeyhood that the tale is 100% fiction does not in the least bit invalidate the "Truth" of the tale.

Concerning the Bible, the descision you must make for yourself, is whether it is more important to you that the contents of the Bible are "truth" or "Truth."

If you are willing to accept that time and the frailty of Grandma's memory multiplied by the varied biases of her singular experience might render her stories not factually accurate; if you are willing to accept that a student might not research at all, but fabricate "facts" to be reported; if you are willing to accept (and perhaps assert) that Satan, or evil, can corrupt all things not God, why would you assume that over the centuries, in the (patently corruptable) hands and minds of men, that the "truth" of the Bible could not be corrupted in a effort to undermine the "Truth" of the Bible?

If you are of the belief that God is the author of all things, and all things in God have a purpose, would you not consider it consistent with God's plan that reality be aknowlegable as fact, and that men be possessed of reason that they may separate lies from "truth" with accurate facts and valid logic to defend knowledge of the "Truth" of God's creation?

Nothing--if you believe that in the (patently corruptable) hands and minds of men, that the "truth" of the Bible could not be corrupted in a effort to undermine the "Truth" of the Bible.

Otherwise you have an obligation (if not to God, at least yourself) to know Truth-- and that may not be consistent with the dashing infants against rocks, the ripping babies from wombs, or the various justifications for killing and destroying of all various "others."

What do you mean by "science," and what do you mean by "solve?"

Interesting, but not new syllogism. Not to mock, but it is reminiscent of that peculiar bong-smoke epiphany that runs along the lines of "...what if the molecules in my eye lash are really universes, and our universe is just a molecule in the toe-nail of a giant whose universe is just a molecule in the pinky of another giant..."

The unanswered question in your unsupported assumption is: "Exactly why must reality have been created, but it's creator not?"

If you haven't already, I suggest that you read Tim O'Brien's "The Things They Carried." I think you both share a very similar opinion about "t/Truth."

To be more accurate, when I say "truth" I mean actual fact-- it was an event and it happened.

 

[dilloduck]

If you haven't already, I suggest that you read Tim O'Brien's "The Things They Carried." I think you both share a very similar opinion about "t/Truth."

To be more accurate, when I say "truth" I mean actual fact-- it was an event and it happened.

You mean before or after men get a hold of it and try to explain it?