Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 1
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictionsPage 1 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
Whether or not one agrees with the suggested Divinity of the Bible, one would have a hard time questioning its existence as an authentic document. Whether or not the manuscript is factual or not is, for many, the biggest question surrounding the document. There are many verifiable facts in the "Big Book" that would indicate that it is valid. But then again, there are may contradictions and inaccuracies among its pages.

I am of the understanding that there is one certainty regarding written communication that is shared by many facets of our society including literature, science, journalism and more. That certainty is that no matter how many facts and truths are used in a testimony, as long as there is a single false statement or inaccuracy within its claims, the document is considered to be false.

One huge exception to this rule is the Bible. Why is that? I think Henry Kissinger explained it best when he said "It's not a matter of what is true that counts but a matter of what is perceived to be true." As long as enough people perceive the Bible and all of it's contents to be factual, then it will be regarded as such. But I digress.

What I am really here to discuss is why inaccuracies and contradictions reside in the Bible at all. Some people think that these defects have always existed within the pages. Others feel that these faults are products of multiple translations and accidental inaccurate translations. Some groups testify that it's the irresponsibility of the Nicene Council that is to blame for these shortcomings. Still more believe that they are not flaws at all, but simply subjects that can no longer be fully understood since parts (even full books) of the Bible, that possibly contained information and explanations of these subjects, have been removed or lost.

If you are of those who believe the Bible has changed from its original form, I ask you this. If the Bible is truly the word of God written through man, would God have let it be changed so dramatically? Would he have not wanted modern man to have the same opportunity to read his unscathed masterpiece as people did 2,000 years ago? And why would he allow man to revise and edit his teachings to the point that entire books are now excluded?

If in fact you believe that the Bible is true to its original form, I then have a question for you. If God really wanted us to fallow his word to the best of our abilities, why would he leave the Bible so vague, cryptic, and even open to interpretation? Why would he not be more concise and to the point? Would this have not been a much more effective method of getting his point across?

As I am sure that I will be persecuted for this thread, I would like to quote Gary Amirault saying "In this world, those who seek the truth will also find trouble."
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 2
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/26/2008 8:37:04 PM


What I am really here to discuss is why inaccuracies and contradictions reside in the Bible at all. Some people think that these defects have always existed within the pages. Others feel that these faults are products of multiple translations and accidental inaccurate translations. Some groups testify that it's the irresponsibility of the Nicene Council that is to blame for these shortcomings. Still more believe that they are not flaws at all, but simply subjects that can no longer be fully understood since parts (even full books) of the Bible, that possibly contained information and explanations of these subjects, have been removed or lost.


None of the above are mutually incompatible. The original authors weren't writing their books under the belief that they would be anthologized one day. They were writing for specific communities and had their own political and religious agendas. Four centuries later when they were finally collected together it was difficult to make major revisions to the texts because there were so many and they were scattered around in different communities. Now there certainly were some revisions, additions, and deletions because no two texts agree word for word. Sometimes the errors are simple copyist errors (e.g. spelling errors or changes of word order). Sometimes notes added into margins worked their way into texts. Sometimes it's willful tampering.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 3
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/26/2008 10:24:33 PM

I am of the understanding that there is one certainty regarding written communication that is shared by many facets of our society including literature, science, journalism and more. That certainty is that no matter how many facts and truths are used in a testimony, as long as there is a single false statement or inaccuracy within its claims, the document is considered to be false.
You do know that Newton's Theory of Gravitation is only 70% right, and wrong in the case of when Mercury goes retrograde, don't you? According to that, we should reject everything in the Principia Mathematica, including Newton's 3 Laws of Motion, and Calculus. But we don't. Get a grip.

If you are of those who believe the Bible has changed from its original form, I ask you this. If the Bible is truly the word of God written through man, would God have let it be changed so dramatically? Would he have not wanted modern man to have the same opportunity to read his unscathed masterpiece as people did 2,000 years ago? And why would he allow man to revise and edit his teachings to the point that entire books are now excluded?
I think Henry Kissinger explained it best when he said "It's not a matter of what is true that counts but a matter of what is perceived to be true." Even if you read Hebrew and Aramaic, and read the Bible exactly as it was written, it wouldn't make a difference to you. What matters to you, is your perception of what is true. If you have a perception that does not pre-judge things, then you will read the Bible in that vein, and you will find it of value, as Emerson and so many other great thinkers did. If you have a perception of how the world is, and that everything must fit into that perception or be false, then all books are false unless they agree with your perception. But that doesn't matter if your perception is right or wrong. "It's not a matter of what is true that counts but a matter of what is perceived to be true." Whatever you perceive to be true, even if it is false, will be the only thing that counts to you. You will see everything that disagrees with that perception to be false, however overwhelming the evidence.

Therapists call this "self-invalidation".
Scientists call this "cognitive dissonance".
Nietzsche called this the Will to Truth, being a Will to Power to represent as truth, whatever supports your will.
Emerson called this the "hobgoblin of little minds" in his essay on self-reliance, being the nature of many people to assume one thing, and then to defend that position.
Schopenhauer was also of the opinion that once someone takes a position, he/she will defend it, even to absurdity.

So it doesn't matter what is true. It matters what you believe to be true, and whether any of that contradicts the Bible. If it does, then you will find it hard to accept the Bible. That is why I try to avoid having a lot of assumptions. It's much easier to find the truth, if you don't assume anything.

As I am sure that I will be persecuted for this thread, I would like to quote Gary Amirault saying "In this world, those who seek the truth will also find trouble."
You'll just find trouble. That is not the same as being persecuted. If you ask me, you're not being persecuted. You're having your posts taken apart, the same as happens to anyone who posts on POF. The only difference is that some welcome criticism as the tool to remove the truth from falsehood, and some fear it. Me, I don't fear it, because I want the truth, and how can critical analysis do anything but point out logical inconsistencies and flaws in my logic?

Edit: I just thought I'd revisit this issue:
If you are of those who believe the Bible has changed from its original form, I ask you this.
Far as I know, it's the same.

And why would he allow man to revise and edit his teachings to the point that entire books are now excluded?
Far as I know, there are no books that were canonised that aren't any more.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 4
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/27/2008 4:52:50 AM

There was no "bible" 2000 years ago. There weren't even gospels, epistles, or letters 2000 years ago.

But there was the word of God and the Christian teachings 2,000 years ago. Did Jesus not give his first sermon when he was 8 years old? I guess that would make this year the two thousandth anniversary.


You do know that Newton's Theory of Gravitation is only 70% right

Theory: a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

So by definition, a theory is something that hasn't been proved to be true or false. It isn't fact and shouldn't be regarded as such. Once a theory (or part of a theory) is proved or disproved, it is then no longer a theory. If it is only a part of the theory that has been disproved, the theory is then modified to support the newly found facts.



If you are of those who believe the Bible has changed from its original form, I ask you this.

Far as I know, it's the same.

You should check out a site called Biblegateway.com. It is a Biblical reference site that contains more than 50 different versions of the Bible. If the Bible were truly in it's original form, then how so many variations exist?
 overleamd
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 5
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/27/2008 5:55:27 AM
I can not talk to you about the Christian bible but in Torah G-d told Moses to write down this poem. If you are reading the Hebrew Bible like prose no wonder you are confused.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 6
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/27/2008 1:49:26 PM




Nothing really contradicts itself in the scriptures that I have found, i've seen cut and pastes posted from a variety of websites that are claiming to be contradictions, but have never seen anything that has any bearing on altering the message of the gospel.


Apparently you overlooked Acts 1:18 and Matthew 27:5 where Judas kills himself two different ways.


For the True Believer there's no contradiction that can't be explained away by inventing context, deleting context, interpreting allegorically, interpreting literally, redefining words, invoking miracles, generalizing someone's statements to include other notions, reinterpreting someone's statements to be more specific than is plainly intended, assuming one statement holds at one time and another statement holds at a different time, assuming two contradictory accounts are two separate events even if they are 99% similar, claiming that one can only understand by being filled with the Holy Spirit, assuming one account left out details found in another account which in turn left out details found in the first account, assuming that all accounts left out details, invoking copyist errors, and the ever popular "I don't understand how to resolve the contradiction, but God works in mysterious ways."

There's a classic explanation for how Judas died. See how many of the above tactics you can find in this explanation. Judas hung himself from a tree over the edge of a cliff. The branch he was hanging from snapped and as he fell his body spun upside down, thus falling headlong. He crashed to the ground and his body burst open. To the True Believer this is a plausible and rational explanation for the two accounts. To a non-believer this is a laughable rationalization.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 7
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/27/2008 4:00:01 PM
The bible was cobbled together at nicea in 325, and further at the council of carthage in 397.

Thanks for that information. The exact dates that each book was written is completely irrelevant to my point. I'm not moving goalposts. My question as to why God would let "his word" change from it's original form still stands no matter when the original form was actually created. You are concentrating on the wrong aspects of my posts. You're going on about Gorgonzola when it's clearly Brie time, baby!


Why? And what of the "ones" who don't have a hard time, or did but now don't?

So you do not believe that the Bible actually exists? Interesting...


It is? How do you know this? Is this your own opinion or based on actual evidence and facts?

I guess it would depend on how many people you consider to be "many" as to whether or not you would agree with this statement. In accordance with my understanding of what "many", this is a factual statement.


Please list at least 20 of these "many" so that they can be addressed. Thank you.

Why would I need to address 20 inconsistencies and inaccuracies? The fact is that if even one can be found, then the validity of the entire document is questionable.


Not so. Only the false statement or inaccuracy is false (as long as all the other facts are true in and of themselves). You have been misled or are oversimplifying. An example:
I state "1+1=2", "2+2=5", "3+3=6", and "4+4=8". Only "2+2=5"is false. All the other statements are true regardless of the accuracy of the second statement. this isn't Rocket Science, you know!

I would hardly consider a list of random mathematical equations to be a "document" or a "testimony". But I guess opinions vary. And thanks for once again focusing on the less important aspects of my post and not answering any of my questions.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/27/2008 4:08:29 PM
REmsg 8 by whitegold765:
Scorpiomover - you're one of the few people on this forum whose opinions I vehemently disagree with, but still respect for your eloquence and intelligence in backing them up and discussing them. Kudos.
Thanks, whitegold765. A person who can argue with every point, because he realises that what I say comes with thought and research, so his arguments are solid. You're a man I could enjoy being refuted by.

No sir, I did not! Hell, some of Einstein's work has been proven to be... not quite wrong, but not as right as thought. They still did remarkably well for what they had to work with. I can't add up two single digit numbers in my head so anyone who can work out the mathematics of planetary movement on paper has my admiration. I didn't know that about Newton. It's a nice quote, and a lovely point. Not relevant, but a nice quote. If Newton's Theory of Gravitation turned out to be entirely unverifiable, unsupported by any facts, and the few facts it showed were entirely inconsistent... then it would be relevant.
This was always my perspective on the matter. Newton's theories are valid, because they pretty much fit the facts. So the errors that he had, can then be explained by other people. It might be that someone comes along and shows that Newton's theories are completely inaccurate. But even then, such a theory would show the same properties as Newton's theories and laws. But Newton wasn't explaining WHY thing happen, only that things all seem to have those properties that he mentioned. So every more accurate theory would have to still be in support of Newton's theories and laws anyway.

In the same way, the Bible seems to work. Just because others disagree with some parts, because of what someone else said, doesn't even make those parts invalid. It just means that more research is needed.

Also, nothing by Newton or Einstein claimed within to be inerrantly true,
I quite agree that Newton and Einstein never claimed to have a perfect system. I was discussing this point on another thread. Turns out that Newton proposed Heliocentrism just like Galileo. But Newton requested an introduction by some priest friends of his, who checked his book with the Church, and put that you would have to "hypothetically" assume that a Heliocentric system in order to understand the book. In this way, the Church never disagreed with Newton. Unfortunately, some people chose to "put their finger up to the Church", and basically disagree fundamentally with the Church, in public. Kind of like you disagreeing with American policy on Iraq, by standing outside the White House, and shouting through a loudspeaker that all Americans should side with the terrorists, against the President. That's treason, if I'm not mistaken. But Newton knew enough to never attack the Church like that. That is another reason why Newton was accepted so universally.

and to be accepted on pain of death. I think that's an important distinction.
Well, I was taught that you cannot be put to pain of death by my religion for what you think. Only for what you do. I think that's an important distinction too.

I wouldn't mind accepting the bible as a story, an allegory, an allegator or anything else,
I was taught that the whole of the Bible is meant to be allegories for examples of how to act, and how not to act, because there are many events that happened to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and everyone else in the Bible, that wasn't put in the Bible. So what is there, is there for more than reason of historical accuracy. It's there to teach us something. So I would have no problem about you accepting the Bible as entirely full of allegories. But some might also have happened that way.

as long as it didn't claim to be 100% true and inviolable.
I was taught that where it is possible for the Bible to be considered as true, it would only be appropriate for it to be true. Where it cannot be true, such as Adam dying on the same day he was born, when it says that he lived to 930, that is open to a certain amount of interpretation. However, where there is a disagreement between Popular Science and the Bible, I will not side with Popular Science automatically, because I love Science. But apart from people like Newton and Einstein, who really checked out their stuff, a lot of the modern stuff changes every day. On top, there are at least 2 facts that I know of, that come from religious books that are considered by many to be companions to the Bible, that scientists have only discovered recently.

1) The Talmud teaches a very exact orbit of the moon. In the last 40 years, that orbit was re-measured by laser-sighting, and was discovered that that measure was accurate to within a few milliseconds. Of course, you could say it is still a bit off, but that doesn't take into the account of all the comets and meteors. So it might be more accurate than we think. However, what is really interesting to me, something I didn't know until a few weeks ago, was that until the Moon Landings, we couldn't get this measure. In order to accurately measure the orbit of the moon, we needed to know the distance to the moon, and we could only get that by measuring it with a laser. But we couldn't do that until we put a mirror up there. So either the people of the Talmud had been to the moon, put a mirror up there, and built a laser themselves with which to measure it, or they did it without a laser. That's quite impressive. I doubt I can think of anyone who got that kind of accuracy apart from Einstein.

2) Recently experts in aging have declared that the best way to increase the length of your life is caloric restriction, which means you eat until you are 80% full, at least according to the Okinawans. What's interesting is that I heard about this 20 years ago. It was written by Maimonides in his religious work the Mishneh Torah, in the 12th century, between 1170 and 1180. So the most modern advance in extending your life, in found in a religious book that's 828 years old!

You can see why I don't buy everything that science says until I've assured myself that anything else is impossible.

I can't really accept this. It's basically the conclusion that there is no such thing as truth, just subjectivity. Which really makes everything totally pointless, not a preference of mine. There are certain things that are just facts. Not subjective.
I understand your perspective. There are facts. But human psychology allows people to distort facts, until they see what they want to see. SOME people are objective, but it's very hard work. Most people are subjective, because it's easier, even about facts.

The bible says the world was covered in water over the tallest mountain. And there isn't that much water in the world. The bible says the sun stopped in the sky. The sun doesn't travel in the sky, the earth spins. And if the earth STOPPED spinning we'd probably all die, not to mention the earthquakes, volcanos and possibly actual tearing of planet caused by the forces of melty inner-earth sloshing to a stop. The bible says Noah built a boat that took two of every animal, but there's absolutely no chance they could fit. The bible says that Pi is 3. It's not.
As I said, I'm going to believe someone who can prove it is 100% impossible, without any form of inductive reasoning or just a few experiments, or what he considers theory. If you am going to believe something is true, I need 100%. 99% means that another theory could explain it. I'm not going to address all of the Biblical issues, but I do know that certain sources say that the Ark was only supported by a miracle, for many reasons. I have also read sources that claim that G-d moved a comet to cause the actual flood itself, so it appears that there were a lot of strange things going on, and that might explain how the flood happened. But I don't want to go into detail on this thread, because it will just end up going off-topic. There is another thread that exclusively discusses the flood, if you want to address it there.

However, as far as Pi goes, 3 was just an approximation listed in the Bible. Even for the people of the Bible, they knew that. After all, think about it. They had ropes for measuring. So they could measure the circumference and the width of a barrel. They had to, because a barrel needs a hoop on either end. The so coopers (barrel-makers) would have had to know Pi very accurately, and the people of the Bible used barrels. So it's quite impossible for them to believe that Pi was really 3.000000000. They had it know it very accurately.

I don't have a problem with the science or math or inconsistency in the bible. I have a problem with the outright evil. I'm anti-genocide. I know... an unpopular stance.
Actually, you would be in the same group as the Bible. I was corresponding on a thread recently, and checked out the law on the nations that the Children of Israel "killed". Turns out, that if you were willing to live by the Seven Laws of Noah, which includes don't kill, don't steal, and follow a system of justice, you didn't have to die. So the only people who were killed were people who said they would steal and kill and not care about the law, or similar.

I personally believe that genocide has come about because the head of group A wanted the land of group B, so he said that "G-d wants them to kill group B", and most of the people in group A were quite willing to go on a rampage, because they wanted to get some aggression out, like teenage kids looking for fights. Explains why most armies want people under 26. Older people who look after themselves are just as capable in a fight, but they aren't going to look for a fight. It's harder to fool an older person into a war that is not his or G-d's.

But feel fit to disagree. After all, that way I can learn more.

RE msg 11 by CharlesEdm:
This is in fact completely untrue.
Well, you can argue with my Physics teacher. After all, he only had a PhD in Physics. I suppose you have 10 Nobel Prizes in Physics? If not, back it up.

RE Msg: 12 by the OP:
So by definition, a theory is something that hasn't been proved to be true or false. It isn't fact and shouldn't be regarded as such. Once a theory (or part of a theory) is proved or disproved, it is then no longer a theory. If it is only a part of the theory that has been disproved, the theory is then modified to support the newly found facts.
Newton's theory was proved true, and accepted as true, by all scientists for 300 years. That was true, even though Tycho Brahe's detailed astronomical data, and Kepler's Law, which was based on Tycho Brahe's data, were both used by Newton as the basis for his theory on Gravitation, and the fact that it was Tycho Brahe's data that showed that Newton was not correct. Yet everyone who was in astronomy knew this, and they STILL accepted Newton's theory as true, because science is about the "rule of thumb". It's about establishing principles which roughly work. It's not about coming up with explanations that soothe the psyche. If Newton had proposed a theory to explain why Gravity happened, you'd have 1000 different theories about why and how Gravity works, and his ideas would NEVER HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. We owe the whole idea of Gravity to the fact that Newton remained impartial and only published his "rules of thumb", not his "theories".

Many modern people don't understand this, because we've grown up in an age of people who are taught to accept but never question. In older times, people were taught to discover nature for themselves, and would be doing experiments in their back yard, and that is how things like electricity and the TV were developed.

You should check out a site called Biblegateway.com. It is a Biblical reference site that contains more than 50 different versions of the Bible. If the Bible were truly in it's original form, then how so many variations exist?
Bible Gateway.com lists loads of TRANSLATIONS of the Bible. TRANSLATIONS! NOT VERSIONS! We've had this discussion before. It ended with the simple answer that you should read the original. So it doesn't matter what translation you use. It's still a translation.

REmsg 14 by whitegold765:
The error you make there is that nothing really is ever completely proven. A theory is a conjection that fits the facts. My belief that the sun will come up in the morning is merely a theory. It's backed up by solid facts, and is ALMOST certainly true. But it's just a theory.

The mistake is in thinking that calling it a "theory" is iffy. By scientific method nothing is more than a theory.
Someone really understands science.


We do have some pretty damn solid theories, though. Gravity being one. I'm pretty sure about that one. Still just a theory. One day something may float and then we'll have to take another look at the whole scene.
So far, I've seen relativity, which is supposed to be way more accurate than any other theory in the history of science, according to Roger Penrose. But then other people keep arguing for Gravitons. I'm not sure which to believe.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 9
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/27/2008 4:28:19 PM
Newton's theory was proved true, and accepted as true, by all scientists for 300 years.

Only certain parts of his theory were "proven". But never was it proven in its entirety. In fact Newton claimed that the moon kept a relatively constant distance from the earth. We know now that that aspect of his theory is false. The Moon's distance varies around 30,000 miles from its closest to furthest points from earth. This variation is about 11% of the moon's average distance from the earth. I would consider that to be a significant number that would allow one to question his notion that the moon keeps a relatively constant distance.

For 300 years, all scientists didn't necessarily accept his theory to be true. Some simply accepted it as being the most accurate theory to date.


Bible Gateway.com lists loads of TRANSLATIONS of the Bible. TRANSLATIONS! NOT VERSIONS! We've had this discussion before.

So then, please explain why we have the "New International Version" and the "King James Version". You can find the word "version" even on the covers of these differing books. So yes, they are in fact different versions.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 10
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/28/2008 5:05:13 AM

You are moving from a "bible" to "sermons" and "lessons". This is called moving goalposts. You are asking about an original bible, and then go on to switch to sermons, play fair or don't play at all.

Once again, I'm not using moving from the "Bible" to sermons and lessons. As DaveScott pointed out, the Book of Luke was written about 70 A.D. which would make it almost 2,000 years ago whether or not it was actually called the "Bible" at that time or not. The point I am trying to make has nothing to do with at what time the Bible was written, compiled, edited, or so on, but that fact that at some point in time it was in deed written, compiled, edited, etc. I am sorry that I through even mentioned a vague time frame at all. Silly me.


You still don't understand. How do you know if the word has changed from the "original" if YOU DON'T HAVE AN ORIGINAL TO COMPARE IT TO ??

I nerve said that the Bible WAS changed from it's original form in my original post. I simply said that there are people who believe that. And that is an indisputable fact. And I simply directed a question toward those people when I wrote...

If you are of those who believe the Bible has changed from its original form, I ask you this. If the Bible is truly the word of God written through man, would God have let it be changed so dramatically? Would he have not wanted modern man to have the same opportunity to read his unscathed masterpiece as people did 2,000 years ago? And why would he allow man to revise and edit his teachings to the point that entire books are now excluded?

If you are not one of these people who think that the Bible is no longer in it's original form, then the question was not directed at you at all, and you are in no way expected to answer for those people who DO fall into this category.


You would do better to focus on why god would accept that there are these inconsistencies and contradictions in even these current editions

That's exactly what my post is about. Why, would an all powerful God allow an obviously flawed manuscript that suggests that rabbits chew their cud and they contradicts itself on the subject of Elijah going to heaven to be used and accepted as a "Divine" piece?


here's the news, it does, and it's been done to death in this forum from time immemorial.

In that case you are more than welcome not to post your opinion on this "done-to-death" topic. But I did perform a thread search.


Indeed,you,scorpiomover,romanticpost along with others have imo successfully argued and made your point each time but I think he keeps adding things as he goes with new issues to address and points to make.

Of course I have new points to make...that's how conversations work. If I were to type out every concievable notion that I have on the subject in my original post, the post would be so long that no one would read it in it's entirety. And do I not have the right to defend my claims when attacked? And sure, those guys made their points, but unfortunately that had little to do with the subject of my post. I asked 2 questions in my original post and so far, neither of these people have offered an answer.


Let me get this right...imo,you are using the bible to show that the bible is wrong....For example, like one trying to use science to show that science is wrong....and although your premise in the original post consistently reflects referencing the bible in it's original form,but imo, this information given by A Fortiori and others seems to be completely irrelevant to you notwithstanding any possible light it may trace toward the origin of the bible itself because also imo,this weakens your position and furthermore after reading your original post in it's entirety,I believe this to be selective reading and selective observation on your part.

So please explain to me how the actual date that they bible was written has anything to do with why there are inconsistencies and inaccuracies amongst its pages.
Yes...AFortiori wrote:

The bible was cobbled together at nicea in 325, and further at the council of carthage in 397.

But what does this have to do with at what time the manuscripts were written? The Nicene council didn't write them. They simply edited them and pieced them together in the modern day fashion.


An example; A bit rusty on this part,but I seem to remember and believe that there was this cat named Longfellow,a patriot and to keep the country from splitting apart,he wanted to write something...So who was better casted ,Isarel Bissel or Paul Revere??? Have you ever heard,"When the legend becomes fact,then print the legend"....so from that I believe comes this famous poem about Paul Revere and Israel Bissell,this "young messenger who called the colonists to arms during a remarkable five-day dash across five states is a mere footnote -- a man mentioned in historical documents that didn't even get his first name right. They called him Trail. His name was Israel Bissell, and he is one of the Revolutionary War's most unheralded heroes."

Another example of casting our heroes; George Washington,a hero of the revolution,but he only fought 9 battles and only won 3...record 3 and 6,but is it not possible that he was elected because he was a 'star'?
And we have Andrew Jackson,hero of the battle of New Orleans during the war 1812 and yet what makes this battle so unique is that it was fought when the war was over. And oh yeah,"the the song with catchy tune that we teach our kids,Yankee doodle went to town riding on a pony....one might find it interesting should ya trace this song back to it's orgin.

I would not dispute any of that. But I fail to see what it has to do with the Bible or any of its contradictions and inaccuracies.


The bible was cobbled together at nicea in 325, and further at the council of carthage in 397.

What does this have to do with at what time the manuscripts were written. This Nicene council didn't write them. They simply edited them and pieced them together in the modern day fashion.


I write poetry including writing in abstract.And I can write a poem that is of course written in it's original form by me,and along the way,those that read the poem may have different interpretations of what the words reveal to them and still yet my poem remains in it's original form.

But as I understand it, one of the Bible's main purposes is to give moral guidance and to also establish moral "laws" that if broken are a "sin". How can this be done through abstract writing? This needs to be done through literal writing if one wants to successfully get it point across. If the objective here is to guide men on their path to heaven then it seems to me that to be vague about it is nothing more than playing a game.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 11
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/28/2008 10:07:36 AM
RE msg 23:
Only certain parts of his theory were "proven". But never was it proven in its entirety. In fact Newton claimed that the moon kept a relatively constant distance from the earth. We know now that that aspect of his theory is false. The Moon's distance varies around 30,000 miles from its closest to furthest points from earth. This variation is about 11% of the moon's average distance from the earth. I would consider that to be a significant number that would allow one to question his notion that the moon keeps a relatively constant distance.

For 300 years, all scientists didn't necessarily accept his theory to be true. Some simply accepted it as being the most accurate theory to date.
1) You said SOME thought it was the most accurate theory to date. Hence, SOME thought it was NOT the most accurate theory to date. Hence, SOME thought that there existed a MORE accurate theory to date. What theory was this, and who proposed it? Who supported this theory?

2) You said all scientists didn't necessarily accept his theory to be true. Hence, SOME scientists didn't necessarily accept his theory to be true. But you also wrote that some simply accepted it as being the most accurate theory to date. So those theories which are accepted as being the most accurate theory to date, are in fact considered NOT TRUE. So, for any theory to be true, it must have an extra condition above and beyond being the most accurate theory to date.

Could that condition be masses of data? Well, Newton's theory was based on Tycho Brahe's data, which was massive, both in detail and in amount. So that would apply to Newton as well, so we must reject this.

Could that condition be that no other theory could be possible? Well, to do that, you would have to define the set of every possible theory that could fit the data, and prove they were all false. But to do that, you would have to prove either they didn't make sense or they didn't fit the facts. But then the set of every possible theory that made sense and fitted the data would be ONE. So you would have to prove that every possible theory of any type whatsoever, whether to do with the data or not, whether connected with the subject matter or not, would either not make sense or not fit the data. But w.o.l.o.g., it is possible to prove that the set of those theories would be the size of the Set of All Sets, which is a number s.t. it is greater than infinity, and greater than the number above infinity, and above that, and above that, and so on. It is a number so large that it has been excluded from Science and Mathematics by the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms. In short, it would be impossible to prove that such a theory even exists, for any theory of Science.

By the above, you could only prove that "some simply accepted it as being the most accurate theory to date", for every theory that exists, which would mean that no theory is true.

Hence, no theory could be more valid than Newton's.

3) You wrote:
That certainty is that no matter how many facts and truths are used in a testimony, as long as there is a single false statement or inaccuracy within its claims, the document is considered to be false.
So that would mean that Newton's theory IS FALSE. Not just innacurate.

Your argument is a No True Scotsman argument. It has no basis.

So then, please explain why we have the "New International Version" and the "King James Version". You can find the word "version" even on the covers of these differing books. So yes, they are in fact different versions.

Definitions of version on the Web:

* an interpretation of a matter from a particular viewpoint; "his version of the fight was different from mine"
* something a little different from others of the same type; "an experimental version of the night fighter"; "a variant of the same word"; "an emery wheel is the modern variation of a grindstone"; "the boy is a younger edition of his father"
* adaptation: a written work (as a novel) that has been recast in a new form; "the play is an adaptation of a short novel"
* translation: a written communication in a second language having the same meaning as the written communication in a first language
* interpretation: a mental representation of the meaning or significance of something
* manual turning of a fetus in the uterus (usually to aid delivery)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realise that they are 2 different translations.

4) You keep arguing that the Bible is inconsistent. If you don't believe in it, then why argue the toss? Why is it so important to you to prove it wrong? More importantly, how can you prove something wrong, if you don't believe it is true in the first place? Thus, I am forced to conclude that you truly believe in the Bible, but you have some reason to want to doubt it. What could that be? Could it be that it grates against your principles? Who has EVER asked you to kill because of the Bible? No-one? Then could it be that the Bible tells you that you have to be responsible for your actions, and you pay for hurting people? Could it be that you want a life where you do what you want, hurting others with impunity, and fear that you will be punished for this, and so wish to prove it wrong, so that you can believe that you will not be punished for hurting others? If so, that does not take away from the fact that you still believe in the Bible, and hence, that you yourself believe that you will be punished for hurting others. This thread shows that you not only believe in the Bible, but you fear the punishment you will endure for hurting others, and that you cannot escape it by trying to prove the Bible as not true.

RE msg 27:

"Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me."

Exodus 13:2

Naaaaaaaah, he doesn't sound like a psychotic megalomaniac.
Think about it.
1) If you make something, is it someone else's, or is it yours? It's yours. But G-d made everything, according to the Bible. So EVERYTHING belongs to G-d. The mere fact that he DOESN'T require you to consider every child other than a first-born to him, is quite tolerant.

2) Do you know what "consecrate" means? What exactly does it mean? Is it something good? Maybe it's great to be consecrated.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 12
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/28/2008 3:13:17 PM

Newtons theory is valid within the boundaries of experimental error. Its not perfect but it does give a good match without getting into huge argumernts and very involved math.
I will quote whitegold765 in msg 14:
The error you make there is that nothing really is ever completely proven. A theory is a conjection that fits the facts. My belief that the sun will come up in the morning is merely a theory. It's backed up by solid facts, and is ALMOST certainly true. But it's just a theory.

The mistake is in thinking that calling it a "theory" is iffy. By scientific method nothing is more than a theory. We do have some pretty damn solid theories, though. Gravity being one. I'm pretty sure about that one. Still just a theory. One day something may float and then we'll have to take another look at the whole scene.
I would also like to point out that a few physicists have told me that 80% of modern physics comes from Newton, certainly of the stuff that comes before 1900, and the stuff afterwards mostly consists of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, which is BUILT on Newton's work. Newton is to Physics what Moses was to the Bible. Sideline Newton, and Physics becomes meaningless.

I will happily be labeled a simpleton if I stand up and denounce a god who encourages barbarism.
You won't be labelled a simpleton by denouncing a religion that promotes human sacrifice, such as the Mayan practices. But you will be called someone that encourages barbarism, for denouncing a god who doesn't encourage barbarism, and for saying that such a god does encourage barbarism, because you are inciting intolerance against those who follow such a god, which almost always leads to violence. That doesn't make you smart. That doesn't even make you a simpleton. That makes you someone that encourages barbarism.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 13
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/28/2008 3:49:57 PM

As I pointed out its a simplified version valid for most cases.
It's a simplified version, if Newton never existed, and Einstein came up with his theories on relativity, and then stated the Law of Gravitation as a simplification of this. But Newton stated the Law of Gravitation, and Einstein then came up with a more accurate one.

The only reason why Newton is used more often, is that Scientists barely have the tools to work with Newton's Laws for one object. Even experts in relativity have immense trouble dealing with Einstein's field equations, because they don't have the tools.

But only a shoddy craftsman blames his tools. So there is no excuse not to use Einstein's Field Equations.

However, it doesn't take away from the fact that Einstein is about as right as Newton is, because for almost 300 years, no-one had a better or even alternative theory than Newton, and people have had alternative theories to Einstein's theory of a warp of the space-time continuum, such as the effect of gravitons, for at least 20 years, only 70 years from when Einstein proposed his theory. So Newton has more credibility than Einstein.

My original point was that finding one inaccuracy in a document does not make it invalid. Otherwise, one would have to throw out relativity too, because it's false in the subatomic world.

And it proves that science advances whereas religion is for retards.
What it proves is that there are many more people today who have blind faith in science but don't understand the foundations of science, than 100 years ago, so science is going backwards. Religion is being challenged more and more, and so is developing, and so is only for the smart people.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 14
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/28/2008 4:43:04 PM
How do you know if the word has changed from the "original" if YOU DON'T HAVE AN ORIGINAL TO COMPARE IT TO ??

I guess you don't know, but for many people, that wouldn't necessarily stop them from BELIEVING that it has been changed. And my question asked "If you are of those who BELIEVE the Bible has been changed...". It didn't ask "If you are of those who KNOW the Bible has been changed..."

So perhaps I'm not the one after all who has the reading comprehension difficulties.


So how can anyone, if they wanted to, show any differences between an original and a current.. if they don't have an original?

I guess they couldn't. But there again, that doesn't mean that there aren't people out there to believe that it's been changed. In fact, I know quite a few people who believe this. And once again, your point, while valid, has little, if any, pertinence to my question.


Go back and reread your previous post. Do I have have to actually point out where you said it??

Dude, you are arguing semantics that have little, if any, relevance to my point. I am sorry for not knowing the exact date that each book of the compilation that we now call "The Bible" was written. But like I said, it has no significant bearing the questions that I asked. You can either stay on this subject, or you can move on. The decision is up to you, but from now on I would rather communicate with the people who are able to offer points that are truly relevant to the post. Thank you and good bye.


1) You said SOME thought it was the most accurate theory to date. Hence, SOME thought it was NOT the most accurate theory to date. Hence, SOME thought that there existed a MORE accurate theory to date. What theory was this, and who proposed it? Who supported this theory?

Scorpiomover, I appreciate your insight. You continuously force me to do my homework.

Rene Descartes (a French scientist) introduced the Vortex Theory that not only contradicted Newton's, but was also accepted by many of the continental scientists who had a hard time accepting the idea of action at a distance. This is why I say that not all scientists for 300 years believed Newtons theory to be accurate.



That certainty is that no matter how many facts and truths are used in a testimony, as long as there is a single false statement or inaccuracy within its claims, the document is considered to be false.

So that would mean that Newton's theory IS FALSE. Not just inaccurate.

I used the word "testimony" for a reason here. Newton's theory isn't a testimony at all. It's a theory, and they are two different things. A theory is neither true or false until it is proven so, and at that time it is no longer a theory, but a true or false statement.

To support my argument:
Testimony: a: firsthand authentication of a fact : evidence b: an outward sign c: a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official

Newton's theory is not an authentication of fact, but an educated guess. While it may be accurate or inaccurate, a guess is neither true or false, but instead reflexive.


You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that they are 2 different translations.

This is true. But then again, it also doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that only one of those definitions of the word "Version" has to match my context. Not all of them.


You keep arguing that the Bible is inconsistent. If you don't believe in it, then why argue the toss? Why is it so important to you to prove it wrong?

If you think that I am here to prove the Bible wrong, then you have misunderstood my reason for posting. Perhaps that's my fault for not explaining, so please allow me to do so now.

Even though I do not fallow any particular religion (be it a monotheist, polytheist, or an atheist religion) I have always been interested in religions and have enjoyed learning about them. I also enjoy learning about people's personal beliefs and practices regarding them. This is why I ask the questions that I ask. It is not because I am trying to prove anything to be inaccurate, but instead to collect opinions and insight. So far, I have gotten little cooperation. Most people have not even tried to answer my questions and have instead, argued semantics, and criticized my opinions. And while my self esteem prevents me from getting upset at the persistent flaming accusations, they do have a tendency to get old and make this site less enjoyable.

I hope you understand now where I am coming from. If not my intent to prove or disprove anything, but simply gain understanding (even if I don't necessarily agree).
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 15
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/28/2008 5:12:14 PM
The error you make there is that nothing really is ever completely proven.

So we are to believe that 2+2=4 is simply an assumption?

The Gospels are among the biggest contradictions.
They all tell the same story...in four different ways.
That contradict one another.

The fact that they are in the same book and are expected to all be BELIEVED is actually one of the weaknesses of the bible.
For a being a "book of truth"...it seems to imply that the truth is a matter of perspective.

I agree with this 100%. You're the man Cocytus.
But unfortunately, still doesn't attempt to answer either of my questions.


There are four major rules for proving the credibility of documents. One, was the writer of the document an eyewitness to the events he records or was he at least a contemporary that lived in the same area of the events? Two, were there other independent witnesses to corroborate the evidence? Three, did those witnesses continue to maintain their testimonies until death—even to the jeopardy of their lives? Four, were there also hostile witnesses who would have reason not to believe the evidence but still say the events occurred? If all of these four factors are in solid evidence, then reliability becomes very acceptable. With the New Testament documents, we have all four evidences in a firm position for credibility.

While these four rules are great measures for determining the credibility of each individual witness, there is yet another rule needed to determine the validity of their stories. The testimonies of the witnesses must then correspond with each other.

Even after determining that each witness falls within the guidelines of the above 4 rules, if their stories disagree with one another, then a logical person would question the validity of their claims. This is where I stand with the Gospel.

Here are a few contradictions that can be found in the Gospels.

1. (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.

2. (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.

3. Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob. Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli.

4. (Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 & 7:28) Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes. (Luke 11:1-4) He delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 16
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/28/2008 7:39:19 PM
RE msg 41:
Scorpiomover, I appreciate your insight. You continuously force me to do my homework.
That's 'cause I do my homework too.

Rene Descartes (a French scientist) introduced the Vortex Theory that not only contradicted Newton's, but was also accepted by many of the continental scientists who had a hard time accepting the idea of action at a distance. This is why I say that not all scientists for 300 years believed Newtons theory to be accurate.
Well, I looked this up:
Due to philosophical considerations René Descartes proposed in 1644 that no empty space can exist and that space must consequently be fulfilled with matter. The parts of this matter tend to move in straight paths, but because they lie close together, they can't move freely, which according to Descartes implies that every motion is circular, so the aether is filled with vortices. Descartes also distinguishes between different forms and sizes of matter in which rough matter resists the circular movement more strongly than fine matter. Due some sort of centrifugal force matter tends towards the outer edges of the vortex, which causes a condensation of this matter there. The rough matter cannot follow this movement due to their greater inertia - so due to the pressure of the condensed outer matter those parts will be pushed into the center of the vortex. This inward pressure is nothing else than gravity (at least according to Descartes). He compared this mechanism with the fact that if a rotating, liquid filled vessel is stopped, the liquid goes on to rotate. Now, if one drops small pieces of light matter (e.g. wood) into the vessel, the pieces move to the middle of the vessel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation

However, according to the same article, this idea had many difficulties and in 1975, Newton proposed his own idea of gravity, some 11 years later, which fitted the data a lot more. So it wasn't the most accurate theory to date.

However, the idea has some merit, because the vortex theory of matter was applied to atoms, to describe the behaviour of atoms within a body, especially with respect to temperature.

I will agree that other theories exist. But they were not accepted as even being as accurate as Newton's.

I used the word "testimony" for a reason here. Newton's theory isn't a testimony at all. It's a theory, and they are two different things. A theory is neither true or false until it is proven so, and at that time it is no longer a theory, but a true or false statement.

To support my argument:
Testimony: a: firsthand authentication of a fact : evidence b: an outward sign c: a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official
Let's look at those definitions:

a: firsthand authentication of a fact.
Is the truth of the Bible a "firsthand authentication of a fact"? Did Moses appear to you and say he wrote it? Did Joshua appear to you and say he saw Moses writing it? Did anyone? No? Then it doesn't fulfil this definition.

b: an outward sign/
Is there a sign on every Bible, that it speaks to you? Or that thunder is heard and lightning is seen when anyone reads G-d's name from the Bible? No? Then it doesn't fulfil this definition either.

c: a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official
Is there anyone who has been interrogated by a lawyer or authorized public official as to whether the Bible is true, with a solemn declaration, that would be accepted as truthful testimony by any court you know? No? Then it doesn't fulfil this definition either.

All 3 definitions of testimony, according to your definition, cannot and would not be fulfilled by the Bible. That is why people say they believe in the Bible. If it was accepted as testimony, it would be considered "fact", just like the testimony of a witness in a murder case.

Newton's theory is not an authentication of fact, but an educated guess. While it may be accurate or inaccurate, a guess is neither true or false, but instead reflexive.
I wouldn't hesitate to use the words "educated guess" about Newton's theories, but only if I could equally well apply them to ALL of Science. Also, Newton left out most of his calculus from his Principia Mathematica and proved his theory of gravitation based on geometry alone. So he was quoting relationships which were based on the data, rather than proposing a hypothesis and then showing how the data matched his results. Einstein DID propose a hypothesis, by supposing that Space was not just curved, but actually behaved as though space was trapped in a very thin funnel, around a mass. But even Einstein needed to propose that a stationary body would be drawn to the Earth, rather than just staying where it is.

This is true. But then again, it also doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that only one of those definitions of the word "Version" has to match my context. Not all of them.
Quite true. But the problem is that you require ONE to be a version of another, while as they are ALL versions, in that they are ALL translations of the original, which is in Hebrew. To my knowledge, ALL of the translations of the Bible suppose that the Hebrew is the original.

Even though I do not fallow any particular religion (be it a monotheist, polytheist, or an atheist religion) I have always been interested in religions and have enjoyed learning about them. I also enjoy learning about people's personal beliefs and practices regarding them. This is why I ask the questions that I ask. It is not because I am trying to prove anything to be inaccurate, but instead to collect opinions and insight. So far, I have gotten little cooperation. Most people have not even tried to answer my questions and have instead, argued semantics, and criticized my opinions. And while my self esteem prevents me from getting upset at the persistent flaming accusations, they do have a tendency to get old and make this site less enjoyable.
Then I will explain. When I learned about the Newton's Law of Gravitation for my O-Level exams at age 15, I was just taught it. Then, in the first year of my A-Levels, in the very first lesson, my teacher explained that Newton was only 70% right, and it didn't agree with things like when Mercury is observed to go retrograde (backwards from the POV of someone on the Earth). I was quite shocked for a little while. So I questioned my teacher after the lesson. He explained that what I learned for O-Level, was what I needed for O-Level, and what I needed for A-Level, would be a little more advanced. I realised there and then, that I would probably never be given the full facts, at least when it came to Science. But what I did learn, would be true for the subject matter that I was dealing with, and indeed, Newton was spot on, when it came to things like projectile missiles, such as that used by artillery in cannons and in guns, which was the most successful use of projectiles in Newton's time, and for a long time after.

When it came to the Bible, I had similar issues. However, because I was aware from Science that people taught in "layers" of knowledge, that there could be a very deeper reason for why things were expressed the way they were in the Bible. But I couldn't be sure. So I asked questions. Lots of them. I asked all sorts of questions, all the time. I wouldn't take no for an answer, either. One time, my drive to know why it had to be that way, ended up in 2 of the teachers in my college being in a massive argument, because my teacher was learning the materia in one way, and I was learning it in a different way, that matched the way the other teacher was learning it. However, a lot of the material I learned were discussions on the meaning of passages in the Bible. One authority would quote one verse, then another authority would analyse that quote, and take it apart. Then the first authority explain his analysis, and would then attack the second authority's view by quoting another verse which contradicted his view. This would go on and on for pages, each complex argument being reduced to only one line. This showed me that everything in the Bible was analysed. Over time, I became aware that there were good reasons for pretty much everything in the Bible, and it was down to me to find out why.

Now, one question you can ask about the Bible, is why does the Bible have any form of contradiction in the first place? Why isn't it all laid down in a nice neat little book?

1) Two reasons are size and clarity. There was a time when the laws of the Bible were collated separately, but this formed 600 books. Even these books were not clear rules, but rather examples, which you could derive plenty more from, than the books held. But that would be way too many to transport, or to copy effectively, and these books were condensed to 6, and even they have various variations, due to errors lost over the years when the Roman Occupation of Israel caused the Jews to be under such extreme pressure, that they were not able to focus properly on the material. The same happened for some commentaries in the time of the Blood Libels in the 12th & 13th Centuries in France and Germany. Quite simply, the Bible survived so well in its Hebrew original, because it was so small. But in order to preserve the original, it had to be presented in a condensed form.

But if you try and condense a set of legal principles, it doesn't work. You have to take out just one line from a whole document, and then collate a few of these lines, and present each in a slightly different nuance, so by analysing the nuances, you can figure out the contents of the documents. Not the exact words, but their content.

The same works for the stories. If you analyse the stories in the original, each word has a specific meaning. In one verse, one word is used, and in another, a similar but slightly different word is used. By analysing the meaning of each verse, you can figure out an unimaginable amount.

2) A further reason is effort. Jews are commanded to study the Bible, and put effort into it, and are considered to be rewarded for it in Heaven. So according to Jewish Law, another reason for the Jews to be given the Bible in this way, was to have something to study.

3) Apart from the command to do so, it makes you think about things and analyse things. This could be one reason why Jews analyse just about everything. Einstein was a Jew, in case you are wondering. So was the inventor of the Polio vaccine, Jonas Salk. So were a lot of scientists. So there appears to be an advantage.

4) A further advantage to this idea of constant study, is that you have something to do. There is a song, by Pulp, called "Common People". Here is the chorus:
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
and then dance and drink and screw
'because there's nothing else to do
http://www.allspirit.co.uk/commonpeople.html

The basic premise of the song is about a rich girl who dates a working class boy, and she finds his antics funny. But he only lives that way, because he lives in poverty, and has "nothing else to do". The Jews could easily have gone this way. For most of their history in the Diaspora, they were the lowest of the low. Their lives were hellish. If they had given into their despair, and got lost in their desires, they too would have disappeared from history, because they would have died out. But because they had something they had to do, whenever they had an opportunity, even be it for 1 minute a day, they were able to rise themselves above the mire for that one minute. That short time gave them the ability to overcome their desires, and survive their poverty and atrocious treatment. It's why Jews survived so many Ghettos. It's also how many Jews kept themselves from addictions. It gave them something to do, and we all need something to do.

It took away their boredom, their despair, and kept them from addictions like alcohol, and kept them alive in very harsh circumstances.

5) A further reason was that the Bible had to be something that could move with the times. It had to be able to cover every possible future, and all the laws and morals that would be needed for the Jews in that future. But at the same time, it had to keep the old laws, to preserve continuity. In order to achieve this, there had to be a certain level of compexity that would allow it to be viewed according to what was happening at the time. That would require contradictions, that could be looked at from many angles, giving slight nuances that would indicate slight changes that would allow taking into account of the changes of the time. One example is electricity. Electricity is not mentioned in the Bible, because people didn't use it, even if they had it, and the simple folk didn't have it, and that would have just confused them. But there had to be enough complexity there to present the ability to figure out how to view electricity with regards to the law, and that was achieved by contradiction.

6) A further reason was subtely. As I explained before, people teach in "layers of consciousness". What a white belt learns in Martial Arts, is not the same as what a brown belt learns, even though they learn the same manoevure. The white belt learns the basic move. The brown belt learns more nuances. The black belt learns even deeper nuances. But how do you give all this over in 1 book? The answer: You present the different moves, with slight differences in nuances, depending on the situation. You can start learning the basic text. As you get to know the text, you notice contradictions. By comparison of those contradictions, you then see greater nuances. This can continue for at least 49 levels.

You could figure the Bible as something like the single Kata in Tai Chi Chuan. You only have one Kata. But it has much subtely to it. You do the same movement in 3 or more places, but each time, it's slightly different, and by understanding exactly how to do each nuance and when, you understand much more about Tai Chi Chuan than you would learn from 30 Katas in another Martial Art. It's said to be the hardest for this reason. It's that deep. So is the Bible.

I'm sure that there are more reasons. But these are quite good ones.

I hope that this helps your understanding.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 17
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/29/2008 3:53:15 AM
And what if the bible had been written more plain, more simple, and without a single so called contradiction? People such as yourself would then complain and argue that the script was phony and too perfect.

Ah, yes. Just as I like to complain about the Constitution of the United States being phony and too perfect. NO!

I was raised in the church and didn't start to question the Bible at all until I started reading the Bible. It was the inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible that led me in the direction of my current disbelief.


Following your line of reasoning, what would your conclusion be to this scenario?
As part of a police team you are asked to interview several witnesses from a bank robbery. You and your partner interview a few people and compare notes. You learn that one witness described the robber as being white male, clean shaven and carrying a long barreled handgun. The witness your partner interviewed though says the perp was dark skined and probably mexican with a mustache and actually carried a sawed off shotgun. Interviewing a witness outside of the bank you learn that the robber fled in a black four door sedan. Your partner, however, interviews someone sure that he got in a dark blue two door rag top.
Given your line of reasoning you can only come to one possible conclusion. That being, that with so many contradictions the robbery could not have taken place. So you close the file with a clean concience, believing it simply never happened given the conflicting evidence.

You obviously don't understand my logic at all, so please don't assume ridiculous stuff like this. If I were in your little cop scenario, I would not conclude that the bank robbery didn't happen, because there are too many witnesses claiming that it did happen, and that in itself providing consistent information. The details of the Bank robber, on the other hand, are very inconsistent, and therefor would lead me to deduce not that the bank had been robbed by no one, but that the credibility of the witnesses (for whatever reason) was inconsistent regarding the robber, to the point of being non valid. At that point in time, I would then have to rely on security cameras and other means of identification.

Now I would like to offer you a legal scenario. If a witness takes the stand in a court hearing, why is it so important that he tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? It's because if the witness is caught in even a single lie, or false statement, their entire testimony at that time is stricken off the record no matter how many verifiable facts that he claimed. This coincides with my statement that if a testimony, regardless of how many fact are present, contains a single false statement, then the entire document is tainted and considered unreliable.

What people here obviously have a hard time realizing is that just because something may not be true, that doesn't mean that it is automatically false. There is a third category known as the reflexive. Most of the statement we make on a daily basis fall into this category. Reflexive statements are statements made that can be considered either true or false, but can be proven neither true nor false by current available information.

One reflexive statement is "The sun will come up tomorrow". This statement can neither be proven true nor false to current available information. It can only be assumed. This is the category where theories fall. Another example of a reflexive statement is someone's description of another person (such as the bank robber that you referred to). Unless the described person is there, or there is available video surveillance captured of the perp., or some other means of comparison, then a single person's description is considered to be reflexive at the time that it is taken. Once there is another form of verification present, then one will have a better chance at deducing whether the firs person's claims were accurate or not. While relying on eye witness accounts as your primary form of identification would be considered archaic and undesirable in today's world video surveillance, the courts can allow it to be used as long as there are enough people available who have, alone and without coaching, reported similar descriptions.


Finally, I'd like to address what is considered a contradiction.
By definition a contradiction would be two different accounts giving two different endings or results.
A contradiction would be two accounts of the same event where one witness claims a man was healed while another witness claims the man was not healed.
Having one witness make a statement a fig tree immeadiately dried up while another claims it was seen to be dried up the next day is not a contradiction.

I would like to know where you got that definition of "contradiction". I have never heard anything like it, and have never been of the understanding that it had to dwell at the end of a scenario.

This is Marriam-Webster's definition of the word "contradiction":

1: act or an instance of contradicting
2 a: a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something b: a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other
3 a: logical incongruity b: a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another

I think the third definition fits our situation about the Bible best. And may I point out that it says "A situation in which inherent factory, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another.", but it does not say "A situation in which the endings or results are inconsistent or contrary to one another." as you claim.


c: a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official
Is there anyone who has been interrogated by a lawyer or authorized public official as to whether the Bible is true, with a solemn declaration, that would be accepted as truthful testimony by any court you know? No? Then it doesn't fulfil this definition either.

Scorpiomover, while we are slowly coming together, there are still plenty of differences in our opinion and perceptions. The flaw in your statement here is that you assume a testimony has to be a solemn declaration ONLY made orally by a witness under oath in the response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official, while the definition clearly says "A solemn declaration USUALLY made orally by a witness under oath in the response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official." This means that a testimony is a solemn declaration. But while we usually use it in reference to one's declaration made orally by a witness ender oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official, it's certainly not exclusive to this description. One can make a solemn declaration written outside of any such legal surroundings. A testimony by this definition is simply a solemn declaration, and one of the definitions of the word solemn is "awe-inspiring". Therefore we can deduce that an awe-inspiring declaration is a testimony.

With that said, can people not consider the books of the bible to be "Awe-inspiring declarations"? If so, then it coincides with my use of the word "testimony".


God superintended the human authors of the Bible so that while using their own writing styles and personalities, they still recorded exactly what God wanted to be said. The Bible was not dictated from God, but it was perfectly guided and entirely inspired by Him.

This is where I find the problem. This says that God perfectly guided the writing of the Bible. If God is perfect, and his Guidance of the writing was also perfect, then why do the contradictions exist? Would it not have been a perfect document? One could easily assume that it has been changed from it original "perfect" version, since it obviously is no longer perfect. So my question to those who believe this is, why do they think God allowed his "perfect" writings to become so flawed as they are in there current versions.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 18
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/29/2008 12:33:19 PM
RE msg 46 by the OP:
Now I would like to offer you a legal scenario. If a witness takes the stand in a court hearing, why is it so important that he tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? It's because if the witness is caught in even a single lie, or false statement, their entire testimony at that time is stricken off the record no matter how many verifiable facts that he claimed. This coincides with my statement that if a testimony, regardless of how many fact are present, contains a single false statement, then the entire document is tainted and considered unreliable.
Actually, that's not true. Your testimony is stricken off the record because it's not true. But not all your testimony. Only the testimony about those things that you can be assumed to lie about. You cannot give testimony about your daughter in her favour, because it is assumed you would lie to protect your daughter. However, you CAN give testimony about your daughter against her, because it is assumed you would never lie to hurt your daughter. So if you testify about a girl, that could both convict her and gain her innocence, and it is shown in court that you had a copy of her birth certificate that shows you as her father, and you had slept with her mother at a time that meant that you COULD have been her father, and therefore you believed she was your daughter, that part of your testimony that can gain her innocence is not accepted, but that part of her testimony that can convict her must be accepted by law. So you are labouring under a misunderstanding of the judicial process and how truth is verified.

What people here obviously have a hard time realizing is that just because something may not be true, that doesn't mean that it is automatically false. There is a third category known as the reflexive. Most of the statement we make on a daily basis fall into this category. Reflexive statements are statements made that can be considered either true or false, but can be proven neither true nor false by current available information.
A reflexive verb is when you do something to yourself, without having to state yourself as the object. An example of a reflexive verb is to self-mutilate, such as he self-mutilated, because that means he mutilated himself. If you witnessed someone self-mutilating himself, and there was video footage, and 7 doctors performed an exam before and after the self-mutilation, would you be able to say it might not have happened and no-one could prove the event of the self-mutilation was true or false?

One reflexive statement is "The sun will come up tomorrow". This statement can neither be proven true nor false to current available information. It can only be assumed. This is the category where theories fall.
But you CAN prove "The sun came up tomorrow". The only problem with your statement is that it is in the future and the future hasn't happened yet. Most theories discuss what will happen, which is impossible to prove because it hasn't happened yet, or what happened without any first-hand testimony by any living witness, because there is no undeniable proof.

Another example of a reflexive statement is someone's description of another person (such as the bank robber that you referred to). Unless the described person is there, or there is available video surveillance captured of the perp., or some other means of comparison, then a single person's description is considered to be reflexive at the time that it is taken.
You still need the security guard to testify that tape recorded on that CCTV camera and that date and time, and was never tampered with, which is really easy to do with modern software, and given that security guards get paid abominably low, they are very easy to bribe. So all evidence relies on testimony of some form on another.

While relying on eye witness accounts as your primary form of identification would be considered archaic and undesirable in today's world video surveillance, the courts can allow it to be used as long as there are enough people available who have, alone and without coaching, reported similar descriptions.
The only reason why eye witness accounts are considered less reliable, is that according to most Western court systems, anyone can be believed in court and there is no requirement to prove a prior history of either honesty in speech or even just being clear and exact. If you look at the forums, you will realise that these days, people who lie, or embellish the truth, or just plain don't even bother to pay attention to what they say, are in abundance. So most people are unreliable today. But the courts don't acknowledge that. They live in a lie. That is what makes eye witness accounts so dodgy, the fact that the courts pretend something is true that is not.

By the by, video surveillance and DNA as it is presented in court, are not any more reliable. People in the UK still want hanging. The only reason why it was removed and has still not been brought back, is because the courts keep convicting people of murder, based on evidence presented in court such as video surveillance and DNA, when there is plenty of other evidence that shows their innocence, but that was not included in the court case.

Scorpiomover, while we are slowly coming together, there are still plenty of differences in our opinion and perceptions. The flaw in your statement here is that you assume a testimony has to be a solemn declaration ONLY made orally by a witness under oath in the response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official, while the definition clearly says "A solemn declaration USUALLY made orally by a witness under oath in the response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official." This means that a testimony is a solemn declaration.
Solemn just means to talk in a serious manner, dead-pan, like at a funeral. Does that mean people cannot lie at a funeral? How many people solemnly declared to a man's wife, that he was a very good man, when they knew that he was a cheating, lying scumbag, just so that the wife, who is a nice person, isn't more upset than she already is? Are those people telling the truth? Are they testifying? Of course not. That is why the clause "usually" is there. A solemn declaration is not testimony. A declaration made honestly and exactly, is, which is one understanding of the word "solemn". That is USUALLY made orally by a witness under oath in the response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official. It doesn't mean your evidence is more reliable, just because of the tone of voice you use.

One can make a solemn declaration written outside of any such legal surroundings.
One can, but such a solemn declaration would not be accepted in court, even if you have perfect validation that it was true, because it was not said under oath. Moreover, if the declaration is said under oath, then it can be accepted in court, even if it's something you would never accept in real life without proof. So a solemn declaration outside of legal surroundings has entirely different rules for what people will accept to be true, than in court.

A testimony by this definition is simply a solemn declaration, and one of the definitions of the word solemn is "awe-inspiring". Therefore we can deduce that an awe-inspiring declaration is a testimony.

With that said, can people not consider the books of the bible to be "Awe-inspiring declarations"? If so, then it coincides with my use of the word "testimony".
This not the type of solemn declaration that would be accepted in a court, and the rules you quoted were about how solemn declarations are handled within court, which is another entity entirely. According to your logic, Charlton Heston could walk into the Supreme Court of the USA and declare the Communist Manifesto in an awe-inspiring way, like he's sounded in El Cid, in the Ten Commandments, and in so many of his films, and the USA would have to accept his testimony and become communist, merely because he is awe-inspiring.

This is where I find the problem. This says that God perfectly guided the writing of the Bible. If God is perfect, and his Guidance of the writing was also perfect, then why do the contradictions exist? Would it not have been a perfect document? One could easily assume that it has been changed from it original "perfect" version, since it obviously is no longer perfect. So my question to those who believe this is, why do they think God allowed his "perfect" writings to become so flawed as they are in there current versions.
If you re-read my last post, msg 43, you will see that I have answered all of these questions.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 19
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/29/2008 4:02:45 PM
The very fact that these so- called inaccuracies are left in is prof that there has been no tampering.

Ah, so now you believe that there ARE inaccuracies present? Then how can you say that it's perfect?


First off, check out the use of and definition of the word contrary.

Why? This isn't the word that I used. I used the word contradiction, which has a different definition.


As I pointed out in the case of the fig tree. The stories do not conradict each other. Jesus spoke to the tree and it dried up. The fact that one writer said it dried up immeadiately and another said it was noticed the following day to have dried up 'does not a contradiction make'.

You are 100% wrong. But thanks for playing. Just because YOU don't believe that it's a contradiction, doesn't mean that it's NOT a contradiction. You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word, so we are at an impasse.


For you are from the United states and base your reasoning on the laws of the United States. The same laws and reasoning do not, in fact, apply across the board.

I'm sure they don't. But since I don't know the laws across the board, I have to base this one what I know.


Whole testimonies are not thrown out of court in Canada if an inacuracy, contradiction or lie is learned.

I never said that testimonies are thrown out of court in America if an inaccuracy or contradiction is learned. Only a LIE (a known false statement). This is called perjury, and it is highly illegal.


I wonder if you'll change your stance regarding the bible since your disbelieve is based so much on the US court system.

My Biblical beliefs are not based on the US court system. In fact, it was YOU who brought up legal matters. I merely gave an example that was equivalent to yours.


Solemn just means to talk in a serious manner, dead-pan, like at a funeral.

Wrong. Solemn can refer to something ceremonial. This can include, but is not limited to, a judicial oath. So if you are under oath, anything you say is considered a solemn testimony.


I'd really love to see you quote the verses that actually support all these claims

Actually, I stated some of these for him in an earlier post.


Even though they agree on 19 out of 20 points you say that because there is a single discreprency with their account of how things happened that the whole bible is untrustworthy and unbelievable.

I see you like to put words in my mouth. That's a sign of a creative mind, but it's also poor practice. I never said that the whole Bible is unbelievable. NEVER.


Why would you believe the robbery took place if two witnesses disagree on so many points? Why would you apply one set of reasoning techniques to the bible and a different set of rules to every day life?

My reasoning on both subjects is exactly the same. I will try to use small words so that you can understand.

As for your "robbery" scenario, hopefully your entire collection of evidence isn't residing with the few witnesses that all had their own version of the story. Any competent crime scene investigator should be able to find evidence of the act (video footage, fingerprints, missing money, etc.). If none of these are found, then perhaps there wasn't a crime at all. But then again, I seriously doubt you would have a bank robbery with no physical evidence.

If the only evidence of the robbery was a hand full of people saying that it happened, and they each had their own, slightly different, version of the story, how could you believe that there was a robbery at all? This is the same with the Gospel of the Bible. The only evidence that we have at all comes from a hand full of men who each have their own, slightly different version of the story.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 20
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/29/2008 4:46:34 PM




whitegold765 said: The bible says the world was covered in water over the tallest mountain. And there isn't that much water in the world. The bible says the sun stopped in the sky. The sun doesn't travel in the sky, the earth spins. And if the earth STOPPED spinning we'd probably all die, not to mention the earthquakes, volcanos and possibly actual tearing of planet caused by the forces of melty inner-earth sloshing to a stop. The bible says Noah built a boat that took two of every animal, but there's absolutely no chance they could fit. The bible says that Pi is 3. It's not.

I'd really love to see you quote the verses that actually support all these claims -- in context and in a modern translation! I find it quite humorous that people are so quick to claim "the Bible says (whatever) and it's wrong" but can never say where the Bible says it or give the context. And your own claims are flawed. For example, "Pi" is a Greek mathematical construct. The word is never used in"the Bible" and "the Bible" never says, "Pi = 3". I know. I looked!


I love it when Christians feign ignorance when people bring up absurdities in the Bible.

Genesis 7: 17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

Genesis 7: 1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

That's right, it wasn't just two of every animal (sea creatures excluded) but 2 of every unclean animal and 7 of every clean animal! It might even be worse since some manuscripts say 7 pairs of every clean animal. Also note that this was no local flood. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out.

Joshua 10: 12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:
"O sun, stand still over Gibeon,
O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."

13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

1 Kings 7: 23 He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

pi = circumference/diameter = 30/10 = 3.

Personally I'm not convinced that this is a very good argument because of round-off error. Still, if the diameter was 10 cubits the circumference would be approximately 31 cubits. On the flip side, if the circumference really was 30 cubits then the diameter would be approximately 9.5 cubits (even Answers in Genesis admits that half a cubit is an attested measurement). In this particular case all the Bible is guilty of is bad approximations.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 21
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/29/2008 5:03:39 PM
RE msg 55:
Solemn can refer to something ceremonial.
Please keep being evasive. I enjoy it. Here is the basic usage:
Definitions of solemn on the Web:

* grave: dignified and somber in manner or character and committed to keeping promises; "a grave God-fearing man"; "a quiet sedate nature"; "as ...
* earnest: characterized by a firm and humorless belief in the validity of your opinions; "both sides were deeply in earnest, even passionate"; "an entirely sincere and cruel tyrant"; "a film with a solemn social message"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* is a stern and serious manner. He spoke in a solemn way when he told them about their grandmother.
palc.sd40.bc.ca/palc/vocab/fromthe.htm
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define:solemn

Here is the etymology:
Middle English solemne, from Old French, from Latin sollemnis, established, customary; see sol- in Indo-European roots.

solemn c.1290, from O.Fr. solempne (Fr. solennel), from L. sollemnis "formal, ceremonial, traditional," perhaps related to sollus "whole" (see safe (adj.). Solemnize is recorded from 1382.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/solemn

Clearly, the root of the word "solemn" is from the Latin word sollemnis. However, this word carries the connotation of a formal tradition. However, what is clear is that many ceremonies are joyful, and even frivolous, yet it would be completely inappropriate to describe such ceremonies as "solemn", such as a 4th of July party. However, the inauguration of a president can be described as a solemn affair, because it is a very serious, formal occasion.

This can include, but is not limited to, a judicial oath. So if you are under oath, anything you say is considered a solemn testimony.
It is true that the word solemn can be used in the case of any serious affair, especially where it is a serious ceremony, such as taking an oath. A funeral is also called solemn. But a judicial oath is not ceremonial, because it is not required as a result of the ceremony, like the wigs that barristers and judges wear in the UK. It's REQUIRED BY LAW, that people take a statement of declaration that they are being completely honest and careful to say the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is the same principle as that which requires a signature on all government documents as a statement of declaration that you have given all the information truthfully according to what you know, which is required by law, because with such a signature, a government document becomes a legal document that is considered testimony by law, and without such a signature, the document is not considered to be legal in any way shape or form.

Again, the words "solemn testimony" means "serious declaration".

As for your "robbery" scenario, hopefully your entire collection of evidence isn't residing with the few witnesses that all had their own version of the story. Any competent crime scene investigator should be able to find evidence of the act (video footage, fingerprints, missing money, etc.).
But those are hearsay, because testimony is only valid if you experience it. As the jury did not find those fingerprints, they are hearsay to the jury. The only acceptable evidence in court is that of the investigator, that the evidence was found at the scene, and they are completely based on that testimony. Anyway, evidence can be tampered with. It can be placed there. It can be messed with. Evidence is not valid in itself. It is only valid because the investigator testifies that the evidence was not tampered with.

If none of these are found, then perhaps there wasn't a crime at all. But then again, I seriously doubt you would have a bank robbery with no physical evidence.
Fraid that's just not true. Cameras can be cut, either by cutting the circuits or the power, or if there is a power cut in the whole area. Gloves eliminate fingerprints. Missing money depends on whether the owner of that money wishes to testify that that money is missing. If it was gained by illegal means, or if by reporting this money, it would seriously harm the owner, he may choose to deny its existence. But the robbery still happened. It just means you're not dealing with a punk kid.

On a separate note, why do you not address any of my other points, such as why you have not addressed my answers to your questions? I find this strange, that you only comment to disagree. Is it that you fear admitting the truth?
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/29/2008 10:29:11 PM
Really now? I'm pretty sure I've explained it well enough. Even using your own definition the word contrary is used. Does it really need further explanation for you to be able to grasp it?

No, you have not explained yourself well enough because your usage of the word "Contrary" is contrary to (or contradicts) the meaning of the word, which is:

1: a fact or condition incompatible with another : opposite —usually used with the
2: one of a pair of opposites
3 a: a proposition so related to another that though both may be false they cannot both be true — compare subcontrary b: either of two terms (as good and evil) that cannot both be affirmed of the same subject
— by contraries obsolete : in a manner opposite to what is logical or expected
— on the contrary : just the opposite
— to the contrary

What does that have to do with the ending or the results of something. If two pieced of information are not the same, whether at the beginning, the middle, or the end result; then they are contrary, and therefor contradict one another. If one statement says the fig tree died on Thursday and the other says it died on Friday morning, the two pieces of information are contrary to one another, and therefore contradict one another. Hence the name of my post "Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions".


Can you tell me which animals were set aside to be eaten and which ones for sacrifice?

Quick question.
When you say "which animals were set aside to be eaten", does this only refer to the animals that were set aside to be eaten by the humans, or does this mean animals that were set aside to be eaten by all carnivorous animals on the ship?

I have a hard time believing that a pair of crocodiles, lions, wolves, etc. lived for most of the year not eating meat.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 23
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 2/29/2008 10:44:48 PM

Please keep being evasive. I enjoy it. Here is the basic usage:

I'm not being evasive at all. But I see now that by your definition of the word (which obviously came from a UK web address) our two countries my have different meanings of the word. I am using the Merriam-Webster dictionary's online site at our US address (M-W.com) and I get a much different result.

1: marked by the invocation of a religious sanction
2: marked by the observance of established form or ceremony; specifically : celebrated with full liturgical ceremony
3 a: awe-inspiring : sublime b: marked by grave sedateness and earnest sobriety c: somber, gloomy

As you can see, all three of your definitions point to the mood surrounding the statement (i.e. "somber", "grave", "earnest", "serious"). While my definition, which was taken from one of the most well accepted dictionaries in the US, only refers to the disposition at the time of a statement in one out of three of it's meanings.

I think this is a good example of how words can have such different meanings even in the same language based on location. So as I said before, I wasn't being evasive, but merely stating what I knew to be the more accurate definition that I knew at the time.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 24
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/1/2008 8:21:53 AM


First off, one explanation to the two different accounts is that Noah is traditionally believed to be the author of the first five books of the bible. This though is only simple conjecture. It is possible there was a second author for parts of the first five books. This would explain, in part, the two slightly different variations. And I say slightly, because the variations aren't that great, and both accounts could have been written by Noah.


Christian Apologetic Tactic #1: If a fable makes no sense then make sh1t up.

If Noah wrote the Pentateuch then how did he know all the stuff that happened after he died? That leads us to

Christian Apologetic Tactic #2: If a fable makes no sense then then invoke a miracle.

If Noah wrote about events in his future then god must have inspired his writings. But if god inspired him to write about the future then why couldn't god inspire him to give a consistent account of past events? This may look like a trivial matter, but the whole inerrancy claim is a house of cards. It only takes one inconsistency, no matter how trivial, for the whole thing to collapse. In any case, there are hundreds of thousands of textual variants in the various manuscripts of the Bible. Whether god inspired the authors or not is irrelevant because we don't have any of the original documents. We have copies of translations of copies of translations of copies, and god didn't inspire any of them.

Anyway, tradition says that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, not Noah. Textual criticism, however, reveals at least two different authors and at least one redactor.



So the seven pairs were only those approved for eating and sacrificing in addition to seven pairs of every kind of bird.


So we have 3 stories. At first Noah is told to bring two of every kind of animal, a male and female (how Noah handled the cases of animals that don't fit the male/female dichotomy isn't revealed, and indeed, god seems totally ignorant of them). Then he's told to bring a pair of each animal, and 7 of each ritually clean animal. Or maybe it was 7 pair (male and female) of every clean animal and 7 pair of every bird.



Can you tell me which animals were set aside to be eaten and which ones for sacrifice?


This is the amusing part. How did Noah know which animals were ritually clean since that system wasn't given to man until Moses? I know...a miracle happened! Jewish dietary laws are easy enough to look up and posting them here will be a waste of my time.



And exactly how many different kinds of animals were there back then? Remember now that we're not talking every breed of animal. Just every kind.


"Kind" is the Creationist weasel word. They never define it. This gives them the option of it meaning whatever they want it to mean in a given debate. From a scientific viewpoint the term is meaningless. If we're talking every species then there were millions of them. Of course if you take kind to be something higher on the taxonomic hierarchy you can reduce that number...but then to explain why there are so many different species today you have to invoke Superevolution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mPPnN1c0jk



And what of the Hebrew word for every kind? Care to look it up? Please get back to me regarding this.


From Strong's Concordance: miyn--from an unused root meaning "to portion out" ; a sort, i.e. species, kind.

So how did Noah fit those millions of species on the ark, along with their food for a year (food is often other animals)?



For the word "all" has been discussed on another thread to great lengths and can in fact mean a number of things.


The word is kol or kowl. It means whole, every, all, any. Context tells us that it was every species that doesn't live in the water.



Perhaps "every kind" does not neccessarily mean every type of animal you can imagine.


Who ever said it has to be every type of animal I can imagine. It only has to be every kind that existed. That would be millions unless you believe in Superevolution.



And back then the world was considered to be that of the "known" world. So when Moses talks of a flood that covers the world and having to take animals of every kind of the world could it really have meant animals from the known world?


Only if you invoke Christian Apologetic Tactic #1. If this were a local flood then Noah wouldn't have needed to take any animals aboard the ark. More importantly the whole reason for the flood was because mankind had become so wicked that they had to be destroyed. The flood would have had to reach everywhere that man lived: North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia.



So now please point out the contradiction here. And more importantly, point out what aspect of this story detracts from or somehow calls into question the validity of the bible and the fact that it is Gods word.


Done and done.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 25
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/1/2008 2:35:40 PM
CountIbli, thanks for your post. I was beginning to believe that I was the only person on this site who understood how contradictions have the ability to discredit so-called "truthful" information.



What miracle are you refering to? And made up sh1t are you meaning? Please be specific as it makes it difficult to respond otherwise.

I think you are missing his point. What he is suggesting is that what they called miracles in the Bible could quite possibly be nothing more than unexplained phenomenon. And since the witnesses didn't have a scientific explanation, they referred to it as a miracle.

I would venture to say that if we were to send David Blaine back 2,000 years into the past with his current abilities, many people would claim that the parlor tricks he performs are miracles too. But they aren't. They are just happenings too in depth for them to explain.

Possible Example: Moses claimed that God manifested himself as a burning bush, but the bush itself was not consumed by the flames. Many people even now would consider this to be virtually unbelievable. Moses, I am sure thought the same. What could it have been? A miracle? Or better yet, God?

Another explanation could be a plant called Dictamnus gymnostylis. The detailed study of volatiles of Dictamnus gymnostylis (Dictamnus albus L., original polymorphic species) considered by many to be the Burning Bush of the Bible, was conducted. In addition to methyl chavicol (~15%), (E)-anethole (~7%) and psoralen (~7%), the presence of over 60% of 1-allyl-4- (3-methyl-2-butenyloxy) benzene (dictagymnin) was confirmed. It was shown that this chemical rather easily decomposes into chavicol and very flammable hydrocarbon 2-methyl-1,3-butadiene = isoprene (b.p. 34°C). The secretion of isoprene, which can be especially intense on hot windless days, leads to formation of the isoprene cloud that may inflame without any harm to the source plant.

Another occurrence on hot, windless days (on a much more common level) is heat exhaustion. Heat exhaustion can cause hallucinations which could explain the voice that Moses claimed to hear.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions