Contradictions in the Bible?

[LOki]

Once again, I ask the question I did on the very first page? By accepting the Bible & it's teachings, what do you have to lose?

I'll answer again: Nothing at all--provided 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 Truth may not be consistent (for instance) with the dashing infants against rocks, the ripping babies from wombs, or the various justifications for killing and destroying of all various "others."

If I'm wrong, then when I die, I'll be dead. Maybe I'll come back as a pest of some sort.

Or, if your faith is wrongly placed, maybe you'll burn in hell for eternity.

But what if I'm right? Then I'll see my son again, I'll live in the New Earth for eternity, I'll receive my reward for putting up with all this crap. I'm sorry, the price is too high, not to believe.

Correction: The price is too high to not believe correctly. Right?

You have nothing to lose by accepting the bible other than (in my case) it would be a false belief....

Well, you also lose the notion that the virtue of good is a good in and of itself, it is rationally defendable upon the interaction of moral absolutes intrinsic to a reality independent of how we perceive it, rather than merely the avoidance of eternal punishment meted out by a vindictive deity.

Man is evil by nature; he couldn't have done it on his own.

Man is evil by nature.

Certainly not. Genesis 1:26-31, Isaiah 45:7

To steer things perhaps in the right direction, I'll assert that regardless of whether or not the Bible contradicts itself, the parables contained therein are worth the read

Agreed.

 

[Joz]

I'll answer again: Nothing at all--provided 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 Truth may not be consistent (for instance) with the dashing infants against rocks, the ripping babies from wombs, or the various justifications for killing and destroying of all various "others."

I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this. But I study the Bible and I go on what is convicted of me, not anyone else. Things that are revealed to my heart may not have been revealed to someone else's.

I will add this, I have not said anyone here is wrong. I have merely stated what I believe & asked questions. You, or anyone else, have the right to believe that monkeys can fly out'chore butt, but then, I too, have the right to believe as I do. If I have left any other impression, I apologize.

Certainly not. Genesis 1:26-31, Isaiah 45:7

Again, I don't understand the reaon for these texts. Man was created perfect. He chose otherwise. Since then, man is evil by the very nature of his own choosing.

 

[Dr Grump]

Well then we really haven't anymore to discuss, as this is at the core of Christian belief.

All I can say is this: .....and all our righteouness is as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6
....For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23
....as by one man sin entered the world and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Romans 5:12

Man is evil by nature.

See Grump, man is saved by justification. It is the accepting of Christ as the Redeemer. NOT by anything we can or ever will do.

I do not believe in any diety so to me the analogy is redundant, although I respect those that have said beliefs (as long as the do no harm to me of course).

 

[Diuretic]

They don't know. Evolution is a belief.

Oh, thanks. It's not a belief, it's knowledge. From the evidence inferences are made. Those inferences are made by anyone who is intellectually able to make those inferences using accepted methods. Take a hundred people who have never met each other but who share a common background in a particular aspect of science, give them some evidence and let them make their own inferences from the evidence and you'll get (broadly) one view of the evidence. But if other evidence were to be introduced which, after examination, showed that the previous collectively understood idea was wrong, they'd accept the new idea. That's knowledge. Knowledge is always susceptible to change.

Belief isn't knowledge and knowledge isn't belief.

The theory of evolution is a scientific explanation. It will change the moment valid evidence is introduced to show it must be changed. If it was simply a belief then it would be up to the individual to decide whether or not they changed their belief. Belief is entirely subjective.

Knowledge is objective.

Joz you wrote:

"I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this. But I study the Bible and I go on what is convicted of me, not anyone else. Things that are revealed to my heart may not have been revealed to someone else's."

That's belief.

 

[Joz]

.......
The theory of evolution is a scientific explanation. It will change the moment valid evidence is introduced to show it must be changed. If it was simply a belief then it would be up to the individual to decide whether or not they changed their belief. Belief is entirely subjective. ....

You are going to believe the way you do, and I'm going to believe the way I do. And that's just the way it's going to be. But before I go I will say this one last thing.
Evolution, to the exclusion of Intelligent Design, is indeed a belief, a holy writ sanctioned by the Left and the movers & shakers of American culture.

 

[Joz]

I do not believe in any diety so to me the analogy is redundant.....

May I ask how you came to this conclusion? Do you ever wonder if there might be? Do you have hope for anything? Like the world or mankind in general?

 

[LOki]

I'll answer again: Nothing at all--provided 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 Truth may not be consistent (for instance) with the dashing infants against rocks, the ripping babies from wombs, or the various justifications for killing and destroying of all various "others."

I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this. But I study the Bible and I go on what is convicted of me, not anyone else. Things that are revealed to my heart may not have been revealed to someone else's.

I will add this, I have not said anyone here is wrong. I have merely stated what I believe & asked questions. You, or anyone else, have the right to believe that monkeys can fly out'chore butt, but then, I too, have the right to believe as I do. If I have left any other impression, I apologize.

Let me put it this way: Let us stipulate that God is infallible and uncorruptable. Does it follow that that the word of God, i.e. the Bible, in man's hands is infallible and uncorruptable?

If man's hands can corrupt the Bible, upon what basis does man then separate the corruption from the Truth? Particularly when a corrupted Bible cannot be trusted as a guide?

What I am asserting is that the Truth of the bible is independent of the truth of the bible--that if God is infallible and uncorruptable, then His Truth is infallible and uncorruptable, regardless of what the Bible now says after millenia of manipulations. What I am further asserting is that the basis of what we believe to be the Truth cannot be the baseless conviction of opinion derived from unqestionable inner revelation, but rather--if again we assert that God is infallible and uncorruptable--the objective understanding of the fabric of that reality authored by God and uncorruptable by man. If the shape of the planet is in contradiction to faith in the the Bible, if the order of the planets, moons and sun is in contradiction to the Bible, if the conclusions made based on observations of God's reality are in contradiction to the Bible, it is not the observations of God's uncorruptable reality that are suspect, but rather the text that has resided for so long unquestioned in the corruptable hands of man.

Again, I don't understand the reaon for these texts. Man was created perfect. He chose otherwise. Since then, man is evil by the very nature of his own choosing.

You said the nature of man is evil. I disagreed, and now you do too having said, "Man was created perfect." Yet I would disagree with "perfect," as that is clearly not the case, as perfection cannot beget the imperfection that is now patently apparent. Also Genesis does not claim man was created perfect, rather in the image of perfection, and good. The nature of man is not evil, but rather good.

You also said that man couldn't do evil on his own, to which I suppose I was agreeing because "evil" belonging to the set of "all things" must necessarily have been authored by God, who is the author of "all things," and Isaiah 45:7 explicitly asserts the same.

And, for clarification, according to the Bible, man was not created with the free will to choose between good and evil--without knowledge of good and evil, it is impossible to choose between them. I would assert that it is certainly unjust to hold man accountable for choosing evil when he was not created with the knowledge of distinguishing it from good--before he had the capacity to choose.

Evolution, to the exclusion of Intelligent Design, is indeed a belief, a holy writ sanctioned by the Left and the movers & shakers of American culture.

Nonsense.

 

[Joz]

...If man's hands can corrupt the Bible, upon what basis does man then separate the corruption from the Truth? Particularly when a corrupted Bible cannot be trusted as a guide

With man being fallible I will agree that there probably have been some minor mistakes made through the translations. Still doesn't take away from the Bible message.

You also said that man couldn't do evil on his own, .......

I never said any such thing.

And, for clarification, according to the Bible, man was not created with the free will to choose between good and evil--without knowledge of good and evil, it is impossible to choose between them. I would assert that it is certainly unjust to hold man accountable for choosing evil when he was not created with the knowledge of distinguishing it from good--before he had the capacity to choose.

Adam & Eve chose to disobey God. They had freewill. They were given full run of the Garden of Eden except for the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil. They were deceived by the pride of the serpent. Therefore by that very act they chose evil. Man's nature became evil redeemable only by the blood of Christ.

I am curious, are we reading the same Bible? I'm using the King James Version.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You are going to believe the way you do, and I'm going to believe the way I do. And that's just the way it's going to be. But before I go I will say this one last thing.
Evolution, to the exclusion of Intelligent Design, is indeed a belief, a holy writ sanctioned by the Left and the movers & shakers of American culture.

The difference is, it's a belief that easily changes (or perhaps adapts is more apt choice of wording) with scientific proof.

 

[Joz]

The difference is, it's a belief that easily changes (or perhaps adapts is more apt choice of wording) with scientific proof.

Still makes it a belief.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Still makes it a belief.

All theory is belief.

 

[Joz]

All theory is belief.

Which is what I have claimed all throughout this thread.

 

[jillian]

All theory is belief.

But not all theory is scientifc, no?

 

[Diuretic]

All theory is belief.

No it's not.

Belief is not conditional. You believe or you don't. It's up to you whether you believe or not. I could torture you and you could scream out "I believe!" but you could be lying to me just to make me stop torturing you. But in your mind you still believe.

Theory, on the other hand, is totally the opposite. Every theory is grudgingly accepted, sometimes it does find its way to being accepted without grudge and it becomes venerable but then along comes another troublesome truthseeker and - bingo - the theory is shot to pieces and another takes its place.

Another takes its place.

That's the difference. Theory "A" gives way to a better theory, theory "B". That's science. The newer, better explanation takes its place because it's apparent. No wars, no screaming denunciations, no jihads or crusades. There might be the odd boo at a presentation of a scientific paper but when it proves itself the new theory will be accepted.

Relying on religious ideas that go back thousands of years to inform us about life now is the province of belief. Of dogma.

There is no comparison.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

No it's not.

Belief is not conditional. You believe or you don't. It's up to you whether you believe or not. I could torture you and you could scream out "I believe!" but you could be lying to me just to make me stop torturing you. But in your mind you still believe.

Theory, on the other hand, is totally the opposite. Every theory is grudgingly accepted, sometimes it does find its way to being accepted without grudge and it becomes venerable but then along comes another troublesome truthseeker and - bingo - the theory is shot to pieces and another takes its place.

Another takes its place.

That's the difference. Theory "A" gives way to a better theory, theory "B". That's science. The newer, better explanation takes its place because it's apparent. No wars, no screaming denunciations, no jihads or crusades. There might be the odd boo at a presentation of a scientific paper but when it proves itself the new theory will be accepted.

Relying on religious ideas that go back thousands of years to inform us about life now is the province of belief. Of dogma.

There is no comparison.

But you're believing in theory A until you believe in theory B. If there was no belief, it would be called fact.

My point was that scientific theory is open to change when the cirumstances provide for it. Religion does not have that luxury. Which is fine, unless you're wrong about the interpretation of your belief, or the belief is wrong in general.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

But not all theory is scientifc, no?

Of course not. Scientific theory requires belief. It does not, however, refuse to accept change.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Which is what I have claimed all throughout this thread.

And which wasn't the point of why I posted

 

[Joz]

Belief is not conditional. You believe or you don't.....
Theory, on the other hand, is totally the opposite. Every theory is grudgingly accepted, sometimes it does find its way to being accepted without grudge and it becomes venerable but then along comes another troublesome truthseeker and - bingo - the theory is shot to pieces and another takes its place.

I see now where you're coming from with this! You are right but only to a point. And by your description Evolution is a belief as well as Creation is a theory.

I can believe within certain boundries, but as God reveals things to me via living/Bible study, I can change inside that belief.

 

[Joz]

And which wasn't the point of why I posted

Sorry.

 

[Diuretic]

In a dispute in which words are weapons it pays to choose your shotgun well

I take your point and I might well be making too much of the need for fine definitions but I need to say that a theory isn't "believed" in the spiritual or theological sense. It's conditionally accepted - meaning everyone in the scientific community says, "yes, but" and is busy working at proving it wrong.