An Open Question

[Non sequitur]

Wikipedia hermeneutics.

"A type of traditional hermeneutic is Biblical hermeneutics which concerns the study of the interpretation of The Bible."

So, you can disprove any contradiction... by using interpretation.

 

[Non sequitur]

No one is responding to my contradictions? Aww...

Before I begin, let me say this: if you compiled this list yourself then it demonstrates a lack of even the most basic principles of literary interpretation on your part.

If you copied this list from someone, then at least two things are true: the person who formulated this list is ignorant of the most basic principles of literary interpretation and you are responsible for propagating it.

I also recommend you start a new thread if you want people to take your list seriously.

You also need to reference the scripture as it is written and give the name of the translation you are using. Your or someone elses' paraphrase is not scripture. Thanks.

Wow. Apparently offering contradictions kinda proves you wrong.

Makes it silly to open a challenge *rolls eyes*

 

[Elioenai26]

Fairly basic attempt to get out of it. I didn't check every one, but i checked enough to see that the references are pretty accurate. I used Online Parallel Bible: Weaving God's Word into the Web
for the references.

It provides the verse input in all known publications of the bible c:

As I said earlier, paraphrasing or summarizing a verse or verses in five or six words is not scripture. I would also recommend including at least five verses of surrounding text, both before and after the verse in question.

I can take any book written by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Stephen Hawking and whoever you please, and take sentences out of their context and make them say whatever I want and pit one sentence or idea against another, however, doing that would not be treating the texts properly i.e. - I would not be interpreting the texts in the manner that the writer would have me to; and I will not do that. I expect the same respect from you.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

As I said earlier, paraphrasing or summarizing a verse or verses in five or six words is not scripture. I would also recommend including at least five verses of surrounding text, both before and after the verse in question.

I can take any book written by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Stephen Hawking and whoever you please, and take sentences out of their context and make them say whatever I want and pit one sentence or idea against another, however, doing that would not be treating the texts properly i.e. - I would not be interpreting the texts in the manner that the writer would have me to; and I will not do that. I expect the same respect from you.

Exodus 29:36

New International Version (NIV)

36 Sacrifice a bull each day as a sin offering to make atonement . Purify the altar by making atonement for it, and anoint it to consecrate it.

You can't take that out of context. It describes god commanding a sacrifice.

 

[keith99]

The point here is that, if God is A) Omniscient, B) Omnipotent and C) Loves all his creatures
Why did he create pain and suffering for them in the first place? He either A) Doesn't know, therefore is not omniscient, B) Can't do anything about it, therefore not omnipotent or C) Doesn't care enough to do anything about it.
Or there is the simple D) He doesn't exist to do anything about it.

Of course the logic is only meaningful if all the premises are true.

A and B are never said in Scripture as far as I know. Very very powerful and sees many things is far different than all powerful and all seeing.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Of course the logic is only meaningful if all the premises are true.

A and B are never said in Scripture as far as I know. Very very powerful and sees many things is far different than all powerful and all seeing.

I don't know any Christians who do not assert that god is both of these.

Genesis 17:1: And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Jeremiah 32:27: Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

Almighty is defined as "Having absolute power; all-powerful" i.e. Omnipotence.

 

[Elioenai26]

Of course the logic is only meaningful if all the premises are true.

A and B are never said in Scripture as far as I know. Very very powerful and sees many things is far different than all powerful and all seeing.

The Judeo-Christian God is both A and B. If you would like references I can supply them.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

The Judeo-Christian God is both A and B. If you would like references I can supply them.

I would appreciate that.

 

[Belk]

The Judeo-Christian God is both A and B. If you would like references I can supply them.

Please do. I have been wondering were those claims came from.

 

[Elioenai26]

Exodus 29:36

New International Version (NIV)

36 Sacrifice a bull each day as a sin offering to make atonement . Purify the altar by making atonement for it, and anoint it to consecrate it.

You can't take that out of context. It describes god commanding a sacrifice.

I will reply to this one, if after this you still would like to speak on this issue, I will do so in a new thread.

The passage is listed below in its relating context.


Food of the Priests as prescribed in the Levitical Law by God

31 “You shall take the ram of ordination and boil its flesh in a holy place. 32 Aaron and his sons shall eat the flesh of the ram and the bread that is in the basket, at the doorway of the tent of meeting. 33 Thus they shall eat those things by which atonement was made at their ordination and consecration; but a layman shall not eat them, because they are holy. 34 If any of the flesh of ordination or any of the bread remains until morning, then you shall burn the remainder with fire; it shall not be eaten, because it is holy.
35 “Thus you shall do to Aaron and to his sons, according to all that I have commanded you; you shall ordain them through seven days. 36 Each day you shall offer a bull as a sin offering for atonement, and you shall purify the altar when you make atonement for it, and you shall anoint it to consecrate it. 37 For seven days you shall make atonement for the altar and consecrate it; then the altar shall be most holy, and whatever touches the altar shall be holy.
38 “Now this is what you shall offer on the altar: two one year old lambs each day, continuously. 39 The one lamb you shall offer in the morning and the other lamb you shall offer at twilight; 40 and there shall be one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with one-fourth of a hin of beaten oil, and one-fourth of a hin of wine for a drink offering with one lamb. 41 The other lamb you shall offer at twilight, and shall offer with it the same grain offering and the same drink offering as in the morning, for a soothing aroma, an offering by fire to the Lord. 42 It shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the doorway of the tent of meeting before the Lord, where I will meet with you, to speak to you there. 43 I will meet there with the sons of Israel, and it shall be consecrated by My glory. 44 I will consecrate the tent of meeting and the altar; I will also consecrate Aaron and his sons to minister as priests to Me. 45 I will dwell among the sons of Israel and will be their God. 46 They shall know that I am the Lord their God who brought them out of the land of Egypt, that I might dwell among them; I am the Lord their God.

Now, what is that you claim contradicts this scripture?

 

[Elioenai26]

I would appreciate that.

Why would you ask for references when you just posted several yourself in reply to keith99's post?

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Why would you ask for references when you just posted several yourself in reply to keith99's post?

More support for my atheistic argument ;D

 

[Gadarene]

So you can give a list of supposed contradictions, but I can't respond to them? I can't explain them using the principles of literary interpretation. You speak as if it would be wrong for me to do so.

Not at all. I asked for a definition in advance of further discussion, as indicated by the fact that I asked for a definition in advance of further discussion.

Largely because when the dispute over which interpretations begins, the phrase "well, you're just using the wrong Biblical hermeneutics" is frequently deployed at an impasse in order to to shut down further argument, it essentially being "my interpretation is right and yours is wrong, neh-heh!" couched in theological jargon.

But maybe you can provide a hermeneutical standard which works and can consistently be held to by those attempting to defend the internal consistency of the Bible.

My hopes are not high, but who knows.

Why would you ask for references when you just posted several yourself in reply to keith99's post?

It's often handy to see how other people attempt to justify an argument, particularly if they're making a bad one.

 

[Elioenai26]

More support for my atheistic argument ;D

Your avatar is awesome. I love cats. Is he in a space suit?

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Yes, from the game Starcraft II.

 

[lesliedellow]

Just like god. Except the scientific theories actually explain stuff.

Without any means by which the existence of a multiverse can be either verified or falsified, the multiverse hypothesis is metaphysics, not physics.

Dressing it up in scientific language, or leaving out the word God, does not automatically make something a scientific theory - even if it is put forward by somebody who is a scientist in his day job.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Without any means by which the existence of a multiverse can be either verified or falsified, the multiverse hypothesis is metaphysics, not physics.

Dressing it up in scientific language, or leaving out the word God, does not automatically make something a scientific theory - even if it is put forward by somebody who is a scientist in his day job.

Your post is self-contradicting.

You clearly stated the multiverse "hypothesis" in your first paragraph, then made the point that dressing something up something in scientific language doesn't make it a scientific theory.

Since you are aware the multiverse is only a hypothesis, then are you also aware it is not a scientific theory.

 

[lesliedellow]

Your post is self-contradicting.

You clearly stated the multiverse "hypothesis" in your first paragraph, then made the point that dressing something up something in scientific language doesn't make it a scientific theory.

Since you are aware the multiverse is only a hypothesis, then are you also aware it is not a scientific theory.

Somewhere you have lost me in your dazzling logic. If I didn'y know that the multiverse does not have the status of a scientific theory, I wouldn't have said so would I? But what is more to the point, there does not seem to be any means by which it could become one - other universes being unobservable in principle, even if they existed.

 

[KCfromNC]

I am currently at work so forgive me for my delay in responding to your apparent lists of contradictions.

Before I begin, let me say this: if you compiled this list yourself then it demonstrates a lack of even the most basic principles of literary interpretation on your part.

If you copied this list from someone, then at least two things are true: the person who formulated this list is ignorant of the most basic principles of literary interpretation and you are responsible for propagating it.

I also recommend you start a new thread if you want people to take your list seriously.

You also need to reference the scripture as it is written and give the name of the translation you are using. Your or someone elses' paraphrase is not scripture. Thanks.

I thought you said you were going to use hermeneutics, not ad hominem.

 

[KCfromNC]

Exodus 29:36

New International Version (NIV)

36 Sacrifice a bull each day as a sin offering to make atonement . Purify the altar by making atonement for it, and anoint it to consecrate it.

You can't take that out of context. It describes god commanding a sacrifice.

Just wait. You'll be very interested to see how using proper hermeneutics, this can easily be understood to be a commandment to change your car's oil regularly.