Bible contradictions?

[Self Improvement]

God did figure something out, and it's called the Bible.

Lol! I'm convinced now!

 

[KCfromNC]

And we appreciate the kind patience of unbelievers since they have acheived the enlightened state that puts them beyond emotion.

Nice straw man.

 

[KCfromNC]

" If God exists (and of course I think He does), then he knows what will get your attention. As such, when the time comes that He wants to get your attention, He'll tailor the experience. "

That is exactly true , and well said .

How does this fit in with people who die without ever experiencing any such experience? Either god doesn't want to get in touch with them, or god lacks the ability to. Neither seems all that theologically sound.

 

[Resha Caner]

OK, so what about the present day bible?

What about it? I'm not sure what you're asking.

how do i know the original was perfect?

I'm not one to say the original was perfect and has subsequently been corrupted by scribal errors and translation. IMO that's just a shell game - moving the problem from one place to another. It's the "iota" approach to perfection. Again, an example.

Suppose a document makes the statement: He walked up the hill. Later, a scribal error occurs and later generations know that line as: He walked up the slope. Is that really an "error" that destroys the message? I don't think so. Then at what point is the message corrupted? "She rolled down the hill" would definitely be an error. But what about "He climbed up an incline"? Translators face issues like that all the time. Since word for word is impossible, their intent is to convey meaning, not every iota - the details surrounding the meaning.

So what would I consider to be an error in a historical text? Well, (using one of your examples) the Bible claims David and Joab as historical people. If you could prove they weren't historical, the Bible would be in error. But, that's an impossible task. The 19th century documentary movement ended up looking foolish because they tried to prove such things and failed miserably. For example, they claimed the Hittites didn't exist, and then archaeologists found evidence of them.

Or, if there was evidence that David never conducted a census, that would show the Bible to be in error. Again, nearly impossible to do.

Or, if the census claimed a town was in one place when in fact it was in another, or ... I could go on, but basically I'm saying extra-Biblical historical evidence that contradicts the Bible. That will be tough to do, because one source won't suffice. You would need 2 or 3 sources all agreeing that the Bible is wrong. That doesn't happen in ancient history. Usually we're lucky to have fragments of a single source. The number of copies of Biblical material is extraordinary compared to other historical narratives.

Also, you should familiarize yourself with the canonical process. There are books written by Hebrews that are not included. Take the Apocrypha for example. It's not like every book was accepted into the Bible willy-nilly. The ones in the canon are there for very deliberate reasons.

But suppose you could challenge one book - Luther challenged the book of James - you're challenging Samuel/Chronicles. OK. Let's take Chronicles out of the Bible. Contradiction solved, and the claim of a saving Messiah remains. So what did that accomplish? Aren't you still going to reference Chronicles as proof of a Biblical error? It won't change your mind for me to say Samuel is part of the perfect canon and Chronicles is in error.

Is it more honest for me to try to wipe out everything that I think is an error or to acknowledge that both Samuel and Chronicles exist and discuss with you what you seem to think is a contradiction?

All of that is meant to reinforce my comment about the teacher and his students. What you're asking God to do is eliminate all unbelief. That is the only end to the road you're on.

My opinion is that God will find a way to get his message through despite all the attempts to manipulate the Bible.

What sense does is make to have refs report my perfect ways?

Your wording here confuses me, so I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but wasn't that the expectation you set - that every communication between you and God is going to be perfect?

I think I addressed that above, but let me ask you a question. Suppose someone sits down and intentionally changes the Bible. What do you expect God to do? Should he strike that person dead? Give me a list, then, of the mistakes God should punish with instant death and those he should let slide. Maybe God just isn't aware he should have such a list and we need to help him out.

If god is to commune with us then why can't he interact with us according to the way he made us?

But why use incompetent men on something sooooo important?

Do you want the (long) theological answer or the sound bite?

Basically in answer to #1, I would ask why you think he doesn't interact with us "according to the way he made us"? If you consider the sacramental processes of the Church, I think you'll see that God interacts with all the senses. Reading the Bible is only one of them - the topic of this thread.

And, basically the answer to #2 is the Kim Jong Un analogy. We've been separated from God by our imperfection (sin).

I'm not giving the long response because I don't know how familiar you are with those ideas. If you know them and already reject them, we can just cut to the chase and discuss your objection. But I'll note that so far I've only heard what I consider peripheral answers in this thread. No one has really challenged the theology behind all this.

 

[Resha Caner]

Nice straw man.

Thanks. I was admiring yours as well.

 

[Resha Caner]

How does this fit in with people who die without ever experiencing any such experience? Either god doesn't want to get in touch with them, or god lacks the ability to. Neither seems all that theologically sound.

You're assuming there are people who are completely unaware of the possibility of a god. That's going to be tough to establish.

 

[The Paul]

Speculate all you like. The fact is, you don't know.

Nah. See, I do know. You may not like it, but telling me I don't doesn't change anything.

And of course you don't like it. God as a <whatever> metaphors commonly come up to show that the reasons God doesn't talk to us, or help people, or whatever. Why don't the dictators if distant countries talk to me? Why do parents allow their children to burn themselves on the stove? Why doesn't Joseph Stalin prevent all suffering?

All sorts of silly questions come up. Thing is, they're all easy answers. If would be much easier if we could pretend these things are mysterious, if we could pretend it was normal human behavior to accept these sorts of ideas easily and without questioning. But well, that's not how these things play out.

So you're convinced there are contradictions. I've yet to see a "contradiction" that doesn't have a plausible explanation.

Well I'm convinced there are contradictions, but your next sentence indicates you're not about to take the ridiculous counter-position. Instead you're ready to make excuses for them.

They're going to have to be some pretty compelling excuses to convince anyone. I have difficulty envisioning a god who needs excuses.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Quite a few people look at a Bible and don't see anything special. So it's not an effective way to communicate with them...

Agreed. Kind of like a steak is not an effective way to give nourishment to an infant. Or a fetus, to be more analogically and theologically correct.

 

[KCfromNC]

You're assuming there are people who are completely unaware of the possibility of a god.

Nope, just expanding on the idea that if god wanted people to believe that they would. You're adding the concept that maybe people can go against what an omnipotent god wants to happen, which seems to be a problem.

 

[KCfromNC]

Thanks. I was admiring yours as well.

You need to do a bit of research on what a straw man argument is. Hint - it's not synonymous with "idea I disagree with".

 

[KCfromNC]

Agreed. Kind of like a steak is not an effective way to give nourishment to an infant. Or a fetus, to be more analogically and theologically correct.

Or equally likely, it's kind of like a comic book isn't nourishing to an adult, either literally or metaphorically.

 

[Resha Caner]

You need to do a bit of research on what a straw man argument is. Hint - it's not synonymous with "idea I disagree with".

Ahh. Thanks for correcting me. You see, I've always assumed 3 things. First, that I understand my emotions better than someone interpreting them from Internet posts. Second, that people from all different viewpoints are susceptible to emotion. Third, that emotion is not necessarily a bad thing. So, it would be my conclusion that the following are possible:

1) True believers react unemotionally to views they disagree with.
2) True believers react with appropriate emotion to views they disagree with.
3) True believers react with inappropriate emotion to views they disagree with.
4) Unbelievers react unemotionally to views they disagree with.
5) Unbelievers react with appropriate emotion to views they disagree with.
6) Unbelievers react with inappropriate emotion to views they disagree with.

Your comment seemed to say that only #3 and #4 are true. Or did I misunderstand you? If not, I'd appreciate you providing me the research that establishes this truth. I do so like to have my foolishness corrected.

Nope, just expanding on the idea that if god wanted people to believe that they would. You're adding the concept that maybe people can go against what an omnipotent god wants to happen, which seems to be a problem.

Yes, but I never used the word "omnipotent" in reference to God. If we were to use that word, you would need to define it for me so I can try to determine if it applies to the Biblical description of God. For example, does "omnipotence" require a god to use his power?

 

[The Paul]

Agreed. Kind of like a steak is not an effective way to give nourishment to an infant. Or a fetus, to be more analogically and theologically correct.

We've been over the ground you're pointing to a couple of times, now.

No one likes it.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Or equally likely,

Equally likely? And how exactly did you quantify this?

it's kind of like a comic book isn't nourishing to an adult, either literally or metaphorically.

Bad analogy. No kid claims a comic book nourishes his intellect or his soul. Kids read comic books for entertainment or laughs. I never met anyone who has those same motivations when reading the Bible.

So no, I'd say that your getting nothing from the Bible is more analogous to a toothless man having no use for beef jerky.

 

[stiggywiggy]

We've been over the ground you're pointing to a couple of times, now.

No one likes it.

No one likes what? The ground you think we've been over, or my alleged pointing or the analogy which I just used for the first time, regarding steak?

Your "it" is in dire need of an antecedent.

 

[Merlin]

OK, so what about the present day bible? how do i know the original was perfect? I will give more example's but im sure all the answers will be the same.
What sense does is make to have refs report my perfect ways?

No, im saying. God made me communicate via certain means(basically the 5 senses). He made me interact/communicate, via sight, sound (speech) touch smell, taste, etc.

If there is a god, then this is how me made me know things are real. How people are real.

If god is to commune with us then why can't he interact with us according to the way he made us? According to the bible he has done it. But Instead he chooses humans to be the mediator, something all religions do.

He does.
but His preferred method is to use humans.

So we are on the same page that humans are erroneous.And i read the links. And things get lost in translation. Yes?

Things don't need to get lost in the translation.
The original is available to us if we wish to learn the original language and the idioms.

But why use incompetent men on something sooooo important?

Good question.
I wish I had a good answer.

 

[Hentenza]

Thread closed. The topic of this thread is off topic to this forum and it is apologetics which is a topic for which CF does not have a forum. Any apologetic questions by non Christians can be posted in the Exploring Christianity forum. Thanks.