Biblical Contradictions Answered (As best as possible) For Rook pt. 2
Offline This next set of Biblical contradictions seems silly being that most of these contradictions fall under the category of how the Hebrews classified animals. They did not use the same classification system; they did not use the same numbering system. As a matter of fact most of the measuring systems that we use are not the same as the Hebrews, so simply picking out a bunch of classifications that are over 2000 years old is not accurately doing study or representing an argument in a scholarly manner. Here is the second list of contradictions.
As a side not CONTRADICTIONS are when one scripture would say that Item 1 is A and another scripture would say that same item is not A. The following are not really contradictions but simply unanswered questions which I believe an ANCIENT TEXT EXPERT would know the answers to.
- (a) the bat is a bird (Lev. 19:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);
First let me respond by saying, please stop just putting random scriptures in your argument just to fill up space. Lev. 19:19 has NOTHING TO DO WITH BATS, BIRDS OR ANYTHING with wings. The answer is simple. These unclean birds listed were mainly birds of prey and scavengers. They were associated with dead flesh and were likely carriers of disease. (eagles, vultures, buzzards, red kites, falcons, ravens, ostriches, owls, sea gulls, hawks, owl, great owls, white owls, pelican, carrion vulture, the cormorant, the stork, herons, hoopoe, and BATS.) The concept was not to make a scientific classification but it was to say DON’T EAT THESE UNCLEAN ANIMALS. Because it had wings, some people of that culture would have simply just grouped bats with birds. The Linnean taxonomic system, and our more extended one, was not only not known to the ancient Hebrews, such distinctions would have served them no purpose and thus would probably not have interested them. The point was more to focus on NOT EATING THE ANIMAL as it was unclean.
- (b) Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
What version of the Bible says other than the King James Version says Fowls? For the sake of not having to argue I will post all the available translation to see where you got this argument from.
20 Every winged crawling thing that goeth upon all four shall be an abomination unto you.
DARBY
20 All winged creeping things that go upon all fours are an abomination unto you.
American Standard Version
20 “All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you.
English Standard Version
20 All winged insects are unclean, GNT
20 “All flying insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you.
The Message Bible
20 “The various winged insects that walk on all fours are loathsome for you. NABWRNT
20 ‘All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you.
New American Standard Bible
20 ‘Don’t eat insects that have wings & walk on all four feet; they also are to be hated.
New Century Version
20 ‘All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you.
New King James Version
20 “You must not eat winged insects that walk along the ground; they are detestable to you.
New Literal Translation
20 All winged insects that walk upon all fours are detestable to you.
New Revised Standard Version
20 “All winged insects that go upon all fours are an abomination to you.
Revised Standard Version
20 ‘Every teeming creature which is flying, which is going on four—an abomination it is to you.
Young’s Literal Translation
Simply put: get another translation. The King James Version is really leading you astray.
- (c) Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);
Some creeping do have four legs. The adjective describes the noun. So what does creeping mean? Let’s look at that word. Oh wait, the Hebrew word for creeping which is H7431 is not found any where in Leviticus! The word actually is translated INSECT, which are creeping little things.
A supporting sentence also continues on the subject of the paragraph. If you look in the preceding verses as well as the following verses, you will see that the verses list these insects: crickets, locusts, and grasshoppers. The word creeping does not signify that these would be worm like creatures, but winged insects that either fly or jump on the earth as noted in verse 21.
- (d) Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);
Some background information:
Cud chewers are generally classified as belonging to the order of ruminants- (a sub order of artiodactyls) - and are defined as an "even-toed animal that regurgitates and masticates its food after swallowing.” This means that a cow, for example, will eat vegetation and swallow it. The cow's stomach is divided into four chambers where some of more easily digestible nutrients are absorbed by the body while other more fibrous material is stored in the stomach and then regurgitated. The cow will re-chew this material and re-swallow it so that it can digest it as well.
Rabbits and hares, however, do not have a chambered stomach such as the cow. They also do not regurgitate their food. What they do perform is a function named cecotropy. I will quote the process as cited at following site http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/rjbiology/ELOs/ELO45.html
SYMBIOSIS WITHIN THE VERTEBRATE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM
Bacterial Digestion of Cellulose Within Animals - Vertebrates lack enzymes to digest plant material. Some bacteria can do so and are harbored by animals... Rats and rabbits redigest cellulose another way. [They] eat feces and literally redigest them a second time. Efficiency approaches that of ruminants.
In a more detailed version, Margert "Casey" Kilcullen-Steiner, (M.S., L.A.Tg) writes:
http://microvet.arizona.edu/Courses/MIC443/notes/rabbits.htm
Rabbits are sometimes called "pseudo-ruminants"... The rhythmic cycle of coprophagy of pure cecal contents practiced by all rabbits allows utilization of microbial protein and fermentation products, as well as recycling of certain minerals. Whereas the feces commonly seen excreted by rabbits are fairly large, dry and ovoid, excreted singly, and consist of fibrous plant material, cecotrophs are about half that size, occur in moist bundles stuck together with mucus, and are very fine textured and odiferous. They are seldom seen, as the rabbit plucks them directly from the anus as they are passed and swallows them whole. Normal rabbits do not allow cecotrophs to drop to the floor or ground, and their presence there indicates a mechanical problem or illness in the rabbit.
And Janet Tast, D.V.M. notes:
http://www.ultranet.com/~hrs/artcl03.htm
Cecotrophy by Janet Tast, D.V.M. "Cecotropy is the process by which rabbits will reingest part of their feces directly from the rectum. This should not be confused with the term coprophagy (eating fecal material) since rabbits only ingest the soft "night" feces or cecotrophs."
Caryl Hilscher-Conklin (M.S. in Biology, University of Notre Dame) also makes this claim:
http://www.rmca.org/Articles/coprophagy.htm
"One may not give much thought to the lazy chewing of the cud that we observe cows doing all the time, but this behavior is analogous to coprophagy. The only difference between cud chewing and coprophagy is the point in the digestive tract at which nutrients are expelled and then placed back into the mouth."
Now, we must also remember that artiodactyls were first defined as a separate order in 1847 by Richard Owen and the behavior of cecotropy was first recognized in 1882. Deuteronomy, however, was written approximately 1500 BC in an ancient Hebrew. It would be intellectually dishonest for someone to claim that a 3500 year old writing is contradictory because it doesn't match with a scientific classification invented only about a hundred years ago. Further, if the ancient Hebrews defined 'cud-chewing" as that process where half digested vegetation was re-chewed by an animal for easier re-digestion ( and that is a very specific and scientific definition), I would say the hare fits here fine.
For Rook...
Whenever someone translates an ancient language or writing, some word for word parallels are not going to be available. Most scholars understand this and accept the cultural backgrounds and meanings for what they are. This is why hermeneutics is a serious field of study in higher theological education.
- (e) Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);
I answered this question above.
- (f) Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);
The camel was eaten by some of Israel’s neighbors, who considered it a delicacy. But the camel would not have been an important source of meat for Israel even if it had been permitted, for it never was as numerous in Israel or as important to Israel’s economy as it was to their neighbors. The camel does have a split hoof, but its sole or pad is so thick that its imprint is like a single pad.
- (g) The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);
You just won’t read the passage will you? The passage speaks or makes a reference to the Flood of Noah. If you examine the ENTIRE passage you will notice that the first part of the passage speaks clearly to the fact the God did create the world from his Word. Then upon following the rest of the story the earth was DESTROYED by the flood except for those on the ark. So henceforth, the statement, “the earth was formed out of and by means of water” would make a reference to the earth being repopulated after the flood.
- (h) The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);
The pillars of the earth are poetic imagery. Since the very “pillars” that uphold the earth belong to God, all creation is stable and secure under His care. You are challenging that the Bible is a book filled with inaccuracies as well as contradictions. What you don’t realize, is that this Book contains poetry, history, alliteration, allegorical content, metaphors, similes, and many other types of language components. You seem to want to so discredit it works that you sometimes go beyond the constraints of components of ANCIENT WRITING PRACTICES. Your status of Ancient text expert is diminishing by each contradiction examined.
- (i) The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);
This is a Psalm of Thanksgiving. It sings of the praises to the God. This is one passage you should have gotten this right. It the scope of the Psalm, the Chronicler states that the World won’t be moved and guess what, it wont. It is still exactly where it should be in space -- in the only possible orbit which will sustain life as we have it. It has not been moved out of where it should be. It should be noted that this verse does not say that the earth itself will not move. It will not "be moved" which means forced out of where it should be.
- (j) A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);
This is ridiculous. Hare don’t have hoofs. They have feet. So it seems that the scripture is right; the hare doesn’t divide the hoof. By taking this one out of context the implication is that the verse says a hare has a hoof. The Bible does not say that. The verse should be read in context. The point is being made that clean animals -- those which can be eaten -- have BOTH a split hoof and chew the cud. The hare, although it does one, does not have the other. Text without context is pretext
- (k) The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);
You’ll get two answers for this. One will be on a scientific level and one on a Biblical level; both of which are going to eliminate this from YOUR CONTRADICTION LIST. Scientific Answer first. What are rainbows? Rainbows are optical and meteorological phenomena that cause a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere. They take the form of a multicoloured arc, with red on the outer part of the arch and violet on the inner section of the arch. More rarely, a double rainbow is seen, which includes a second, fainter arc with colours in the opposite order, that is, with violet on the outside and red on the inside. So in summary first the rain comes, then the sunshine and then the rainbow. This would indicate even on a simple level that the rainbow would be the last event in the order of events, thus time wise, making it the youngest. Now the Biblical answer.
That verse does not say that, or imply it. We don’t have any Biblical record of rain before the flood. If there were any rain before the Flood of Noah, it would have been over the seas and at night. No rainbow would have been seen. Genesis 9:13 refers to God setting the rainbow in the clouds, to be seen in the daytime as a symbol of promise. This is was new. Rain over land in the daytime was not something that happened before the Flood that we know of. The implication here is of the drastic changes the earth had undergone atmospherically from antediluvian times
- (l) A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);
A few definitions should clear up this misconception.
Mustard - Much controversy surrounds the identification of the plant (Gk. sinapi) whose seed was used by Christ as an illustration of something which develops rapidly from small beginnings, such as the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 13:31; Mk. 4:31; Lk. 13:19), or the faith of an individual (Mt. 17:20; Lk. 17:6). Some scholars consider that the black mustard (Brassica nigra) is indicated, since in NT times its seeds were cultivated for their oil as well as for culinary purposes. It can grow to a height of 5 meters (over 16ft), although it is usually much smaller. One interpretation sees the ‘mustard’ as a monstrous plant foretelling the worldly expression of Christendom, with evil, as exemplified by the birds, in its branches. New Bible Dictionary
Mustard. A plant that grew wild along roadsides and in fields, reaching a height of about 4.6 meters (15 feet). The black mustard of Palestine seems to be the species to which Jesus referred (Matt. 13:31–32; Mark 4:31–32; Luke 13:19). It was cultivated for its seeds, which were used as a condiment and for oil.
The mustard seed was the smallest seed known in Jesus’ day (Matt. 13:32). Nevertheless, Jesus said that if one has faith like a mustard seed, he can move mountains (Matt. 17:20) or transplant a mulberry tree in the sea (Luke 17:6). Nelson's illustrated Bible Dictionary.
If this mustard seed is classified as a shrub, then 15 feet is pretty big. If the mustard seed is classified as a tree it still would be a large plant.
- (m) Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);
I don’t even think that you deserve the respect of responding to this contradiction being that the entire book is Poetry. For the sake of holding true to my mission, which is to attempt to give accurate information on this site I will respectfully answer this contradiction as well. First please get an ENGLISH TRANSLATION VERSION. This would keep you from making simple minded assumptions. The KJV says turtles; all other translation uses TURTLE DOVE and they do have voices.
Five GOLDEN RINGS............., Four calling birds, three french hens, two TURTLE DOVES and a Patridge in a pear TREEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- (n) The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);
This passage is a passage filled with heavy metaphors as well as alliteration. If we were going to be literal in the interpretation, the earth does have ends as any scientist will be able to give you a definite size of the earth. The statement that God has sent lighting to the ends or edges of the earth to my knowledge would signify that there is no place to where lightning does not occur. As clouds can cover the whole earth, lighting and or rain can be traced to all locations on the earth. This is an idiom we still use today, and it is used the same way in Job. "The ends of the earth" has a meaning that has come down through the languages and cultures and should not cause any thinking person a problem.
- (o) The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);
The four corners of the earth is simply a figurative expression that is similar to the words of Acts 1:8: “to the end of the earth.” The Messiah will gather disciples from all over the world. Even our weathermen today agree with this! They are either north, east, south, and west, or, alternatively, north-east, north-west, south-west, and south-east. Again, the Bible uses the same idioms we do today and, again, no thinking person will find this difficult to understand.
- (p) Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);
The word animals should be insects therefore some 4 legged animals DO FLY. This was answered earlier.
- (q) The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9)
The time frame for the changing of the languages is not given in Genesis or anywhere else in the Bible. The fact was that the languages were confused, branching off from the one original language. This might have happened miraculously in the space of moments or it might have taken some time after the Babel catastrophe drove people from the area. Again, the timing is not indicated here.
- (r) A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44)
That is not what this verse says. This sort of comment is, however, typical of those who try to "prove" the Bible wrong. The passage states that when the baby inside Elizabeth heard the sound of Mary's voice, he jumped or leaped "for joy." The first thing that should be noted here is that there is no doubt about babies in utero being able to hear outside sounds. The second thing that should be noted is that this takes place during the miraculous happening of Mary's pregnancy with Jesus. That a baby in utero should react to the presence of the Lord is no more strange than any other person reacting to Him. Even those who deny Him are reacting quite strongly to Him.
Still waiting for Rook to respond to the first part and here is the second part. I welcome all of your comments. Try to bring information not opinions. I haven't gotten any informational answers to my last post that would suggest that my studies are leading you (the readers) astray.
Shout outs to simple theist and Master Dan.
In His Service...(read my signature)
I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose
- Login to post comments
What is a more fitting way for God to have communicated to his creation in a way that would preserve it for succeeding generations? Any suggestions that God could take into account?
Writing something down coherently would be a start. If we're not talking about the 'Yahweh' of deism, I see no reason divine edicts couldn't be regularly issued in a clear voice. Perhaps 'Yahweh' could rent some blimp space.
In case you missed the point, I'm saying your "real" god, 'Yahweh,' is totally indistinguishable from the pantheon of gods you consider fake, both the unfashionable ones and those on regular rotation. There are lots of lousy books with obscure authorship, each declaring its authenticity as a divine revelation.
Yeah God doesn't really answer this question that I know of, but my personal feeling is that God delights in observing man, the crown of his creation, "figure out" the world. I'm sure it gives him great pride in some ways. So far tonight all I'm seeing is the same argument in different garbs:
"I don't believe in God because He's not how I would imagine Him to be."
So what? Not a very powerful argument in my estimation, and it's already anticipated in various places in the Bible and answered pretty much in the same way. "Deal with it. I'm God and I'm the way I am."
Then you've obviously never read the Bible and compared what it claims about Yahweh with what the claims are for other gods.
You've got to be kidding. An omnipotent creator, perfectly responsible for every parameter of existence, struggling for some way to prove he exists?
You tell me: how have you struggled to prove you exist? Can you tell me of a time when you found it hard. I mean, have you like walked in front of the supermarket door and found it didn't open?
The idea of an omnipotent creator having to communicate in the first place is absurdly contradictory. This 'god' could make his existence axiomatic and unavoidable. This 'god' could simply put his commandents directly into the human brain. And before you give the platitudal response of "he did', 1) Don't BS yourself and 2) If he did then why the bible then? As an inferior, redundancy?!
Writing a book is simply absurd. It's what humans do. Writing was rare to ancient humans, they found it to be magical, no wonder that that was what they chose to represent a god. IT's the best they could do. The idea that it would be the best a god would do is ridiculous. There's nothing amazing about the bible unless you are brought up to revere it. If you look at it soberly, its' unremarkable, and in fact, pales in comparison to the writings of Plato or Euclid.
And as for "jesus' what point is there in sending a sacrifice 2000 years ago only to have it go unrecorded by any historian of the time? Why not have jesus appear in times square on new years?
Oh and one more possible argument to head off: There's a difference between being aware of this 'god' and 'accepting him' (i.e. see the 'devil and his third of the angels of heaven) so a god making his existence axiomatic would not preclude people 'choosing' to 'not follow him'
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I think the Bible is very coherent as long as you're not on a witch-hunt trying to find every little statement that you might be able to masquerade as a "contradiction." If you approach the Bible as what it is, a volume of books spanning thousands of years, written in many different genres by many different authors it has a remarkable coherence from beginning to end.
Yeah God doesn't really answer this question that I know of, but my personal feeling is that God delights in observing man, the crown of his creation, "figure out" the world.
Booyah. That's an ad hoc, baby. You can either back it up or admit it's bullshit.
I'm sure it gives him great pride in some ways. So far tonight all I'm seeing is the same argument in different garbs:
"I don't believe in God because He's not how I would imagine Him to be."
He's exactly how I imagine him to be.
So what? Not a very powerful argument in my estimation, and it's already anticipated in various places in the Bible and answered pretty much in the same way. "Deal with it. I'm God and I'm the way I am."
The bible proves somebody wrote something down at some point. That places your religion on par with thousands of others.
God does not struggle to prove his existence. He feels no need to. He feels that he has sufficiently revealed his existence and basic nature in his works of creation to render every person inexcusable in the final judgment.
You're asking why God communicated to us in the way that he did--through a book. From your question (and correct me if i'm wrong) i get the impression you think that god personally wrote the bible, which is not what christianity has ever taught. Beyond that, again as i've already said, this is not a powerful argument against the existence of God or the authority of the bible. the fact that you would have communicated in a different way if you were god is beside the point. you are not god.
btw, god has communicated his commandments in the brains of every human being which is why there is a universal sense of right and wrong. romans 1 & 2 deal with these issues at great length.
Then you've obviously never read the Bible and compared what it claims about Yahweh with what the claims are for other gods.
Care to elaborate on what sets yours apart from the improbable deities?
I think the bible is very incoherent as long as you're not approaching it from a position of belief, dogmatically trying to recitfy the glaring contradictions and self refutations that masquerade as 'coherence.' If you approach the bible as what it is, a volume of books spanning thousands of years, written in many differnet genres by many different authors it has a clear and painfully obvious schizoid incoherence from beginning to end.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I think the Bible is very coherent as long as you're not on a witch-hunt trying to find every little statement that you might be able to masquerade as a "contradiction." If you approach the Bible as what it is, a volume of books spanning thousands of years, written in many different genres by many different authors it has a remarkable coherence from beginning to end.
I'm sorry, I thought I was answering the question what I think would have made more sense for an omnimax entity to do to communicate something reliably to its creation. I didn't realize the challenge was to strain to find the value in history's biggest piece of damp squib.
I admitted it was my personal opinion about the situation. It is not ad hoc, which is something you irrational responders throw out with nauseous frequency. I've decided that from now on, no matter what you say I will respond in like manner.
ad hoc
ad hoc
I can only laugh at this, or call it incredible narcissism... so you think you know what god thinks about all of this?
Anyway, as in your other posts, you've dodged the point. You wrote this:
What is a more fitting way for God to have communicated to his creation in a way that would preserve it for succeeding generations? Any suggestions that God could take into account?
And I responded by asking you why your god would find it so hard to prove he exists.
You didn't respond , nor did you continue the line of thought your own post started.
Please go back and follow your own line of thought.
I knew that you were going to actually spout this bullshit, even if you contradicted your own arguments: If this actually were the case, then what possible point is there in there being a bible in the first place, if, according to even you, the bible is not the best way to reveal god?
Will you just ignore the contradiction again, like you ignore your very own line of thought when things get tough?
The idea that people have some moral code from god in their heads is disproven by the fact that every theist knows that they need to teach morality to their children. If it were already written in one's head by a god, what possible point would there be in humans teaching it to their children?
We have moral codes internalized because we internalize the rules our family and our society teach us. This is proven by the fact that moral codes flucuate across culture. This is also proven by the fact that some people, those with anti social disorders, can't learn morals at all. If 'god' writes it in the head of every person, then explain that problem away...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Um...dare i say it? ad hoc.
on a side note, its interesting that this piece of damp squib is like the world's best selling book ever. Clearly has no value. I know, I know...ad populum. Still an interesting point to ponder
God does not struggle to prove his existence. He feels no need to. He feels that he has sufficiently revealed his existence and basic nature in his works of creation to render every person inexcusable in the final judgment.
Excuses, excuses. This whole religious venture is like some farce.
Where's god?
God was just here.
I missed him?
'Fraid so! (a trickle of sweat dances on his brow)
Seems like it always happens! Guess I'll continue to assume he exists because you said he does.
on a side note, its interesting that this piece of damp squib is like the world's best selling book ever. Clearly has no value. I know, I know...ad populum. Still an interesting point to ponder
The number one song of all time is something like, "Candle in the wind."
I admitted it was my personal opinion about the situation. It is not ad hoc, which is something you irrational responders throw out with nauseous frequency. I've decided that from now on, no matter what you say I will respond in like manner.
I guess 'Yahweh' isn't the bringer of dictionaries.
Um, as I indicated at the end of my quote I was paraphrasing Romans 1. Look it up, its all there. God has already explained all this in the Bible. You have clearly never tried to understand the Bible since you are asking questions already answered in the Bible. If you are a sincere seeker of the truth, I would suggest you read the Bible with a sincere effort to understand what it says. if you have no desire to understand the message of the bible before you begin your critique of it, then you're being irrational.
I did respond. You mistakenly interpreted my response as me extruding shit out of my ass and handing it to you as a description of God. What I actually did was paraphrase a few passages from the Bible which describes God's own perspective on why and how He reveals himself to man. Take it or leave it, but there it is. Another good place to start understanding God's perspective on revelation would be 1 Cor. 1&2.
To record various special revelations that go above and beyond the internal moral code for future posterity. Thats a possible reason for a written book.
All of this is already explained in Romans 1-3, so feel free to look at that passage for answers to your questions. For a person so obviously intelligent as yourself, I think it's sad that you are critiquing a book that you obviously have not tried to understand. That's a very unintelligent, uneducated, irrational thing to do. Everything you've said so far has been asked and answered in the Bible, which really makes you look foolish and frankly a little stupid. I'm sorry, but it does.
ad hoc.
ROFL.
sorry guys but im going to bed now....i know you'll assume it's because your atheistic irrational responses have scared me shitless but in fact its something far less interesting. My wife just came and humped my leg, so I think i'll go do my christian duty and sex her up....ya know maybe fulfill that verse in proverbs 3 or 4 about letting her breasts satisfy me at all times. I'm really looking forward to that, so until tomorrow, stay irrational.
Ah, yes, the lesser-known-but-still-popular-on-the-Internet argument from "HAHA YOU LOSERS, I'M HAVING SEX AND YOU'RE NOT SO BASICALLY I'M RIGHT". I believe the Latin phrase is argumentum ad gettinsum.
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
1 Johnn 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Hmmm...looks like another horny "christian" toad is giving in to his earthly desires.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
i can only hope that was tongue-in-cheek, lol. Otherwise, your ignorance of the Bible is a little frightening.
No, I was just joking, for the most part.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
I'm rather shocked at the lack of substance in many of the atheists replies in this particular discussion. It really seems as though know one really cares about what they're objecting to.
"If I have a little money I buy books and if any is left I buy food and clothes.'
Hmmm...maybe because we don't believe it. It's just another cute fairy tale.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Ooh, this looks like fun.
So, the King James Version is errant? We need to look at a different bible to find inerrancy?
Score one for Biblical errancy: King James Version down.
Interesting...
In order to be correct, we have to move further from the original documents?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Well, the thing is, we never even started with the original document. If you're saying the bible is errant, and you quote the King James Version, for example, what you're really saying is that the King James Version of the Bible is errant. And according to this thread, both the theist and the skeptics agree.
Whenever an apologetic has to refer back to the hebrew bible to prove the inerrancy of a totally different version, they are actually only arguing for the inerrancy of the hebrew bible. Sure, the King James Version may be based on the hebrew bible, but it isn't one and the same, so one cannot be used as a defense for the other. If the translation isn't correct, then the translated Bible is errant by default.
So it's not that we have to use documents that are farther from the original text in order to be right. However, it is relevant to debunk the claim that the translated Bibles are inerrant, because these are the Bibles that are used as ammunition by so many Christians.
If you have to keep going back to the hebrew, that pretty much means you need to go ahead and retranslate the whole Bible until you deem it correct.
Very few inerrantists believe or argue that any translation every produced is inerrant. Historically inerrantists have not made that argument. They have always stated that inerrancy only involves the original mss that were given by divine inspiration. The only inerrantists I know of who say anything different are KJV-onlyists, and they represent such a minority within the inerrancy community, they are basically irrelevant.
Deucedly convenient that the original manuscripts aren't really accessible, isn't it?
So the inerrantists are saying that the word of God is inerrant and they pull from error filled translations to prove it?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I would say that "error-filled" is a little strong, but yes you are correct. Inerrancy seems a little strange when you only ascribe it to the inaccessible autographs. This is one reason I have left inerrancy behind. I still believe that the writings of the Bible are basically trustworthy, and most of the alleged contradictions are not really such, but I don't really buy the whole inerrancy thing.
JC,
That's exactly how I feel! Lol. Well, on the positive side of things, now we know we can at least agree on the errancy of the Bibles we can read.
Does it count as "bearing false witness" to translate the Bible incorrectly?
So do you believe the Bible is the word of god or not? The Bible itself says that it is perfect and holy, meaning that it is without error. So if you believe that the Bible has errors, can you really believe in the god of the Bible? Besides, how would you tell which parts are right and which parts are wrong? You either have to take all of it or none of it.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Book, chapter, and verse.....
Absolutely....God gave his word in a way that does not override the human imperfections of people. I think that's a good thing.
This is a false dichotomy created by inerrantists, which I do not accept. In its basic message the Bible is true, but that does not preclude a few minor errors here and there.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
So if all scripture (i.e. all the Bible) is inspired (i.e. given to man) by a perfect god, then why are there errors in it? Is this another failing of god, just like evil entering the world and the flood? Your god seems to be a bonehead about messing up things, while at the same time he claims to be perfect.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
2 timothy 3:16 doesn't say that the Bible is inerrant.....next.
As far as how a perfect God could allow an imperfect word from him, if one reads the Bible through, one finds that it presents God as one who does not usually override the weaknesses and humanities of people.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.