The Bible vs. Science

[jcook922]

You didn't answer my question. Please do so now, and refrain from dancing around the question again.[/quotIe]

I did. GOD sees the ENTIRE PICTURE --- ETERNITY to ETERNITY. Man only sees part of a part of a snapshot of moments in time. You are not GOD and therefore have no right to choose an abortion for yourself or another simply because it appears to be a convenience to you or them. GOD may allow it to happen, but only because it may ultimately fit HIS way of dealing with the perpetrator of such a deed at some future date. Miscarriages happen because there may have been something terribly wrong with a baby that GOD decided was not where HE would have that soul be and HE allows nature (imperfect as it now is) to run it's course.

Humans have the RIGHT to do whatever they want with their bodies.

 

[Zeena]

Humans have the RIGHT to do whatever they want with their bodies.

They also have a right to submit to the Righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.

And there is a judgment prepared for those who do not.

 

[HannahBanana]

I did. GOD sees the ENTIRE PICTURE --- ETERNITY to ETERNITY. Man only sees part of a part of a snapshot of moments in time. You are not GOD and therefore have no right to choose an abortion for yourself or another simply because it appears to be a convenience to you or them. GOD may allow it to happen, but only because it may ultimately fit HIS way of dealing with the perpetrator of such a deed at some future date. Miscarriages happen because there may have been something terribly wrong with a baby that GOD decided was not where HE would have that soul be and HE allows nature (imperfect as it now is) to run it's course.

So God's allowed to do some things that humans aren't allowed to do? Isn't that kind of hypocritical?

 

[SiderealExalt]

Well it's really just the same argument coming from Nipper and Zeena. It boils down to basically. God is good no matter what. It doesn't in fact matter because even when God does stuff that is bad and evil, then you have to retreat to the mystery angle. IE God is a tall, dark and mysterious and does stuff beyond the ken of mankind. Sure he might be torturing you, or committing genocide, or some other horrible thing. But there is some master plan to it. So it's ok. No seriously...it's ok. The bible says so.

We have a much shorter version of that here in the world. It's called when people say the ends justify the means. It's not right then and it's not right now.

 

[Zeena]

So God's allowed to do some things that humans aren't allowed to do? Isn't that kind of hypocritical?

And this from a professed Christian? :o

Job 34:13-19

Who hath given him a charge over the earth? or who hath disposed the whole world? If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath; All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust. If now thou hast understanding, hear this: hearken to the voice of my words. Shall even he that hateth right govern? and wilt thou condemn him that is most just? Is it fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked? and to princes, Ye are ungodly? How much less to him that accepteth not the persons of princes, nor regardeth the rich more than the poor? for they all are the work of his hands.

 

[SiderealExalt]

And this from a professed Christian? :o

If I'm choosing a Christian who wants a coherent meaningful definition of God being good or one who likes to use mysterious, self contradicting definitions of that. I know which one I prefer.

*showers Hannah with rep lovin*

 

[HannahBanana]

If I'm choosing a Christian who wants a coherent meaningful definition of God being good or one who likes to use mysterious, self contradicting definitions of that. I know which one I prefer.

*showers Hannah with rep lovin*

Aww, thanks. And you know what? If I had to choose between a Christian who is willing to gloss over the contradictory parts of the Bible and an atheist who actually realizes that the Bible contradicts itself, I'd definitely choose the latter.

*showers you with rep lovin as well*

 

[Zeena]

It's very convenient to accuse the Bible of contradictions, but it's a different matter to prove it.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

It's very convenient to accuse the Bible of contradictions, but it's a different matter to prove it.

No, it's easy to prove the Bible has contradictions in it. Theres a tonne of 'em. Transcription errors and translation problems too.

But you want contradictions? I'll give you contradictions...

How many stalls and horsemen?

1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?

2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
2CH 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

The mother of Abijah:

2CH 11:20 Maachah the daughter of Absalom
2CH 13:2 Michaiah the daughter of Uriel

When did Baasha die?

1KI 16:6-8 26th year of the reign of Asa
2CH 16:1 36th year of the reign of Asa

Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:
1. "That is to be taken metaphorically." In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+little green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e., only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.

3. "It has to be understood in context." I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set which is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when, if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown at you?

4. "There was just a copying/writing error." This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong. Not to mention that the Bible is supposedly a God breathed, inerrant book, immune from mistranslation or personal bias, but not immune to transcription errors? Seems like an oversight on God's part.

5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.

6. "God works in mysterious ways." A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

 

[Zeena]

Those are all typo's, not contradictions.

Here's what is meant by contradictions, for example:

http://www.carm.org/questions/faithorworks.htm

 

[HannahBanana]

Those are all typo's, not contradictions.

Here's what is meant by contradictions, for example:

http://www.carm.org/questions/faithorworks.htm

Even if they are "just typos," that still proves that the Bible is flawed. Nice job proving my point for me.

 

[Zeena]

Even if they are "just typos," that still proves that the Bible is flawed. Nice job proving my point for me.

Does this mean that the Bible we hold in our hand is not inspired? Not at all. Inspiration comes from God and when He inspired the Bible, it was perfect. Our copies of the original documents are not perfect, but they are very close to being so. The critics often erringly assume that even the copies are supposed to be perfect. But when we point out that God never said the copies would be perfect, they then ask how can the Bible be trusted at all? Quite simply, it is redundant in its facts and information and the amount of material that has any variation at all is so minute compared to the whole Bible that the Bible is considered to be almost 100% accurately copied. Furthermore, the copyist errors present no problems doctrinally.
Still, some will say that since there are, for example, copyist errors then we must throw out the entire Bible. But this argument is very week. Are we to throw out a book science text book because there is a misspelled word or two in it? Does this mean that the whole book cannot be trusted? Of course not. Furthermore, compared to other ancient documents, the New Testament, for example, has far more textual evidence in its favor than any other ancient writing.

http://www.carm.org/diff/Bible_contradictions.htm

 

[HannahBanana]

http://www.carm.org/diff/Bible_contradictions.htm

But why would God allow for there to be errors in His word? If He did allow for such a thing, then that must mean that He's not all-powerful. So, again, you've proved my point for me.

 

[Zeena]

But why would God allow for there to be errors in His word? If He did allow for such a thing, then that must mean that He's not all-powerful. So, again, you've proved my point for me.

"So, it is not okay for me to make a judgment on you, but it is okay for you to judge God Almighty?"

http://www.carm.org/dialogues/satanist_God.htm

 

[morningstar2651]

http://www.carm.org/diff/Bible_contradictions.htm

IOW, the tangible copies of the Bible -- the Bible we can touch and read -- has flaws.

The intangible original Bible -- the Bible we can't touch and can't read -- is inerrant.

If we can't ever read the original inerrant Bible, how do we know it exists if all we have are flawed copies? Furthermore, how do we determine which contradiction is correct and which is a mistake? What if there was a mistake that wasn't contradicted?

Do you have anything better than CARM? Their answer to this question is insufficient if you accept that the Bible is inerrant. The contradictions don't disprove the whole of the Bible, but they do show inconsistencies that shouldn't exist in an inerrant document.

 

[Zeena]

IOW, the tangible copies of the Bible -- the Bible we can touch and read -- has flaws.

The intangible original Bible -- the Bible we can't touch and can't read -- is inerrant.

If we can't ever read the original inerrant Bible, how do we know it exists if all we have are flawed copies? Furthermore, how do we determine which contradiction is correct and which is a mistake? What if there was a mistake that wasn't contradicted?

This is a common misconception. Some people think that the Bible was written in one language, translated to another language, then translated into yet another and so on until it was finally translated into the English. The complaint is that since it was rewritten so many times in different languages throughout history, it must have become corrupted . The "telephone" analogy is often used as an illustration. It goes like this. One person tells another person a sentence who then tells another person, who tells yet another, and so on and so on until the last person hears a sentence that has little or nothing to do with the original one. The only problem with this analogy is that it doesn't fit the Bible at all.
The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Testament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations. For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ." So the actual amount of textual variation of any concern is extremely low. Therefore, we can say that we have a remarkably accurate compilation of the original documents.
So when that we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language. It is a one step process and not a series of steps that can lead to corruption. It is one translation step from the original to the English or to whatever language a person needs to read it in. So we translate into Spanish from the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Likewise we translate into the German from those same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well. This is how it is done for each and every language we translate the Bible into. We do not translate from the original languages to the English, to the Spanish, and then to the German. It is from the original languages to the English, or into the Spanish, or into the German. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.

http://www.carm.org/questions/rewritten.htm

Do you have anything better than CARM? Their answer to this question is insufficient if you accept that the Bible is inerrant. The contradictions don't disprove the whole of the Bible, but they do show inconsistencies that shouldn't exist in an inerrant document.

As for having something better than CARM.

1 John 2:20
But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 15:4
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Those are all typo's, not contradictions.

Here's what is meant by contradictions, for example:

http://www.carm.org/questions/faithorworks.htm

4. "There was just a copying/writing error." This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong. Not to mention that the Bible is supposedly a God breathed, inerrant book, immune from mistranslation or personal bias, but not immune to transcription errors? Seems like an oversight on God's part.

Am I prescient, or what?

But fine, lets look at some more indepth contradictions that aren't so easy to dismiss as "typos" (although how a typo acounts for Absolom and Uriel being the same person, I'm not so sure). Anyway, of the following, take your pick...

The number of beasts in the ark
GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

Is it folly to be wise or not?
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAS 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1CH 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (PSA 145:9)
"God is love." (1JO 4:16)

Tempts?
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (GEN 22:1)
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (JAS 1:13)

Judas died how?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)

 

[morningstar2651]

http://www.carm.org/questions/rewritten.htm



As for having something better than CARM.

1 John 2:20
But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 15:4
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

But none of this proves that the Bible is inerrant, which is the orthodox position and the position held by CARM. CARM claims inerrancy of the original documents, which they don't have access too...while claiming 99% accuracy in their copies.

Without error, non-errant. In Christianity, inerrancy states that the Bible, in its original documents, is without error regarding facts, names, dates, and any other revealed information. Inerrancy does not extend to the copies of the biblical manuscripts.

Of course, the Bible doesn't need to be inerrant for Christianity to be true, but the title of this thread is the Bible vs. Science, not Christianity vs. Science.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So when that we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language. It is a one step process and not a series of steps that can lead to corruption. It is one translation step from the original to the English or to whatever language a person needs to read it in. So we translate into Spanish from the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Likewise we translate into the German from those same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well. This is how it is done for each and every language we translate the Bible into. We do not translate from the original languages to the English, to the Spanish, and then to the German. It is from the original languages to the English, or into the Spanish, or into the German. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.

This is true for the New Testament only, surely?

 

[SiderealExalt]

Lets see......Genesis, Moses story, Noah story, Tower of Babel, the Jesus story. Just to name a few. Yeah I think it's pretty easy to see who is winning this battle.